Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson.

[The Last Parade]

when I get angry I ..... vent, people who damage things because they're angry are primitives

I really do think you get pretentious high horse comment of the month for this one.
Calling a man who you don't know a primitive over a short video, that's pretty presumptuous.

awh I won an award *eyes sparkling*

also, if someone is angry and through that anger they destroy things, not only destroying it but using such a compensatory measure as a fire-arm... that's... well I'd feel a lot safer next door to the chap knowing his fire-arm was confiscated

 

[BrionJames]

I found it pretty amusing. He didn't go over board (that is unless you count shooting a laptop overboard), not in my opinion anyway. Everyone who knows her has probably seen that video and had a good laugh about it too, I think that's part of the punishment. Who cares if he used a gun?

 

[mellemhund]

Even if it would have happened by far more nefarious means the father would still be free of any wrong doing. As long as she is living under her parents roof and under the age of 18 she neither deserves nor is entitled to the smallest bit of privacy as far as her parents are concerned. As the parents of a minor they have a full pass to find out any information they like about her life by any means they deem necessary.

And some wonder why kids get messed up!
Even a minor needs privacy. But I guess fascist parents are the new black.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I personally think he's completely right to do it, his daughter is a spoiled *****, and acting like one, so he responded by taking away something he GAVE her and upgraded for her, which she then used to attack him and other people responsible for giving her a damn comfy life.

When I was young I worked for my shit. Never had a cell phone til I was able to afford one of my own payed for by me, I payed for my own internet connection, I bought all my own games, except one or two at christmas or a birthday if I was lucky, bought my own PC, sold it for money to put towards building a new one later on... essencially, yeah when I see all these kids with all this shit handed to them and how they ***** about life being hard... I only wish other parents had the balls to do what this guy did.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I personally think he's completely right to do it, his daughter is a spoiled *****, and acting like one, so he responded by taking away something he GAVE her and upgraded for her, which she then used to attack him and other people responsible for giving her a damn comfy life.

When I was young I worked for my shit. Never had a cell phone til I was able to afford one of my own payed for by me, I payed for my own internet connection, I bought all my own games, except one or two at christmas or a birthday if I was lucky, bought my own PC, sold it for money to put towards building a new one later on... essencially, yeah when I see all these kids with all this shit handed to them and how they ***** about life being hard... I only wish other parents had the balls to do what this guy did.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Edit: Besides, the law states that American's have the right to bare arms.

Yes indeed. Americans can roll their sleeves up any time they like.

(LOL. Sorry! Couldn't resist!

 

[Chewster]

I think that his daughter sounds like an entitled twit, but he also only need look in the mirror to see how she got that way. Also, it is rather childish to semi-publicly humiliate your own offspring, instead of, you know, sitting down and talking with them, so this idiot hillbilly has that going for him too. Plus the whole wasting a laptop with a gun thing is pretty Goddamn foolish. What happened to fucking reason?

Frankly, I think that I find it more disturbing that people are cheer-leading for this knobend almost unanimously. Even reasonable friends on Facebook were all for this sort of stuff. How spoiled have we let our kids get that this is seen as being a positive reaction to your kid acting like a jackass? Honestly.

I can't help but feel that this video is a fake or something...

 

[MetaKnight19]

For some reason I thought he would have used a bigger gun but thats besides the point. Listening to the chores she has to do, it really isn't much of an ask to make your bed and sweep some floors, I do more than that and in total take me roughly 30 minutes, it does sound like she is a bit of a stereotypical 'bratty teen' though.

 

[feather240]

Oh look, thousands of people fighting over who can be the most self-righteous pseudo-intellectual hipster.

"Guns are always bad!"

"She sounds like she's under stress!"

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...

Then they wouldn't be rights, they're be privileges, and that means it's a hell of a lot easier for the government to suppress people. This is the exact opposite of what James Madison wanted.

The second amendment was written at a time when 6 bullets per MINUTE was a fast shooter! I am convinced that it would have never been added if at that time modern weapons were around.

Well, you are wrong. It was written to give the people a means to defend itself from a tyrannical government if ever needed. Government should fear the people, not the other way around.
....

You mean like some people in Syria do defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How does that work out? Oh, it doesn't? Why is that?

Or how about Libya? Do you think the "people" would have won against the "tyrannical government" without the help of outside nations sending BOMBERS? NO, they would get slaughtered like the people in Syria.

To think in modern days that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government with a stupid machine gun and overthrow it when that government has tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, missiles, artillery etc. is just RETARDED! Or to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows: ... namely, in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...."

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

...

Then they wouldn't be rights, they're be privileges, and that means it's a hell of a lot easier for the government to suppress people. This is the exact opposite of what James Madison wanted.

The second amendment was written at a time when 6 bullets per MINUTE was a fast shooter! I am convinced that it would have never been added if at that time modern weapons were around.

Well, you are wrong. It was written to give the people a means to defend itself from a tyrannical government if ever needed. Government should fear the people, not the other way around.
....

You mean like some people in Syria do defend themselves against a tyrannical government? How does that work out? Oh, it doesn't? Why is that?

Or how about Libya? Do you think the "people" would have won against the "tyrannical government" without the help of outside nations sending BOMBERS? NO, they would get slaughtered like the people in Syria.

To think in modern days that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government with a stupid machine gun and overthrow it when that government has tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear bombs, missiles, artillery etc. is just RETARDED! Or to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"I once put it rather pungently, and I was flattered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this, as follows: ... namely, in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control...."

I didn't say it applied to TODAY's situation HURR DURRR. I said it was CREATED for that reason. I wasn't debating, discussing, or advocating it's relevancy in this day and age.

 

[gphjr14]

Some extreme parenting, not much else.
Seems like there was an attempt to talk to her and it just wasn't getting through.
After habitual disrespect of that caliber my parents would've probably taken my computer and put it in a log splitter. He didn't touch her and he bought the laptop so I don't see a problem. Other than the fact he wasted expensive ammo on a laptop.

 

[TechNoFear]

And some wonder why kids get messed up!
Even a minor needs privacy. But I guess fascist parents are the new black.

Her parents did not invade her privacy, she made a mistake when setting who could see the post (and left the family dog on the list).

When her parents went to add a photo to the dogs page it was the only post on its wall.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Is it legal to discharge a firearm in that area? Take the laptop to the range guy and blow holes through it there.

 

[mellemhund]

And some wonder why kids get messed up!
Even a minor needs privacy. But I guess fascist parents are the new black.

Her parents did not invade her privacy, she made a mistake when setting who could see the post (and left the family dog on the list).

When her parents went to add a photo to the dogs page it was the only post on its wall.

Maybe ready the context before you comment. Guy I quoted claimed minors shouldn't have any right to privacy, which imo is completely looney.

 

[Jon Shannow]

I agree with what he did, though I probably would of just sold the laptop, it makes the point and gives you a net profit.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Rights should be either taken away or made more strict when abused by an individual.

You're calling someone else deluded after making a statement like that? The people that created SOPA and PIPA and ACTA agree with you, anyways.

Let the redneck shoot his daughter's computer. I'm terrified of how the internet will affect my children. If they fuck up, I'll discipline them in my own way. Maybe I'll run their computers through a compactor or chainsaw them in half. I'll be sure and video tape it so I can laugh at all the whiny socialists who want to take away my rights to chainsaws or garbage compactors because I used them to destroy a computer.

This word i dont think you know what it means...

Hello im a socialist. Im also british. Id like to thank you for reinforcing the redneck steriotype that whenever they dont like something the words "COMMUNIST SOCIALIST!" can be used in leu of any real label to attack random shit that has nothing to do with it. If i had 1 wish id wish everyone in america knew what communism and socialism are. I mean CMON i support the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to punish your kids within reason but youre hardly helping by playing to the redneck steriotype "DEM COMMIES/SOCIALISTS WANT TAKE MY GUNS!" which just helps their arguement.

Seriously wikipedia it. Im tired of my fucking views used as a place holder for "bad" when most of the time it has nothing to do with the arguement. Or even the people youre trying to attack! This irks me no end. Imagine if whenever you wanted to attack a group of nameless people you used "despotist". Youd sound idiotic. And you sound idiotic attacking a group that has nothing to do with taking away the right to bear arms. Sorry ive targetting you but cmon people dont use words that you dont know the meaning to.

That said i think nothing he did infringed any basic freedoms of the girl. He payed for the latptop. Sure in the spirit of "giving" its hers but he worked his ass off to buy it, upgrade it, make her pretty life as perfect as possible and she just spits in his face. If someone disrespected something i worked had to give them i wouldnt give it to them. Or id take it away. He viewed a public facebook post that the daughter had posted to a public forum. No infringement there. Privacy infringement is reading emails.

He used a TOOL to destroy the laptop. I dont LIKE guns. I think it should be llegal to own one but it should be very well regulated. But at the same time this man did nothing to make me want to take away his gun. he used it calmly, counted his bullets, made sure to aim away from open space where it might hit someone behind the target, and made sure to shoot in an empty field. Perfect gun responsiblity. He used a tool. A gun is a tool. And while tools are dangerous and need to be handled VERY carefully he didnt abuse or misuse the tool at all.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Is it legal to discharge a firearm in that area? Take the laptop to the range guy and blow holes through it there.

His home, his property, his gun, and since he probably bought the laptop, again, his property. Perfectly legal where he's from. He seems to know how to use the gun in a legal manner. it's been viewed on YouTube millions of times, if it was illegal he would've been arrested by now.

 

[Vuliev]

While I don't condone unloading an entire 9mm clip into a laptop, his exposal and rebuttal is perfectly fine. Every teen needs to have the "don't be a spoiled brat" lesson, and this way is particularly effective.

I would have snapped the laptop over my knee on camera instead.

EDIT: Now that I think rationally about it, I would have confronted my daughter, than snapped the laptop over my knee in front of her. No YouTube.

I'm sorry, every teen needs the dont be a spoiled brat lesson? So All teens are being assosciated with that spoilt little *****?
A) Good parenting doesn't involve guns
B) Every teen is not an entitled little shit
C) You can't make a general statement like that and expect someone not to disagree.

I will however admit most teens do, but theres at least 50 or 40% of teens who arent

Well, I do think you're reading a bit into my statement. I wasn't trying to say that every teen is like that little ***** at some point--because that's certainly not the case--but every teen does need to understand that they can't be a self-entitled twat for the rest of their life.

You achieve that lesson by either
a) good parenting (working that lesson into your children slowly from the time they're born, so that they come to their own understanding as to why they shouldn't be a twat)
b) letting things get out of hand, then bringing down the "anti-twat hammer" (as in this case.)

(b) is obviously the bad option, as it can lead to other issues, but given the circumstances it's rather effective for its purpose and time constraints. Still, it's better than nothing and letting the child become a social monster that is incapable of properly functioning among both peers and elders.


(I also realize this is three days past, but I've had poor internet service for a few days, and I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression.)