Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson.

[Ramzal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kl1ujzRidmU

I have already posted about this. So I will just take what I posted and put it here:

What is wrong with you people? This man just put 9 rounds into a stationary object because he was angry. Let me repeat myself; This man just unloaded a -gun- into a computer because he was angry. He has every right to punish his daughter, but this shows complete and total lack of control and discipline over himself by using a firearm to teach a lesson.

He lost count in how many bullets fired at that, because of his anger! And people support this? A gun is not a toy, it's a tool. A last resort and used to protect, not destroy. I've seen comments on this saying "An all American dad!" Are you people crazy or just plan stupid? Comments like that is exactly why our country is looked down on as gun tooting/war hungry morons! His entire point goes out the window when he shows how childish (Retaliating to her internet post--it's an internet post for crying out loud) with the use of a gun.

And people say the young are stupid.

I once believed that a gun should be a right, however after seeing how he used his firearm and people's encouragement of his action, I now believe that having a gun should be treated as a privilege instead of a right. I am an American, and I DO NOT agree with this man's methods of use of a firearm, nor raising a child.

Edit: However, chores are fine. Go chores.

 

[Ramzal]

Actually it is a right in America and that's not going to be changed so you're wrong

Though I agree it was wrong to use a .45 like I said in the other thread. A 12 gauge with buckshot would've been about 20% cooler

Rights should be either taken away or made more strict when abused by an individual. When someone boycotts someone's funeral, they should be sued for disturbing the peace and harassment, when someone unloads an entire clip into a computer for the sake of being angry they should lose their right to use a firearm due to displaying little to no discipline with the tool.

I'm not wrong since our rights have been violated anyway, as our right to a fair trial when under arrest has been revoked anyway. (Which I do no see any positive outcome from and I do not support.) A gun is not a plaything or a toy. I'm not sure if you a trolling or you are honestly that deluded.

Edit: Besides, the law states that American's have the right to bare arms. Not to discharge them under any circumstance.

 

[mad825]

Eh, I would've done a similar thing. I would clout a few arrow/bolts into it and I'll be more indiscriminate by using broad-tips. Even if I didn't have a bow/crossbow, I would've used a sledgehammer or similar hitting tool.

I honestly don't see your point and comes across as zealous. He got angry and used his method to destroy the object like anybody would have.

 

[Ramzal]

I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.

I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.

Edit: Although, I think we can all agree to a father punishing his daughter for what he believes to be disrespect.

 

[senordesol]

I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.

I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.

We've tested plenty of nukes in unpopulated areas so...yeah...we did that.

Second, why does the fact that the weapon being a 'lethal tool' have any bearing whatsoever? I've shot paper targets, soda cans, and beer bottles with firearms; what makes a laptop any different? He selected his target area so that there would be no collateral damage and chose his ammunition for same.

 

[Ramzal]

I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.

I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.

We've tested plenty of nukes in unpopulated areas so...yeah...we did that.

Second, why does the fact that the weapon being a 'lethal tool' have any bearing whatsoever? I've shot paper targets, soda cans, and beer bottles with firearms; what makes a laptop any different? He selected his target area so that there would be no collateral damage and chose his ammunition for same.

I'm not saying firing at an object is wrong. He's discharging it simply out of anger at his daughter. It's one thing to do something like that for practice, or even as a hobby. This was done out of anger. A gun should not be used like that.

Don't be stupid. Firing a nuclear weapon has actual consequences. Like nuclear fallout. Also it provokes even if it didn't have such consequences. What was the harm in him doing it? You're complaining out of some kind of misguided outrage it sounds like. There are no consequences except the laptop is destroyed. You haven't provided anything solid.

And if he were drunk, would you still have that same opinion? People have been killed because of misused of a firearm under anger and rage. How is this leading by example for his child? "If you're mad, or you need to prove a point, go shoot something?" And yes, my example is strong but it has a point. You shouldn't use something lethal to prove a point. I'm sorry, did you say "misguided?" I've learned my discipline with weapons and firearms from the U.S. Navy as well as martial arts.

Both taught that it is not--by any means, right to use a weapon to prove a point. You are arguing from a point of consequence, many crimes come without proper consequence, does that make them alright? People lose their homes and lives due to corporate interest, does that make it alright?

 

[senordesol]

I'm not saying firing at an object is wrong. He's discharging it simply out of anger at his daughter. It's one thing to do something like that for practice, or even as a hobby. This was done out of anger. A gun should not be used like that.

The weapon was discharged safely with no risk to bystanders. I see no issue. And I'd rather he take his anger out on an object than a person.

In short: no harm done, no foul called.

 

[Stalydan]

I'm not annoyed that he overreacted to a Facebook post. I'm not annoyed that he obviously invaded her privacy by going onto her browser, loading up Facebook and looking at her posts because he doesn't trust her. I'm annoyed that he's got such issues that he's not facing.

The chores that she lists aren't normal chores for a teenager. I can't think of many teenagers who are asked to spread manure across their gardens or asked to run a mop or brush through their house everyday when they come in. I suspect that the fertiliser is like a couple of times a year, otherwise it's weird that she'd be doing it regularly into late winter. But the cleaning the floors thing sounds weird if they have a cleaning lady. He says she's not a cleaning lady but he just says she's a lady that comes in and clean their house. Well that's a cleaning lady. If the thing he says after that clarifies something, I don't know what it is because his accent was way too strong for me to understand then. But yeah, they're a cleaning lady. It's like saying "Just because that guy bakes doesn't mean they're baker". It clearly does.

On to the bigger points. He's spoilt her. He obviously has. He just spent $130 on her upgrading her laptop. Which he then goes and shoots, a clear misuse of a gun, and then expects money off her for both the upgrade and the bullets he just wasted. Rather than donating it like a previous poster says, he just lets off some steam by destroying a perfectly functioning laptop.

He also complains she doesn't have a job. If he wants her to get one, why hasn't he forced her into getting one like "You either get a job or I'm not letting you have your phone and laptop"? It's obvious he even thinks of her as a materialist because that's all he takes away from her. Objects. Nothing like saying "You're grounded, you can't go see your friends". That speaks volumes about her.

He also says "Why should I pay you for chores?". Well if he's going to ask her to do this sort of stuff then... yeah. Pay her. Give her ten dollars a week. Why? Because if the rewards she's being given are upgrades to laptops, she's being spoilt. However, if she's given the money and then later does it herself, she'll feel like she's earned something. Nothing feels like a better reward than buying something yourself that you saved up for. I don't know how to explain it but it just is.

The worst thing about this is the video is sadistic to the core. He's hurt that she posts something on Facebook about him and his wife but here's the thing. Nobody pays attention to Facebook. It might be the talk for about a week tops but then it's gone. Dusted over, never to be heard from again. Sure, I'd be angry if somebody posted hurtful stuff about me on the internet but it's not as widespread as people think. Who cares about one 15 year old girl annoyed with her chores? It's so pointless. But rather than talking to her about it, he prints off her post, reads it aloud in a video and shoots her laptop about ten times and expects money for damages. He then says he's going to post it to her wall where she won't be able to see it but all her friends will. So not only does he know it's going to hurt her when she finds out what he's done to her stuff but it'll also embarrass her at her school when other people find out. It's wrong on some many levels, I'd be tempted to call it abuse if went one or two steps further.

tl;dr This girl will now grow up to resent her father because he blew his fuse at something so minor rather than talking it out.

 

[Ramzal]

I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.

I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.

We've tested plenty of nukes in unpopulated areas so...yeah...we did that.

Second, why does the fact that the weapon being a 'lethal tool' have any bearing whatsoever? I've shot paper targets, soda cans, and beer bottles with firearms; what makes a laptop any different? He selected his target area so that there would be no collateral damage and chose his ammunition for same.

I'm not saying firing at an object is wrong. He's discharging it simply out of anger at his daughter. It's one thing to do something like that for practice, or even as a hobby. This was done out of anger. A gun should not be used like that.

It was done in a manner that was sufficiently controlled. Maybe he was angry, but it doesn't matter if he was. What matters is that his anger was well enough controlled that he did that stupid show in a safe manner.

Don't be stupid. Firing a nuclear weapon has actual consequences. Like nuclear fallout. Also it provokes even if it didn't have such consequences. What was the harm in him doing it? You're complaining out of some kind of misguided outrage it sounds like. There are no consequences except the laptop is destroyed. You haven't provided anything solid.

And if he were drunk, would you still have that same opinion?

No because being drunk is not a state to do anything remotely dangerous in.

People have been killed because of misused of a firearm under anger and rage.

And? He clearly wasn't out of control.

How is this leading by example for his child? "If you're mad, or you need to prove a point, go shoot something?"

Stop playing stupid. No one's going to learn that from it anymore than they're going to learn to kill people from a game. The difference between shooting a laptop in a controlled situation and shooting whatever is bothering you at the moment is obvious.

And yes, my example is strong but it has a point.

Your example was weak as hell. I tore it apart, it doesn't compare at all.

You shouldn't use something lethal to prove a point.

Congratulations on not proving that point. I pointed out the real reason it wouldn't be used instead of the reason you want to pretend it wouldn't occur.

I'm sorry, did you say "misguided?" I've learned my discipline with weapons and firearms from the U.S. Navy as well as martial arts.

Ooooh now I'm going to agree with you. Oh wait I'm not. Idgaf where you learned it, that doesn't make your stupid outrage any less misguided. You have NOT answered where the real consequences are. We just have a paper thin argument that it'll teach kids the wrong idea.

Both taught that it is not--by any means, right to use a weapon to prove a point.

I don't care. I don't take people's words for such things.

You are arguing from a point of consequence, many crimes come without proper consequence, does that make them alright? People lose their homes and lives due to corporate interest, does that make it alright?

If people are losing their homes there's a fucking consequence. Now come back with a bit more integrity instead of dishonest questions like those.

Never seen someone so hardheaded in my life. I'd have better luck arguing with a wall.

 

[Psykoma]

I think the dad had the right idea, no doubt. It's his money that put everything into it, it's his to take away.

But I think an axe would have made a better show of the laptop, and it would have gotten rid of all the bitching about 'omg he was firing a gun in a (what appears to be) residential area!'.

 

[omega 616]

I will always think American's are bat shit crazy as long as they allow any moron who can pull a trigger the right to own a killing machine.

I say that with a heap of ignorance 'cos I am not sure what hoops you have to jump through to get hold of a gun. From the media coming out of said country the only hoop is waiting a few days to pick up the actual gun after buying it.

You also pick some really weird things to ban ...

I also heard wal mart banned a scissor sisters CD for it's lyrics, doesn't the same store also sell guns and CD's from artists like 50 cent and eminem, who swear, use words like "nigga" and aren't exactly woman friendly.

Anyway more on topic. Going redneck on a laptop is little "typical American" but FPSRussia does shit like this all the time.

 

[Stalydan]

I believe it's an issue because so many people agree with the method he used. A gun is flat out a lethal tool. No one was in danger nor was he protecting anyone or himself. The fact that so many find this acceptable is deplorable. So we use lethal weapons and tools now to prove a point? And at worse, it's childish? Why don't we fire a nuclear weapon into an unpopulated area to show North Korea that we aren't accepting their terms of testing nuclear weapons.

I can understand a blunt object not being as bad or a hammer, or running it over with a car. Granted that all of the above can be lethal, but they weren't made with lethal intent. Honestly, I find as many people as I saw agreeing with this method disturbing. Borderline frightening.

We've tested plenty of nukes in unpopulated areas so...yeah...we did that.

Second, why does the fact that the weapon being a 'lethal tool' have any bearing whatsoever? I've shot paper targets, soda cans, and beer bottles with firearms; what makes a laptop any different? He selected his target area so that there would be no collateral damage and chose his ammunition for same.

I'm not saying firing at an object is wrong. He's discharging it simply out of anger at his daughter. It's one thing to do something like that for practice, or even as a hobby. This was done out of anger. A gun should not be used like that.

It was done in a manner that was sufficiently controlled. Maybe he was angry, but it doesn't matter if he was. What matters is that his anger was well enough controlled that he did that stupid show in a safe manner.

Don't be stupid. Firing a nuclear weapon has actual consequences. Like nuclear fallout. Also it provokes even if it didn't have such consequences. What was the harm in him doing it? You're complaining out of some kind of misguided outrage it sounds like. There are no consequences except the laptop is destroyed. You haven't provided anything solid.

And if he were drunk, would you still have that same opinion?

No because being drunk is not a state to do anything remotely dangerous in.

People have been killed because of misused of a firearm under anger and rage.

And? He clearly wasn't out of control.

How is this leading by example for his child? "If you're mad, or you need to prove a point, go shoot something?"

Stop playing stupid. No one's going to learn that from it anymore than they're going to learn to kill people from a game. The difference between shooting a laptop in a controlled situation and shooting whatever is bothering you at the moment is obvious.

And yes, my example is strong but it has a point.

Your example was weak as hell. I tore it apart, it doesn't compare at all.

You shouldn't use something lethal to prove a point.

Congratulations on not proving that point. I pointed out the real reason it wouldn't be used instead of the reason you want to pretend it wouldn't occur.

I'm sorry, did you say "misguided?" I've learned my discipline with weapons and firearms from the U.S. Navy as well as martial arts.

Ooooh now I'm going to agree with you. Oh wait I'm not. Idgaf where you learned it, that doesn't make your stupid outrage any less misguided. You have NOT answered where the real consequences are. We just have a paper thin argument that it'll teach kids the wrong idea.

Both taught that it is not--by any means, right to use a weapon to prove a point.

I don't care. I don't take people's words for such things.

You are arguing from a point of consequence, many crimes come without proper consequence, does that make them alright? People lose their homes and lives due to corporate interest, does that make it alright?

If people are losing their homes there's a fucking consequence. Now come back with a bit more integrity instead of dishonest questions like those.

Never seen someone so hardheaded in my life. I'd have better luck arguing with a wall.

Well you'd have better luck if you could make a decent argument instead of blatantly terrible analogies. Like the North Korea one that I showed was totally wrong and you insisted on trying to push on with anyways.

Or if you had integrity. You know instead of asking stupid scenarios that involve consequences and pretending me focusing on consequences allows for such scenarios make you could ask a question that showed an actual interest in something besides confirming how ignorant your argument is.

Hell maybe you could do something like give a real reply instead of whining that someone is hard headed for pointing out why your argument is stupid.

But in the end, maybe being unfairly dismissive is how you cope with being unable to give a real reply. You should just deal with it though.

I'd like to give point about why this was the wrong way to punish. Disregarding everything I said before, the guy simply reads a post on her facebook wall (which I doubt he just "stumbled across") and decides rather than talk it out with her, he'll destroy her laptop. That's really immature and doesn't send across any sort of message to her other than "Don't complain or I'll destroy you stuff". I'll agree she's spoilt but I don't think he's got the right way with dealing with that.

Plus, why does she have to clean the house everyday? What kind of cleaner do they have that makes it so that the 15 year old daughter has to clean as soon as she gets home because it apparently the floors and surfaces are messy? I know a mop doesn't have to be run through an average house more than once/twice a week and a surface should really be wiped clean if it's been used. It honestly can't get dirty between the lady leaving the house and the daughter getting back from school.