# "I'm gonna roll this down like GTA!" 14 year old girl opens fire with AK-47 on police



## ChibiMofo (Jun 2, 2021)

For those of you won't don't think there is every any link between video game violence and actual violence:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/us/florida-deputies-shooting-teen/index.html

You may not want to open fire on the police after playing GTA, but not everyone else thinks or believes as you do.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 2, 2021)

ChibiMofo said:


> For those of you won't don't think there is every any link between video game violence and actual violence:
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/us/florida-deputies-shooting-teen/index.html
> 
> You may not want to open fire on the police after playing GTA, but not everyone else thinks or believes as you do.


Did you read the article? Because that would most likely happened with or without GTA.


----------



## raging_chaos (Jun 2, 2021)

ChibiMofo said:


> For those of you won't don't think there is every any link between video game violence and actual violence



There is no link between the two, but there is definitely a link between violence and bad parenting.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jun 2, 2021)

ChibiMofo said:


> For those of you won't don't think there is every any link between video game violence and actual violence:
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/02/us/florida-deputies-shooting-teen/index.html
> 
> You may not want to open fire on the police after playing GTA, but not everyone else thinks or believes as you do.



You're probably too stupid to understand this, but anyway

Stuff like this happens due to severe mental illness. It has nothing to do with videogames. Anything could've been the trigger, literally anything. A movie, a TV show, a book. Anything. Murder porn is everywhere these days. It doesn't help shitholes like Reddit and CNN villainize police as well.
Both kids were in foster care so obviously they're severely fucked up in the head, probably thanks to their ex-parents. The girl more than the boy, by the sounds of it.

The fact they could break into a random house and find a fully automatic military assault rifle is peak America


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 3, 2021)

Hells Malice said:


> The fact they could break into a random house and find a fully automatic military assault rifle is peak America



Where did automatic come into this? The article linked did not mention it (only thing for auto is the name of the game). Nothing in a few other token searches on other reports either. I would equally imagine CNN would be all over it if it was automatic.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

A 14-year-old and 12-year-old shouldn't have access to GTA games, but more importantly, *they shouldn't have access to shotguns and handguns wtf*.  Very much a tragedy, but we know where the vast majority of blame should fall in this case, and it isn't on video games.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

Grand Theft Auto is a M for mature rated game and both of the kids weren't old enough to legally play it. Sounds like their guardians fucked up with that. That's all I can say right now as I didn't read the article yet.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> A 14-year-old and 12-year-old shouldn't have access to GTA games, but more importantly, *they shouldn't have access to shotguns and handguns wtf*.  Very much a tragedy, but we know where the vast majority of blame should fall in this case, and it isn't on video games.



So I read the link and by the way you commented you sure as hell didn't. They (the two children) ran away from a group home and broke into a random house, stole the guns and assaulted the police with them. The home owner wasn't home at the time and did nothing wrong. Your hatred of the second amendment is apparent.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> So I read the link and by the way you commented you sure as hell didn't. They (the two children) ran away from a group home and broke into a random house, stole the guns and assaulted the police with them. The home owner wasn't home at the time and did nothing wrong.


If kids of those ages can get a hold of both your guns and ammunition that easily, you're absolutely doing something wrong.  It's called a gun safe, what kind of fucking moron has armed weapons just lying haphazardly around their house?  Yosemite Sam?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If kids of those ages can get a hold of both your guns and ammunition that easily, you're absolutely doing something wrong.  It's called a gun safe, what kind of fucking moron just has armed weapons lying around their house?  Yosemite Sam?


I don't think those people were expecting someone to break into their home and use their guns.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I don't think those people were expecting someone to break into their home and use their guns.


Isn't that at least half the point of owning guns?  For home protection?  Not very effective if they're just as easy to access for thieves and murderers.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Isn't that at least half the point of owning guns?  For home protection?  Not very effective if they're just as easy to access for thieves and murders.


Doesn't a safe defeat the purpose of protection. When you have to put in a combination while a thief is attacking you. In a high stress situation you won't put the code in quick enough and you'll be dead before you get access to your own guns.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jun 3, 2021)

The video game industry, hollywood movies and tv shows, and the main stream media promote the gun violence more than anything else.
So yes there is a connection and if you think otherwise, you are a fool!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Doesn't a safe defeat the purpose of protection. When you have to put in a combination while a thief is attacking you. In a high stress situation. You won't put the code in quick enough and you'll be dead before you get access to your own guns.


A four-digit code will slow you down maybe ten extra seconds, which shouldn't be a problem as long as you have doors that lock.  It's also a bit of a slippery slope to just carrying a gun on you at all times out of fear.  But even that makes more sense than leaving your guns out in the open when you aren't even home.



Cylent1 said:


> The video game industry, hollywood movies and tv shows, and the main stream media promote the gun violence more than anything else.
> So yes there is a connection and if you think otherwise, you are a fool!


Lol all of that just reflects America itself.  Violence sells here, even better than sex.  If it didn't make so much money they wouldn't keep showing it to us.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Doesn't a safe defeat the purpose of protection. When you have to put in a combination while a thief is attacking you. In a high stress situation you won't put the code in quick enough and you'll be dead before you get access to your own guns.



Some places require a gun safe if you have children in the house and some don't. If they didn't have any kids living there at the time and left guns out in a display case or loosely around the house they had no way to know some troubled children would break in and steal them.

What interests me is the girls confession or testimony. I'd like to hear the reason that motivated her to mention GTA in her rampage.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> What interests me is the girls confession or testimony. I'd like to hear the reason that motivated her to mention GTA in her rampage.


I don't know how well she'll be able to articulate her motivations, but the long and short of it is that she's young and impressionable, and probably had some family issues at home.  "Going GTA on his/her/their asses" is something me and my friends used to joke about all the time.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> A four-digit code will slow you down maybe ten extra seconds, which shouldn't be a problem as long as you have doors that lock.  It's also a bit of a slippery slope to just carrying a gun on you at all times out of fear.  But even that makes more sense than leaving your guns out in the open when you aren't even home.
> 
> 
> Lol all of that just reflects America itself.  Violence sells here, even better than sex.  If it didn't make so much money they wouldn't keep showing it to us.


In a stage of fear and panick, it last longer then 10 seconds. Especially when you pause in fear trying to make sense of the situation. And I doubt many people are trained soldiers where you learn to handle that pressure better.

I would keep it under a mattress or in a draw or something like that.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I don't know how well she'll be able to articulate her motivations, but the long and short of it is that she's young and impressionable, and probably had some family issues at home.  "Going GTA on his/her/their asses" is something me and my friends used to joke about all the time.



I had the same thought. Maybe she just rambled it off for no real reason other than to sound cool. I've also incorporated sayings with GTA quotes that I use in jokes. Though I think if she could use the game names in her rampage she'd be able to explain why. Well, that's if they don't dope her up before testimony.


----------



## Reploid (Jun 3, 2021)

Sounds pretty stupid, just like modern gta is


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> I don't think those people were expecting someone to break into their home and use their guns.


I will say that it was extremely reckless for the homeowner to have had his guns and ammo be so easily accessible to anyone breaking into their house. Countries like Japan have gun laws that require the gun and ammo to be locked in two different safes. The gun is also required to have its trigger locked when being stored. This is to prevent kids or anyone else to gain access to the gun. There's also added security to make sure if they did gain access to the guns, they then need to gain access to the ammo. What I am not trying to blame anyone for having their property stolen but suggesting that preventive measure should and need be in place.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> In a stage of fear and panick, it last longer then 10 seconds. Especially when you pause in fear trying to make sense of the situation. And I doubt many people are trained soldiers where you learn to handle that pressure better.
> 
> I would keep it under a mattress or in a draw or something like that.


If you're prone to panicking under pressure or when being awoken suddenly, keeping a gun within arm's reach is the worst idea possible.  Unless perhaps there's a certain friend or family member you're looking to be rid of.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I will say that it was extremely reckless for the homeowner to have had his guns and ammo be so easily accessible to anyone breaking into their house. Countries like Japan have gun laws that require the gun and ammo to be locked in two different safes. The gun is also required to have its trigger locked when being stored. This is to prevent kids or anyone else to gain access to the gun. There's also added security to make sure if they did gain access to the guns, they then need to gain access to the ammo. What I am not trying to blame anyone for having their property stolen but suggesting that preventive measure should and need be in place.


Does the homeowner even have kids to worry about any of that?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Does the homeowner even have kids to worry about any of that?


It doesn't matter, guns are one of the most stolen items from both houses and cars.  Leaving them where they can be seen is always a bad idea.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Does the homeowner even have kids to worry about any of that?


The homeowner actually did have kids, so yeah, that's something he should have been worried about. Preventive measures should have been in place to ensure these guns weren't so easily accessible to just anyone who happened to be in their home. Just because someone doesn't expect to be rubbed, doesn't mean they shouldn't be careful anyways. I am not blaming the homeowner, just stating that this shouldn't have been prevented with proper preventive measures and something to learn from.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If you're prone to panicking under pressure or when being awoken suddenly, keeping a gun within arm's reach is the worst idea possible.  Unless perhaps there's a certain friend or family member you're looking to be rid of.


Perhaps they'll get trigger happy under pressure.

I don't know whats the solution for those people. Too panicked to not open a safe quick enough and too panicked to be trusted with a gun. 



Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter, guns are one of the most stolen items from both houses and cars.  Leaving them where they can be seen is always a bad idea.


If they are just leaving them lying around then maybe they aren't used for protection if you know what I mean. No one needs a shotgun for protection.


----------



## AHB (Jun 3, 2021)

Hells Malice said:


> The fact they could break into a random house and find a fully automatic military assault rifle is peak America



1)


> fully automatic military assault


I think you should understand what words mean before using them.

2)


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The homeowner actually did have kids, so yeah, that's something he should have been worried about. Preventive measures should have been in place to ensure these guns weren't so easily accessible to just anyone who happened to be in their home. Just because someone doesn't expect to be rubbed, doesn't mean they shouldn't be careful anyways. I am not blaming the homeowner, just stating that this shouldn't have been prevented with proper preventive measures and something to learn from.


Oh yeah they did have kids. How did we both miss that. 

Man this thread is just a bunch of people misreading this article today or missing points, must be one of those days.


Ok owner did bad. Or good? If the daughters haven't used the guns recklessly even when they are laying about. Maybe the owner did good at raising the daughters.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> If they are just leaving them lying around then maybe they aren't used for protection if you know what I mean. No one needs a shotgun for protection.


Shotguns are actually one of the best options for home defense, and I can kind of understand needing quick access in a bad neighborhood, but again all that means nothing given that the guns were sitting out in the open with nobody home.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Oh yeah they did have kids. How did we both miss that.
> 
> Man this thread is just a bunch of people misreading this article today or missing points, must be one of those days.
> 
> ...


I honestly don't even know how that detail just kind of escaped me, which I think is a point to make to always read something over a few times to make sure details aren't missed. I digress though, shit happens.
I wouldn't say the homeowner is bad, just really reckless with his guns. I would still say the same if he didn't have kids because honestly, proper prevention should always be the case.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Hells Malice said:


> You're probably too stupid to understand this, but anyway
> 
> Stuff like this happens due to severe mental illness. It has nothing to do with videogames. Anything could've been the trigger, literally anything. A movie, a TV show, a book. Anything. Murder porn is everywhere these days. It doesn't help shitholes like Reddit and CNN villainize police as well.
> Both kids were in foster care so obviously they're severely fucked up in the head, probably thanks to their ex-parents. The girl more than the boy, by the sounds of it.
> ...


Full-Auto is banned in America. And the article didn't mention that the weapons were military either. The Ak-47 is likely semi-auto. Unless it was made before 1986. But not many regular people legally own a full-auto ak-47.


----------



## mrgone (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Full-Auto is banned in America. And the article didn't mention that the weapons were military either. The Ak-47 is likely semi-auto. Unless it was made before 1986. But not many regular people legally own a full-auto ak-47.



since most news articles in the past about ak-47 or ar-15 usually mention that semi automatic can be modded to full-auto, the world assumes everyone does!


----------



## Seliph (Jun 3, 2021)

raging_chaos said:


> There is no link between the two, but there is definitely a link between violence and bad parenting.


They were in foster care, they didn't even really have parents. The foster care system is an awful, awful, traumatic system for children. These kids deserved so much better and our broken system failed them. Even if they had good parents this would just happen again at some point from other kids forced through the system. Good parenting really isn't a solution, you can't enforce "good parenting" without resorting to draconian surveillance measures, you can't quantify what "good parenting" even means, because parenting comes in all different forms. What you can do is fix this busted ass system to ensure that every child has access to a supportive and safe community if they need it. Right now though, it doesn't seem like our country wants to give that support.

Also, the person owning the guns was straight-up irresponsible. I understand the benefit of and I support an armed proletariat, but the responsibility rests on the gun owner to keep their guns locked up in a central, safe location. If someone were to break into your home to steal your shit and had very easy access to your guns, then you would be dead. Plain and simple. From experience I know having guns locked up is your safest bet, both for yourself and others. As long as you know how to reach your guns in a timely manner, I see no issue with requiring guns to be in some form of safe. I also see no issue with gun owners having to be educated on such manners before being allowed to own guns like this. It is imperative that the owner has all the knowledge necessary to safely handle/take care of/store firearms otherwise we will see another situation like this.

This country's shit NRA conservative gun culture that fetishes guns and gun ownership is one of the biggest contributors to gun violence and irresponsible gun use. So often I see conservatives swinging around and showing off their guns in the most disrespectful, unsafe manner (Kaitlen Bennet for example), and that needs to change. The conversation should not be about whether guns should be banned or not (because banning guns is unrealistic), it should be about supporting safe gun education and fostering a socially aware proletariat who actually understands the real material utility of guns and that guns exist not to make you cool but as a means of protection.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

AHB said:


> 1)
> 
> I think you should understand what words mean before using them.
> 
> 2)



Indeed. You will find the Liberals on this board love Marx, hate the USA and will condemn the gun and ignore the root cause of this crime. What's the root cause? The girl.



SG854 said:


> Oh yeah they did have kids. How did we both miss that.
> 
> Man this thread is just a bunch of people misreading this article today or missing points, must be one of those days.
> 
> Ok owner did bad. Or good? If the daughters haven't used the guns recklessly even when they are laying about. Maybe the owner did good at raising the daughters.



Sorry, I used an ad blocker and it looked like the story ended due to a rather large ad being blocked. It indeed does mention the home owner has two daughters, but it doesn't mention their age and like I already said there might be laws requiring the guns to be under lock and key or there might not be. That's if the kids are under a certain age. For all we know they could have been in a display case or mounted on the wall, both of which could have been legal. The problem with this line of thinking is it makes the guns the villains when that's not the case.



Seliph said:


> Also, the person owning the guns was straight-up irresponsible. I understand the benefit of and I support an armed proletariat, but the responsibility rests on the gun owner to keep their guns locked up in a central, safe location. If someone were to break into your home to steal your shit and had very easy access to your guns, then you would be dead. Plain and simple. From experience I know having guns locked up is your safest bet, both for yourself and others. As long as you know how to reach your guns in a timely manner, I see no issue with requiring guns to be in some form of safe. I also see no issue with gun owners having to be educated on such manners before being allowed to own guns like this. It is imperative that the owner has all the knowledge necessary to safely handle/take care of/store firearms otherwise we will see another situation like this.
> 
> This country's shit NRA conservative gun culture that fetishes guns and gun ownership is one of the biggest contributors to gun violence and irresponsible gun use. So often I see conservatives swinging around and showing off their guns in the most disrespectful, unsafe manner (Kaitlen Bennet for example), and that needs to change. The conversation should not be about whether guns should be banned or not (because banning guns is unrealistic), it should be about supporting safe gun education and fostering a socially aware proletariat who actually understands the real material utility of guns and that guns exist not to make you cool but as a means of protection.



It's not the guns fault. It's also not the home owners fault.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> It's not the guns fault.


Tell me where I said it was the gun's fault. I said it's the fault of our society for failing to foster a healthy gun culture and it's also the fault of a lack of good education on proper gun use. It is partially the owner's fault for not properly taking care of their firearms. Callously leaving weapons in a position where children can easily access them is dangerously irresponsible. It's like leaving the stove on or putting metal in the microwave. It's foolish and leads to inevitable danger. This is why we need proper gun education. Did you read what I said or does it just go in one ear and out the other? I literally own guns, I have guns in my house.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2021)

Cylent1 said:


> The video game industry, hollywood movies and tv shows, and the main stream media promote the gun violence more than anything else.
> So yes there is a connection and if you think otherwise, you are a fool!


The same media (and in some cases worse media,) exists in other countries but yet the US is the only country with these issues. Why is the US such a special case compared to other countries?


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 3, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Tell me where I said it was the gun's fault. I said it's the fault of our society for failing to foster a healthy gun culture and it's also the fault of a lack of good education on proper gun use. Did you read what I said or does it just go in one ear and out the other? I literally own guns, I have guns in my house.


he just spits out responses to pre-made arguments


----------



## Seliph (Jun 3, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> he just spits out responses to pre-made arguments


Makes sense based on his braindead signature lol


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 3, 2021)

Whoa...This thread weirds me out on many levels. Let's see...

1) on a five page article that mostly discusses two children, gun ownership and foster parenting, the @OP selects on phrase about video games and pretends that's the entire reason the girl did what they did. Perhaps it's not trolling, but it's close to it (hint: it wasn't the girl who said that) and the OP is probably watching the replies eating popcorn.

2) @Xzi and @SG854 demonstrate that guns don't offer protection either IN or OUT of a safe. Do you really have to live outside of the US to be able to make the purely logical deduction that therefore, guns simply DON'T offer protection?

3) apparently, the article never raises questions why a normal Florida (Floridian?) household with kids has "a handgun, pump shotgun and an AK-47 inside, as well as a large amount of ammunition" lying around.

4) break-ins by 12 and 14-year olds? Okay, they're orphans, but doesn't that just make things worse?

5) erm...can I discuss @Lilith Valentine 's signature here (so...girls are actually bad at just...being themselves? ) here, or is that something for the EOF?


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2021)

... Without going too deep into Psychology and keeping it at Observational level, I would say the Girl actually never played GTA.

Not many Orphanages would have the Game and, being her age, not many friends would also have the Game.
But it is a cool Reference to her Circle, which is why she's using it.

Both of them act like bullies, and that makes sense in the context of an orphan life.
It's a form of control they have over what happens in their lives.

Two kids that nobody wants around due to prior bad behaviour, who have no means of entertainment, find an empty house and play a Fantasy Game. With real guns.

It doesn't justify any of the actions that took place, but it may provide information for future solutions.
I've seen plenty of these kids growing up and, now that I'm an adult, I hope something can be done to give them better choices.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 3, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> 2) @Xzi and @SG854 demonstrate that guns don't offer protection either IN or OUT of a safe. Do you really have to live outside of the US to be able to make the purely logical deduction that therefore, guns simply DON'T offer protection



This is the dumbest conclusion I have seen in the entire thread.  Take polar opposite failures to be an indication of all possible outcomes.  



Taleweaver said:


> 5) erm...can I discuss @Lilith Valentine 's signature here (so...girls are actually bad at just...being themselves? ) here, or is that something for the EOF?



This is the smartest thing I have seen in the entire thread.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 3, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> 5) erm...can I discuss @Lilith Valentine 's signature here (so...girls are actually bad at just...being themselves? ) here, or is that something for the EOF?


I think you might be digging too deep into it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 3, 2021)

if someone has a fucking automatic their def into something illict anyways (drug dealing, gang activity  or just plain paranoid ect) any normal 9mm hell even a glock would suffice to take down any thief because i doubt they invest in body armor unless they rob idk drug lords?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> Whoa...This thread weirds me out on many levels. Let's see...
> 
> 1) on a five page article that mostly discusses two children, gun ownership and foster parenting, the @OP selects on phrase about video games and pretends that's the entire reason the girl did what they did. Perhaps it's not trolling, but it's close to it (hint: it wasn't the girl who said that) and the OP is probably watching the replies eating popcorn.
> 
> ...


If you are going to imply that we should ban guns then also might as well ban alcohol. More people die from Alcohol then guns. More people die from drunk releated car crashes then school shootings. Alcohol is the more dangerous thing here.

Sometimes people just leave alcohol lying around where kids can have access to.


We did reduce the number of car accidents and drunk related deaths over the years by putting in restrictions and threats like taking away your license. We put in things to reduce alcohol related deaths and you can see over the years it's decreased. We did this without outright banning alcohol. We tried outright banning on the past and you know what happened. Gang activity rose.

We can also implement stuff to reduce gun deaths without outright banning it.


----------



## th3joker (Jun 3, 2021)

Florida man....


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2021)

A lot of people are treating their assumptions as fact in this thread. Nowhere in the news article(s) is it reported that any of the guns involved were just "laying around in the open," which is how it has been characterized here many times. They could have been in gun cases. They could have been in a traditional locked gun cabinet (not the same as a gun safe, but traditional security against child tampering). All the article says is the little burglars "found" the guns. It also says they tore up, and shot up, the guy's house. So it is not unreasonable to allow they may have had to do some breaking into cabinets or cases before they found the guns. Or, the guns could have been laying out in plain view on a table, ready to roll. You don't know. It isn't reported, either way. 


If these little burglars had broken into this house, stolen a large knife from the kitchen, then gone out and stabbed some people to death ... would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving big knives out where anyone who broke into his house could take them? If they stole some opioid medications from the bathroom medicine cabinet and then OD'd on them, would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving deadly drugs where anyone who broke into his house was likely to find them?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> A lot of people are treating their assumptions as fact in this thread. Nowhere in the news article(s) is it reported that any of the guns involved were just "laying around in the open," which is how it has been characterized here many times. They could have been in gun cases. They could have been in a traditional locked gun cabinet (not the same as a gun safe, but traditional security against child tampering). All the article says is the little burglars "found" the guns. It also says they tore up, and shot up, the guy's house. So it is not unreasonable to allow they may have had to do some breaking into cabinets or cases before they found the guns. Or, the guns could have been laying out in plain view on a table, ready to roll. You don't know. It isn't reported, either way.
> 
> 
> If these little burglars had broken into this house, stolen a large knife from the kitchen, then gone out and stabbed some people to death ... would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving big knives out where anyone who broke into his house could take them? If they stole some opioid medications from the bathroom medicine cabinet and then OD'd on them, would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving deadly drugs where anyone who broke into his house was likely to find them?


I was going to make the same comment you did about assumption. But then I realized if the owner did good saftey precautions and put then in a safe and is the only one that knows the code, some random kids that break in aren't going to know that code.

They were being chased by cops earlier so the chances of them having the time to find guns in cabinets is slim. It said they were evading the police for hours so it's possible they had time to find them if they were in the house for a long time.

Out in the open seems the most plausible scenario.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Out in the open seems the most plausible scenario.



Even if that was the case, nothing's really "out in the open" if you have to commit burglary to get to it.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Even if that was the case, nothing's really "out in the open" if you have to commit burglary to get to it.


If people can see your gun(s) through a window, it's out in the open.  And if you leave them like that when you're away from the house, you should 100% expect them to be gone when you get back, most likely along with other valuables.  It's straight-up an invitation.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

Seliph said:


> Tell me where I said it was the gun's fault. I said it's the fault of our society for failing to foster a healthy gun culture and it's also the fault of a lack of good education on proper gun use. It is partially the owner's fault for not properly taking care of their firearms. Callously leaving weapons in a position where children can easily access them is dangerously irresponsible. It's like leaving the stove on or putting metal in the microwave. It's foolish and leads to inevitable danger. This is why we need proper gun education. Did you read what I said or does it just go in one ear and out the other? I literally own guns, I have guns in my house.



You're still blaming the owner when you have no idea how the weapons were stored. Even if they were laying out on the coffee table it still wouldn't be the owners fault. That's like saying if someone breaks into your house and trips on a toy left on the stairs that you should be held liable. You're rambling utter nonsense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> If you are going to imply that we should ban guns then also might as well ban alcohol. More people die from Alcohol then guns. More people die from drunk releated car crashes then school shootings. Alcohol is the more dangerous thing here.
> 
> Sometimes people just leave alcohol lying around where kids can have access to.
> 
> ...



Murder is already illegal.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> A lot of people are treating their assumptions as fact in this thread. Nowhere in the news article(s) is it reported that any of the guns involved were just "laying around in the open," which is how it has been characterized here many times. They could have been in gun cases. They could have been in a traditional locked gun cabinet (not the same as a gun safe, but traditional security against child tampering). All the article says is the little burglars "found" the guns. It also says they tore up, and shot up, the guy's house. So it is not unreasonable to allow they may have had to do some breaking into cabinets or cases before they found the guns. Or, the guns could have been laying out in plain view on a table, ready to roll. You don't know. It isn't reported, either way.
> 
> If these little burglars had broken into this house, stolen a large knife from the kitchen, then gone out and stabbed some people to death ... would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving big knives out where anyone who broke into his house could take them? If they stole some opioid medications from the bathroom medicine cabinet and then OD'd on them, would you be saying the homeowner shouldn't have been leaving deadly drugs where anyone who broke into his house was likely to find them?



The budding Liberals in this thread simply hate the fact we have the second amendment and the US Constitution as a whole. They are trying to shift blame away from the actual cause (the children) and place it on objects that don't think or even operate by themselves (guns).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> If people can see your gun(s) through a window, it's out in the open.  And if you leave them like that when you're away from the house, you should 100% expect them to be gone when you get back, most likely along with other valuables.  It's straight-up an invitation.



So if I leave my Playstation 5 connected to my 4K HDTV that you can see through the window it would be my fault if someone tresspassed, broke into my home and stole my stuff? I guess I should board up my windows you know, so some random stranger can't blame me for other peoples actions. You Liberals must have really long arms with all the reaching you find yourselves doing to push your Marxist agenda on others.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You're still blaming the owner when you have no idea how the weapons were stored. Even if they were laying out on the coffee table it still wouldn't be the owners fault. That's like saying if someone breaks into your house and trips on a toy left on the stairs that they should be held liable. You're rambling utter nonsense.


It absolutely would be their fault if they left their weapons on the coffee table. Have you not heard of the Doinya clause?


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 3, 2021)

Seliph said:


> It absolutely would be their fault if they left their weapons on the coffee table. Have you not heard of the Doinya clause?



No, and if it's a proponent of blaming the home owner for what happens after a thief breaks into their home then it's utter bullshit. Like I said, if a robber trips and falls on something in your house after he broke in to steal you stuff you would with your logic place the blame on the home owner. Utter nonsense.


----------



## Seliph (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> No, and if it's a proponent of blaming the home owner for what happens after a thief breaks into their home then it's utter bullshit. Like I said, if a robber trips and falls on something in your house after he broke in to steal you stuff you would with your logic place the blame on the home owner. Utter nonsense.


Doinya mom ya fuckin idiot gottem


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> You Liberals must have really long arms with all the reaching you find yourselves doing to push your Marxist agenda on others.


I have feeling you're fucking clueless when it comes to Marx's stance on guns.  My stance aligns with his, but I'd add that we probably need more stringent laws where the storage of guns is concerned.  It's pathetic, but clearly too many adults in this country won't act like adults unless the law requires them to.  And then idiots like you come along to defend irresponsible choices after they've already caused harm or death.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> If people can see your gun(s) through a window, it's out in the open.  And if you leave them like that when you're away from the house, you should 100% expect them to be gone when you get back, most likely along with other valuables.  It's straight-up an invitation.




This is like wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped. GTFO.

And you're still making assumptions about where the guns were.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 3, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> This is like wearing a short skirt is asking to be raped. GTFO.


One of the most stolen _objects_ in America versus a _person's_ right to sexual autonomy.  Bad analogy, apples and oranges.



Hanafuda said:


> And you're still making assumptions about where the guns were.


This is one instance where we can assume that either the kids knew about his guns beforehand, or they were visible from outside the house.  In either case, mistakes were made.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 3, 2021)

I have lost faith in humanity, please launch the nukes. Nuclear winter is the answer. /s


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Jun 3, 2021)

Little did she know, that unlike GTA, in real life you go from 0 to 5-Stars by just running around with an AK-47.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 3, 2021)

"socialism is when liberals"- karl marx


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jun 3, 2021)

Kids suddenly showing sociopathic behaviour is not all that uncommon


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 3, 2021)

Xzi said:


> One of the most stolen _objects_ in America versus a _person's_ right to sexual autonomy.  Bad analogy, apples and oranges.




No, you have the analogy wrong. The correct analogy is a person's right to a secure and unviolated home is as to a person's right to a secure an unviolated physical body. Guns have nothing to do with it. And I don't say that to equate home invasion with rape (though persons whose homes are burglarized _are_ frequently traumatized by the violation), but with either situation, it is criminal to force entry. And victim blaming is wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> No, you have the analogy wrong. The correct analogy is a person's right to a secure and unviolated home is as to a person's right to a secure an unviolated physical body. Guns have nothing to do with it.


Of course guns have something to do with it, I'm flat out telling you that leaving your guns somewhere in your car or house where they're visible to passersby increases the statistical likelihood of your car/house being broken into by a substantial amount.  How this isn't a well-known fact baffles me.  You can own guns and not be an idiot, tons of people manage both every day, myself included.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 4, 2021)

Re: title - Now THAT'S a fucking gamer moment if I've ever seen one, sheeeesh


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Of course guns have something to do with it, I'm flat out telling you that leaving your guns somewhere in your car or house where they're visible to passersby increases the statistical likelihood of your car/house being broken into by a substantial amount.  How this isn't a well-known fact baffles me.  You can own guns and not be an idiot, tons of people manage both every day, myself included.



This is still assuming of the situation--guns being visible.  Also, wearing "rape me" clothes increases your chance of being raped.

Here, we don't have gun violence.  We have psychopaths who go to elementary schools and attack kids with knives.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> I have feeling you're fucking clueless when it comes to Marx's stance on guns.  My stance aligns with his, but I'd add that we probably need more stringent laws where the storage of guns is concerned.  It's pathetic, but clearly too many adults in this country won't act like adults unless the law requires them to.  And then idiots like you come along to defend irresponsible choices after they've already caused harm or death.



Criminals don't care about the laws so creating any laws that put limits on the Second Amendment is not only against the Constitution, but would be futile in stopping crime. You do realize most of what these kids just did was illegal, but that didn't stop them, did it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> No, you have the analogy wrong. The correct analogy is a person's right to a secure and unviolated home is as to a person's right to a secure an unviolated physical body. Guns have nothing to do with it. And I don't say that to equate home invasion with rape (though persons whose homes are burglarized _are_ frequently traumatized by the violation), but with either situation, it is criminal to force entry. And victim blaming is wrong.



Actually, if the victim shares some responsibility in the crime then it's just fine to blame them for their involvement. Just in this situation I'm finding it hard to see why anyone would hold the home owner responsible when he wasn't even home. I know the Liberals just want to blame guns and avoid the elephants in the room, which are the actual people who committed the crimes and the fact that video games played some sort of role in them.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Criminals don't care about the laws so creating any laws that put limits on the Second Amendment is not only against the Constitution, but would be futile in stopping crime. You do realize most of what these kids just did was illegal, but that didn't stop them, did it?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It's not required by law to keep it in a gun safe it's only a recommendation (at least in some places, I don't know about all places) so the owner is not at fault.

But as saftey precaution it's probably good to keep it in a gun safe. It's probably a more responsible thing to do. At least when kids are around. But maybe the girls are well raised and you won't have to worry about them going on a shooting spree. Many kids in the past used guns to go hunt animals with their parents on their farm lands. So I don't know why kids can't be trusted with guns now as long as they are raised right. 


But I always found keeping a gun away from you inside a safe that's maybe in another room from you, that needs a combination, is not instant ready access and defeats the purpose of having a gun as protection. Alot can happen in a spilt second when a burglar invades your home.

Unless those guns aren't for protection and just used for sport like going to a shooting range or whatever.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> It's not required by law to keep it in a gun safe it's only a recommendation so the owner is not at fault.
> 
> But as Saftey precaution it's probably good to keep it in a gun safe.
> 
> ...



The guns could have been in glass display cases, a gun cabinet, on gun racks, inside of dresser or in a safe. There is no mention on how long the kids where in the house for so it could have taken them some time to rummage until they found them. It's not irresponsible to have guns hanging on your walls in your own private residence and there's no need to hide them in case some lunatic kids decide to break into your house. The home owner is a victim in this and not only now probably had the guns the kids used taken from him, but also has to fix tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to his house. It seems the Liberals here and over on ABCNews only want to blame the guns and the gun owner, which is sadly predictable because they hate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They are also clueless to how good they have it where they live in a country where they can express their hatred for these things without being imprisoned or put to death.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> The guns could have been in glass display cases, a gun cabinet, on gun racks, inside of dresser or in a safe. There is no mention on how long the kids where in the house for so it could have taken them some time to rummage until they found them. It's not irresponsible to have guns hanging on your walls in your own private residence and there's no need to hide them in case some lunatic kids decide to break into your house. The home owner is a victim in this and not only now probably had the guns the kids used taken from him, but also has to fix tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage to his house. It seems the Liberals here and over on ABCNews only want to blame the guns and the gun owner, which is sadly predictable because they hate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They are also clueless to how good they have it where they live in a country where they can express their hatred for these things without being imprisoned or put to death.


If a gun were to offer you actual protection in split second cases then you'll need to be strapped at all times.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Criminals don't care about the laws so creating any laws that put limits on the Second Amendment is not only against the Constitution, but would be futile in stopping crime.


Nobody even suggested putting limits on the second amendment, though there are already some limits in place.



JonhathonBaxster said:


> It seems the Liberals here and over on ABCNews only want to blame the guns and the gun owner, which is sadly predictable because they hate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.


As a leftist and a _responsible_ gun owner, yes I'll place as much goddamn blame on irresponsible gun owners as I want.  The constitution does not give a person the right to escape consequences for their own actions, seems you need to re-read it.


----------



## souhukyafod (Jun 4, 2021)

I'm going to do the same with a whip and mention castlevania


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

Americans: we need 24/7 arm's length access to guns in case we're robbed.
Rest of World: what the fuck are you on?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> Americans: we need 24/7 arm's length access to guns in case we're robbed.
> Rest of World: what the fuck are you on?


A 24/7 rage and fear-based media diet.  Which for a lot of us, is just reflecting our own opinions back unfortunately.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

Xzi said:


> Nobody even suggested putting limits on the second amendment, though there are already some limits in place.
> 
> 
> As a leftist and a _responsible_ gun owner, yes I'll place as much goddamn blame on irresponsible gun owners as I want.  The constitution does not give a person the right to escape consequences for their own actions, seems you need to re-read it.



Yet your focus is on someone who did nothing wrong.


----------



## jesus96 (Jun 4, 2021)

Oh yeah give a child a gun and blame videogames instead of stupid adults,nice plan


----------



## Xzi (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yet your focus is on someone who did nothing wrong.


I can only posit that your continued interest in defending irresponsible gun ownership by someone you've never met and probably never will meet is a form of projection/living vicariously.  Well sorry, but if you're looking for someone to forgive your own past/present/future irresponsibility, you're looking to the wrong guy.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> Yet your focus is on someone who did nothing wrong.



If a stranger going on a home owner's property falls over and injures themselves the home owner is held responsible.  So if a home owner has accessbile firearms which a stranger then takes and uses, the home owner should also be held responsible (and in most countries *IS* held accountable).

Leftists want greater freedom with personal accountability, rightists want greater freedom with less accountability.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> If a stranger going on a home owner's property falls over and injures themselves the home owner is held responsible.



This is pure dumb.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> This is pure dumb.



I really don't know why I'm replying to this illiterate troll.. but it's the law.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> *If a stranger going on a home owner's property falls over and injures themselves the home owner is held responsible. * So if a home owner has accessbile firearms which a stranger then takes and uses, the home owner should also be held responsible (and in most countries *IS* held accountable).
> 
> Leftists want greater freedom with personal accountability, rightists want greater freedom with less accountability.



Only if the homeowner created, through negligence, a dangerous situation which proximately caused the injury. I don't know what "law" you're talking about.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

Hanafuda said:


> Only if the homeowner created, through negligence, a dangerous situation which proximately caused the injury. I don't know what "law" you're talking about.



laws will differ between countries but yes you're right.. though the negligence may be not having a 'slippery when wet' sign on a concrete walk way and the home owner is still responsible to cover damages.. that is why property insurance is recommened.

"If you're *injured* while *visiting* the *property*, one or both parties may be responsible depending on the circumstances of *your* accident. ... In general, the occupier of private *property* is responsible for maintaining a safe, hazard-free environment for *visitors* to the premises."

So having acessible firearms on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for not having their firearms properly restrained and most likely have their licence to own firearms revoked.).


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

So having acessible Knives on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for having their knives on a kitchen table and not properly put away.


----------



## teamlocust (Jun 4, 2021)

Ak47 oh shit!!


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

teamlocust said:


> Ak47 oh shit!!


♪AK-47 is the tool. Don't make me act a motherfucking fool  ♪- Ice Cube


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> laws will differ between countries but yes you're right.. though the negligence may be not having a 'slippery when wet' sign on a concrete walk way and the home owner is still responsible to cover damages.. that is why property insurance is recommened.
> 
> "If you're *injured* while *visiting* the *property*, one or both parties may be responsible depending on the circumstances of *your* accident. ... In general, the occupier of private *property* is responsible for maintaining a safe, hazard-free environment for *visitors* to the premises."
> 
> So having acessible firearms on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for not having their firearms properly restrained and most likely have their licence to own firearms revoked.).



Your quote applies to invitees, i.e. visitors with permission to be on your property or a legal right to be there (like a mailman, etc). It doesn't apply to unforeseeable trespass, and especially not a breaking/entering burglary. A homeowner can't lay a trap for a trespasser or burglar (tripwires, etc), but that's not the situation here. And again, there is no information to back up the assumption some are leaping to here that the homeowner's guns were out in plain view inside the home, let alone that they were visible from looking through a window.




teamlocust said:


> Ak47 oh shit!!



AK variant rifles in the US are semi-automatic. Just another rifle.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> laws will differ between countries but yes you're right.. though the negligence may be not having a 'slippery when wet' sign on a concrete walk way and the home owner is still responsible to cover damages.. that is why property insurance is recommened.
> 
> "If you're *injured* while *visiting* the *property*, one or both parties may be responsible depending on the circumstances of *your* accident. ... In general, the occupier of private *property* is responsible for maintaining a safe, hazard-free environment for *visitors* to the premises."
> 
> So having acessible firearms on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for not having their firearms properly restrained and most likely have their licence to own firearms revoked.).



I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.


True That


----------



## jefffisher (Jun 4, 2021)

that's like 5 minutes from my house literally been past there a thousand times riding my bike to 7/11 at midnight for some exercise and a slurpee.
honestly not even close to surprising and not the worst thing that happens around here.
didn't expect to see it online i thought it was more of a local news thing.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> So having acessible Knives on a property whereby someone uses them to cause harm on others should also have the home owner accountable (and in most countries they would be held accountable for having their knives on a kitchen table and not properly put away.



If they are proper knives (ie: switch blades, daggers and other registered weapons) and not steak knives then yes, possibly - that would be for the court to decide levels of accountability and negligence.  Looks like 'common sense' needs to be explained to some people.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> If they are proper knives (ie: switch blades, daggers and other registered weapons) and not steak knives then yes, possibly - that would be for the court to decide levels of accountability and negligence.  Looks like 'common sense' needs to be explained to some people.



Possibly?  Has this ever happened in any country in all of history?


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

JonhathonBaxster said:


> I hate to throw a wrench in your theory, but there's a difference between a "visitor" and someone who breaks into a property illegally.



nope.

https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tabzer said:


> Possibly?  Has this ever happened in any country in all of history?



common sense?  yes it appears to have happened in most countries who aren't the USA or invaded by the USA


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> nope.
> 
> https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/



Read your own link.  There is a difference.



gizmomelb said:


> common sense? yes it appears to have happened in most countries who aren't the USA or invaded by the USA



Become literate.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> nope.
> 
> https://www.rodriguezlaw.net/can-burglar-sue-injury/


Yes actually

From the article you linked



> Trespassers, however, do not have a right to be on the homeowner’s property. In most cases, the homeowner has no obligation to protect the trespasser from dangers. This would include those invited to the home or licensees in the process of committing a crime in the home. For example, should an overnight guest attempt to steal your television in the night and injure themselves by dropping the television on their foot, the homeowner would not have a duty to protect from this danger


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

tabzer said:


> Become literate.



wow aren't you the Pot calling the Kettle black?  Your illiterate trolling is legendary.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Yes actually
> 
> From the article you linked



different laws in different countries.. there is more to the world than just Murica.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bur...j0j0i67j0l5.7679j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> wow aren't you the Pot calling the Kettle black?  Your illiterate trolling is legendary.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


This thread is about what happened in the USA. The laws in other countries don't apply.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> This thread is about what happened in the USA. The laws in other countries don't apply.



just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well?  no worries.


----------



## JonhathonBaxster (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well?  no worries.



I can't speak for the majority of our population and their tendency to lack common sense, but common sense tells me that laws from other countries don't apply to citizens of the USA unless those citizens are in the other country.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> just like how laws and common sense don't apply in the USA as well?  no worries.


It's common sense that someone breaking into your home un-invited is in the wrong. Taking your stuff without your permission and using it to attack police officers is always in the wrong.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> It's common sense that someone breaking into your home un-invited is in the wrong. Taking your stuff without your permission and using it to attack police officers is always in the wrong.



yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.. common sense averted.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JonhathonBaxster said:


> I can't speak for the majority of our population and their tendency to lack common sense, but common sense tells me that laws from other countries don't apply to citizens of the USA unless those citizens are in the other country.



not having the common sense in the first place is the issue.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.. common sense averted.



The definition of "accessible" is wanting for the context of this to make sense.  Unfortunately, the article referred by OP doesn't go into detail in how the guns were accessed other than the fact that the house was BROKEN into.  Of course, a failure to maintain possession of a firearm is a failure of the gun owner, but that's separate and unrelated to shooting police.

You could just cut to the chase and blame the big bang for your miserable existence.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> yet there are a string of posts saying how having dangerous weapons that are accessible is NOT the home owners responsibility.


Whether or not the home owner stored the guns away is irrelevant to this case when someone breaks into your home. Any chance of the intruders to be in right and have the right to sue the homeowner is out the window.


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

Stupidest argument ever peddled by pro gun boomers who are trying to pass the blame. The reason they chose video games is because they didn't grow up with them, but they grew up with 3 Godfather movies lmao.


----------



## gizmomelb (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Whether or not the home owner stored the guns away is irrelevant to this case when someone breaks into your home. Any chance of the intruders to be in right and have the right to sue the homeowner is out the window.



That comment is so far sidetracked from the original mention of if party a uses party b's dangerous weapon, party b should be held accountable at some level, it's amusing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Benja81 said:


> Stupidest argument ever peddled by pro gun boomers who are trying to pass the blame. The reason they chose video games is because they didn't grow up with them, but they grew up with 3 Godfather movies lmao.



or it'd be John Wayne movies, or WWII movies etc.  the whole issue is widespread accessibility of firearms in the USA causing a much higher number of suicides and homicides than in any other country that has permissive gun laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> or it'd be John Wayne movies, or WWII movies etc.  the whole issue is widespread accessibility of firearms in the USA causing a much higher number of suicides and homicides than in any other country that has permissive gun laws.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States


Exactly. Its mental health deterioration combined with too easy access to guns.
Humans are naturally violent when they are unwell. Its why we are still a species.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

gizmomelb said:


> That comment is so far sidetracked from the original mention of if party a uses party b's dangerous weapon, party b should be held accountable at some level, it's amusing.


No it's not. Did you even read my comment?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gizmomelb said:


> That comment is so far sidetracked from the original mention of if party a uses party b's dangerous weapon, party b should be held accountable at some level, it's amusing.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I have no idea why you are putting blame on the home owner.

The problem is those two kids were uninvited.


Maybe the home owner does store guns away when they normally invite guests to prevent people and kids from using their guns.

Since this was a day where they didn't invite anyone over, they weren't expecting guests, so they didn't feel the need to store the guns away to provide a safe home environment. The home doesn't need to be safe for uninvited guests. 

You don't know the situation, or how the owner handles things in their day to day life, you are drawing too many conclusions without further knowledge.


But it's irrelevant, when burglars use your stuff they stole in your home uninvited. You can't blame the owner for not preparing for an event they weren't expecting. And saying it's irrelevant is not side stepping or side tracking, because why would it be relevant in the first place? You don't know the owners history. The criminals are in the wrong period.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> The criminals are in the wrong period.



I think society has failed them.  Addressing guns is not addressing the violence/apathy/mental health, only reinforcing the cycle of sociopathy taking root.


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

You are both actually right about different points. While the home owner is not responsible for the invading parties' rights they ARE responsible in general to safely store their guns, they even have 2 kids from what I remember. What I honestly don't know is whether they WERE reasonably safely stored and the 14 y/o just ended up forcing access to them anyway like she did the house.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

Benja81 said:


> You are both actually right about different points. While the home owner is not responsible for the invading parties' rights they ARE responsible in general to safely store their guns, they even have 2 kids from what I remember. What I honestly don't know is whether they WERE reasonably safely stored and the 14 y/o just ended up forcing access to them anyway like she did the house.


If those 14 year old were raised right then they wouldn't use those guns to kill people or use them irresponsibly. Just like trusting a 14 year old with a knife. You would trust them to use knives responsibly and not run around the house with them.

People are not having faith in the intelligence of teen kids. They are smarter then you think. You can expect them to judge from right and wrong, good from bad. If you don't think they are old enough and smart enough to know this, then alot of teen on this website will feel offended.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 4, 2021)

Benja81 said:


> What I honestly don't know is whether they WERE reasonably safely stored and the 14 y/o just ended up forcing access to them anyway like she did the house.



That really should have been the end of the argument when it was addressed a few pages back.  But somebody made a stupid comment about how homeowners are (and should be) responsible for dumb or criminally insane decisions people make on/with their property.


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> People are not having faith in the intelligence of teen kids. They are smarter then you think. You can expect them to judge from right and wrong, good from bad. If you don't think they are old enough and smart enough to know this, then alot of teen on this website will feel offended.


You are not wrong but the truth is about some young people is not related to intellect at all, there are plenty of teenagers way smarter than I am. Its more about the fact they have very little life experience. When they are in trauma they think life will always feel this way, like hell. As an adult you know tough spots not only don't last forever, they actually make you stronger. You're much less likely to "roll this down like GTA" in real life, because you know most things are not the end of the world as they can seem at the time, if you have nothing else relevant to compare it to. Any age if you think the world is ending you will go out swinging.



tabzer said:


> That really should have been the end of the argument when it was addressed a few pages back.  But somebody made a stupid comment about how homeowners are (and should be) responsible for dumb or criminally insane decisions people make on/with their property.


Lol oops, I'm super bad at reading first couple pages then jumping in


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

Benja81 said:


> You are not wrong but the truth is about some young people is not related to intellect at all, there are plenty of teenagers way smarter than I am. Its more about the fact they have very little life experience. When they are in trauma they think life will always feel this way, like hell. As an adult you know tough spots not only don't last forever, they actually make you stronger. You're much less likely to "roll this down like GTA" in real life, because you know most things are not the end of the world as they can seem at the time, if you have nothing else relevant to compare it to. Any age if you think the world is ending you will go out swinging.
> 
> 
> Lol oops, I'm super bad at reading first 2 pages or so then jumping in


You are wiser when you are older. But I played alot of m-rated games as a teen. All my friends did too. We all played GTA. And many kids secretly against their parents wishes watches and plays m rated stuff. Its natural for a teen to rebel. And yet we didn't go around killing people.

Busting into a home and shooting Cops isn't a natural occurance even in impressionable teens. This is much deeper then access to guns, violent video games and all that. The kids were in foster care I believe the article said. Looks like issues in how they were raised, environment, lack of access to stuff, and maybe family problems. Which can affect even into adulthood.


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> You are wiser when you are older. But I played alot of m-rated games as a teen. All my friends did too. We all played GTA. And many kids secretly against their parents wishes watches and plays m rated stuff. It natural for a teen to rebel. And yet we didn't go around killing people.
> 
> Busting into a home and shooting Cops isn't a natural occurance even in impressionable teens. This is much deeper then access to guns, violent video games and all that. The kids were in foster care I believe the article said. Looks like issues in how they were raised, environment, lack of access tobstuff, and maybe family problems. Which can affect even into adulthood.


For sure, its about the trauma they went through, age factor making them exponentially more prone to lash out, and being able to access the guns at that time. The GTA reference is actually more of a cultural reference. Even though its in a video game, guess where the video game got it lol. America obviously has a violent culture, but fact is humans are violent in general. Probably even more so due to natural selection, but we have evolved to be able to turn it off during most situations, outside of the obvious bad apples and of course mental health issues. Which you could argue are very related too.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 4, 2021)

Benja81 said:


> For sure, its about the trauma they went through, age factor making them exponentially more prone to lash out, and being able to access the guns at that time. The GTA reference is actually more of a cultural reference. Even though its in a video game, guess where the video game got it lol. America obviously has a violent culture, but fact is humans are violent in general. Probably even more so due to natural selection, but we have evolved to be able to turn it off during most situations, outside of the obvious bad apples and of course mental health issues. Which you could argue are very related too.


Maybe America is more violent then other countries. 

Humans are violent but it's not something I see on a day to day basis. Or rarely. In my many days of going to work or going to the store, or just around places, I rarely see people just start physically attacking each other. It's so rare when it happens. 


I can see if you come from a war driven country where you fight for your survival everyday then I can see the violent nature kicking in. 

But this is not true for everyone or everplace.


----------



## Benja81 (Jun 4, 2021)

SG854 said:


> Maybe America is more violent then other countries.
> 
> Humans are violent but it's not something I see on a day to day basis. Or rarely. In my many days of going to work or going to the store, or just around places, I rarely see people just start physically attacking each other. It's so rare when it happens.
> 
> ...


Certainly seems that way, due to a variety of factors. All or most of which have likely been discussed in this thread already.
But its still a human condition, end of day. America is just a place where the people and factors intersect.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 4, 2021)

What has this world come to?


----------



## ZeroT21 (Jun 4, 2021)

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only normie in this world ,and the rest of humanity has gone bonkers, what a sad world it has become


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 19, 2021)

Sorry, but that girl sounds awesome.


----------



## Julie_Pilgrim (Jun 22, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> Sorry, but that girl sounds awesome.


bro she killed innocent people


----------



## Deleted member 560282 (Jun 22, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> Sorry, but that girl sounds awesome.


Bro wtf-


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 22, 2021)

Florida man it's full of nutcases. i mean just look at them people on them swamp shows it pretty much says everything!


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jun 24, 2021)

Scott_pilgrim said:


> bro she killed innocent people


I know


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I think society has failed them.  Addressing guns is not addressing the violence/apathy/mental health, only reinforcing the cycle of sociopathy taking root.


Which is where the core of the argument comes in.

Its a percentages thing. 

Will you be able to prevent all of 'sociopathy taking root'? (No.)
What is the damage that can be caused by one person 'going awry'? (Depends.) (Depends even on factors like 'killing with a gun' might seem more 'clinical' (I push trigger, something falls over). Also depends on how many bullets per second fly out of a gun)

If you cant prevent incidence from happening, what would be a good way to mitigate (lower) the number of victims.

Notice, that this isnt just an objective argument, where you would go for victim numbers, but that also aspects like - the families of the deceased do better if they have the perception that most things possible have been done, to prevent such an incident.
(In that sense, I'm not at all sure, if 'giving everyone guns to stop 'em early' would help  ).

But the more straightforward argument to make is 'look at the numbers', if there are obvious groups to compare them to, like 'states in europe' - where victims of gun rampages are lower by a factor, so are gun related deaths.

At which point, some people tend to realize (sometimes even intuitively), that its not about actual numbers. Its about a generalized perception of what people are willing to look over as "being an incident" (not preventable). Because thats at the root of taking political action.

And if the entire thing is a rather rare occurence (compared to population size), you can make people simply not think about it. By telling them, there are more important things to do, than to protest. 

So in some sense, the 'comparatively high death toll (factor higher than europe)' doesnt matter.

What matters at that stage is 'whats your idealized version/Image' of society. And idealized to a point, that people address conceptual goals, that might only help a minority (people at the receiving end of gun violence). Which is usually not how people function (whats in it for me, or my community).

And at that point (what do I get out of it), we also have to talk about stuff, like 'endorphin rushes' when I shoot, the feeling of power over others, when I carry, my mental image, that I'm sheriff of town, when I carry - because my life might be pretty desolate otherwise, tales, of actually having power, for 15 minutes - in a situation where it was appropriate, in someones life, where they might not experience anything like that ever --

and the link, of that to rampages in the first place ('I want them dead, all they ever did was hurting me.. - and they got somewhere in life...').

The result of all that contemplation - even (almost  ) objectively comes down to 'reduce access to automatic weapons' to mitigate issue. If mitigation is your goal. (Kind of a morals question.)

But. You are going against people that use guns as 'power prostheses' in their lives. You are going against 'absolutists' (morals), that can tell you 'if that person had a gun, they could have been alive' (probably not - but thats not the point, you cant counter this argument on an individual level, because in one case, or another they are right -- but as a society, you tend not to optimize for eventualities in rare cases, you want to do something that in the end doesnt end up at a 50:50 chance.  ).

And even from a 'subset of society' view, you are going against people, that were told in the military, to shoot the enemy - and who you are now telling, that part of the culture that allows them to deal with it (guns as tools very much a part of their self image), might have to be dismantled, and the 'importance' of gun culture reduced all together.

At which point manufacturers and the NRA interject, and add PR. 


The entire 'but we have to keep them for our fight against the government' argument, if they do stuff, that isnt right. Pretty much is romanticized BS, but then its storytelling, so part of the PR.


----------



## tabzer (Jun 29, 2021)

notimp said:


> If mitigation is your goal. (Kind of a morals question.)



I think it is pretty clear on which side I fall in the "use people as statistics for political endeavors  vs understand the individual to address broader social issue" polarization.


----------



## duwen (Jun 29, 2021)

_“Neither cinema nor literature can be blamed for original sin. A man who kills his uncle cannot justifiably blame a performance of Hamlet. On the other hand, if literature is to be held responsible for mayhem and murder, then the most damnable book of them all is the Bible, the most vindictive piece of literature in existence.”_
- Anthony Burgess​


----------



## notimp (Jun 29, 2021)

tabzer said:


> I think it is pretty clear on which side I fall in the "use people as statistics for political endeavors  vs understand the individual to address broader social issue" polarization.


N'gh...

Moral question as in - not all people tend to want to optimize for "the general public good". Some people want to opimize for 'my best chances' for example. And those are easier to convince, that they can be like Han, and would just shoot first... 

So not a left/right issue - but actually a kind of philosophical one (Individual benefits, vs goods of the masses).

One where I'm certain every religion on the planet has its position as well and... 

Collectively (as societies), we usually tell ourselves, things usually get better if most people benefit.. But for 10 years, or a persons personal outlook in life that doesnt have to hold true. So there is conflict potential.  (But the idea to ban full auto weapons still is a very convincing one - all things considered, and regardless if you are left or right - but not regardless of your 'moral ideals'.  )


----------

