Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Killed over Halo 3

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2   3   4 
Killed over Halo 3
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
avatar

Karadoc: fair point. All in all that situation was clearly about sudden snap of anger. I personally think that when he saw a gun, he suddenly got the idea and we all know the consequences.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]
"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee
"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF
"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

Roy Underthump
Member #10,398
November 2008
avatar

OK, I'll stop by saying that I hope this pendulum of wishful thinking hurrys up and starts returning toward normalcy again. When every Englishman was required to carry a sword (or be considered a coward) was too far the other way again.

I love America -- I love the rights we used to have
George Carlin

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

* AnnoDomini proposes that every citizen of legal age be required to own and carry a gun. ;p
<AnnoDomini> I mean, seriously. If that were to happen, people would be jailed or fined for not carrying a lethal weapon on them. So only the CRIMINALS would be unarmed. How hilarious is that?

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

In this case it began with faulty upbringing from the parents. Maybe even their lack of interest. So the kid was growing up on his own. Add misunderstandings with parents

You are assuming a lot based on very little information.

Anyway,

Quote:

The fact that the kid had access to a gun inside his home was the fatal error.

Don't waste your time. Some people just can't be reasoned with when it comes to weapons. I think it's one of those (mainly) Europeans/rest of the world sees things differently from Americans things.

Anyway, horrible story. I'd hate to be this kid when he comes to his senses and realises what he's done.

Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
avatar

Quote:

Better than say, an alarm system would?

What would an alarm system do? Make a bunch of noise and turn on some lights, whoop-de-do. Sure it'll bring some unwanted attention eventually, but the problem is occuring now, not minutes from now when the police finally get to your place (and even then only if they decide its safe enough for them to go in and make sure you're alright, and not wait for backup). You could be dead or seriously injured by then, with the burglar long gone.

You can't rely on the police or anyone else to save you. Even if such people have every intention of doing so (which is not always the case), sometimes they simply physically cannot. "Sorry guy, even though you could've saved yourself if we allowed it, the stars just weren't shining on you today. Maybe next time. Oh wait.."

Quote:

Yes, some tools have one function. But a hammer's true function is to drive and pull nails. As an extra you can kill people with it, but you have to get close enough to do it.

I've said it before, but an object's "true purpose" is only what the posessor gives it. If I buy a baseball bat for the sole purpose of self defense (ie. to beat the shit out of people that are trying to inflict serious harm on me or my loved ones), and never use it for baseball, is it really on the same level as someone who buys a baseball bat for their kid on christmas to use in their little league games?

Quote:

And his dad managed not to get killed, so he could have easily overpowered the kid before he even got to the mom. If the kid didn't have a ranged weapon.

I wouldn't be so sure. 16 year olds aren't necessarilly wimpy, especially if they're enraged. And assuming he had used a different weapon, eg. a hammer or bat, he still had at least one clean easy hit. Do you have any idea what a strong hit to the head or neck can do to a person? Sometimes death is not the worst result one can get.

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

Ron Novy
Member #6,982
March 2006
avatar

So given that just about any random object can be used as a weapon they should have just either locked themselves or the child away with a key to unlock the key to unlock the key... That way they could not possibly harm each other using anything including a gun ???

I don't think it matters weather you are for guns or against them as long as you use common sense. Keep guns out of the reach of children and keep children out of the reach of guns.

Quote:

Don't waste your time. Some people just can't be reasoned with when it comes to weapons. I think it's one of those (mainly) Europeans/rest of the world sees things differently from Americans things.

I think since the end of WW2, having guns in Europe would just be a bad idea anyway :P Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. "Fool me... We can't get fooled again." ;D

----
Oh... Bieber! I thought everyone was chanting Beaver... Now it doesn't make any sense at all. :-/

Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
avatar

Quote:

So given that just about any random object can be used as a weapon they should have just either locked themselves or the child away with a key to unlock the key to unlock the key... That way they could not possibly harm each other using anything including a gun

The world is a dangerous place, no matter what you do or what restrictions are in place. The only safe place to be is... well, no where.

Quote:

Keep guns out of the reach of children and keep children out of the reach of guns.

Right, but that kind of only works when you can keep them away. ;) You can't say it's the parents' fault for not trying hard enough when you don't know how hard they did (or didn't) try. Without knowing what the kid had to go through (search for hours to find the key and a few more for the box?), or how easy/hard the parents made it (leave it unlocked in plain sight?), no one can say. And there's always the possibility that this was unavoidable by the time it came to a boiling point.

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

OICW said:

Needless to say that I'd bet, that this kid has been kinda addicted to gaming.

Based on what? Based on the fact that he snuck out to get a game? Or that he kill his mother and tried to kill his father shortly after they took it away?

You could just as easily assume that he rarely played games based on the fact that he snuck out to get one. It's just as likely that his parents didn't allow games in the house at all. And if that was the case, and his friends at school were all gamers, he would surely want to fit in with them. Video games are the best way to vent that I've discovered. Somebody that is free to vent in a game is less likely* to vent in real life.

And few people are so short sighted that they would kill their parents just because they had a game taken away. The people that would do it probably have other motives for killing their parents (making the game likely just a trigger -- enough to pop the bottle he's been filling) or are literally insane (i.e., incapable of being held responsible for their actions).

Claiming him to be a video game addict is just as bad as blaming video games for the shooting. Shame on you.

OICW said:

On the other hand a gun is a thing specifically designed to kill. It has no other purpose.

No, a gun is specifically designed to fire projectiles; usually either inexpensively, rapidly, accurately, or many of the above. The killing is something some human's are trained to do with them. Others, use them for sport (i.e. hunting, target shooting) or as deterrents (you often don't need to fire a gun for it to be useful). I think the benefits and lawful users far outweigh the harm and unlawful users. No matter what, humans will always find ways to kill one another. The best solution is to try to prevent the desire to kill one another. Stop blaming society's shortcomings on mindless objects.

OICW said:

(I feel the thin ice around, so please no gun discussion)

Then please keep your opinions to yourself.

Thomas Fjellstrom said:

If the problem was purely the kid, he could have gotten at the knifes MUCH easier and stabbed both his parents many many time over the course of years. But he didn't.

He didn't shoot them until recently either. So you have to assume (or at least consider) he wasn't pushed far enough to kill them until recently. We have no reason to believe that he didn't have access to the gun until now.

Thomas Fjellstrom said:

Theres an old saying, Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics. Generally a group like the NRA will use "tweaked" statistics to prove a point, even if the data was falsified.

As will discussion board users. ;D

Sol Blast said:

Better than say, an alarm system would? ???.

An alarm system gives an intruder time before anyone responds to the alarm. That's plenty of time to incapacitate residents and get away with valuable goods. An alarm system isn't an immediate threat.

OICW said:

Roy: stay on topic.

It's interesting that it's OK for you to discuss gun politics, but when somebody with a differing view does it he's (according to you) derailing the thread. ::)
[quote ]All I'm really trying to say is that although other things can be used as weapons to kill someone, a gun is far more likely to be used and is thus far more dangerous to have around.
</quote>
While that's a fair argument, you have to ask yourself if it outweighs a lawful person's rights to own a gun. Guns are used to save lives as well as take them. And they have recreational uses as well. So is it really worthwhile to take them away from everybody for the few lawful† citizens that are pushed too far?

Evert said:

You are assuming a lot based on very little information.

.
.
.

I'd hate to be this kid when he comes to his senses and realises what he's done.

You're assuming he doesn't realize what he's done. He might not even regret it. Without knowing his background we can't really say if he's any worse off than he was before. He might have been haunted by his past already.

Canada has strict gun laws and just recently (about 5 days ago, I think) an office worker was fired from his job in Vancouver, Canada and went on a shooting spree in his office. Luckily, most people managed to escape the building, but one individual was killed.

* Of course, there are some things that aren't easily vented in a video game (particularly things that are permanent or consistent). † Keep in mind that the unlawful citizens (i.e. criminals) are going to continue to carry and use guns. I saw recently on the news that in one of the cities on the East coast of Canada (I forget which) there is a gang war going on between rival drug dealers. They've apparently been shooting it out on the street; in one instance outside of a children's hospital. The news made it sound like the cops didn't have many leads. And Canada already has strict gun laws.

OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
avatar

Quote:

You are assuming a lot based on very little information.

Yep, I aware of that fact. It was one of many possible hypothesis.

bamccaig said:

Based on what? Based on the fact that he snuck out to get a game?

Based on the fact that he was so angry his game was taken from him, that he resorted to attempt a murder. Needless to say that he succeeded in doing so.

bamccaig said:

Video games are the best way to vent that I've discovered.

I'm not arguing with that. However if you get addicted to gaming, then it's a different story. Anyway my previous post was mainly a hypothesis.

bamccaig said:

No, a gun is specifically designed to fire projectiles; usually either inexpensively, rapidly, accurately, or many of the above.

I know that you are a big fanboy of guns, that's your thing. Technically this definition is correct. However, a gun is a weapon:

google on define:weapon said:

A weapon is a tool employed to injure, defeat, or destroy an adversary.

evert said:

Don't waste your time. Some people just can't be reasoned with when it comes to weapons. I think it's one of those (mainly) Europeans/rest of the world sees things differently from Americans things.

This time I wasn't reasoning against guns. I was just saying that letting a kid to have access to a gun isn't the best thing you can do. Now I see I've wasted my time - some specific people just didn't get it. Shame on them.

bamccaig said:

Then please keep your opinions to yourself.

If we all keep our opinions for ourselves, then any discussion becomes pointless.

bamccaig said:

I love it how it's OK for you to discuss gun politics, but when somebody with a differing view does it he's (according to you) derailing the thread. ::)

Now I well aware of the fact that I was on the thin ice above. But you've just missed my point completely (worse than Roy). So to clarify: I wasn't saying anything against guns, gun ownership etc. The fact that the aforementioned family owned a gun is solely their problem.

What I pointed out in the previous post (and what you have completely misunderstood or ignored), was that the fact, the kid had access to a gun was a fatal error. However there are some people around here, that immediatelly jump out on reading a word gun and turn a thread into gun lobby thread.

I was aware of that and hoped that my point will not be misunderstood. I was wrong, I admit it. But I would like to put on a record that it wasn't me who tried to derail the thread.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]
"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee
"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF
"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

OICW said:

Based on the fact that he was so angry his game was taken from him, that he resorted to attempt a murder.

Again, you're assuming he resorted to murder solely because his game was taken away. I think that's unlikely to be the sole reason for his actions.

OICW said:

If we all keep our opinions for ourselves, then any discussion becomes pointless.

I'm not saying not to voice your opinion. I'm saying that if you're going to tell us not to voice our opinion then you shouldn't either. It's not fair to voice your opinion and then tell us not to. :)

OICW said:

What I pointed out in the previous post (and what you have completely misunderstood or ignored), was that the fact, the kid had access to a gun was a fatal error.

While the gun may have contributed to the mother's death, the presence of the gun alone is likely not responsible for this shooting. The real error was probably in the way they treated him and not reading him properly. I agree that the gun should have been properly locked up though. I just don't want the gun to take all the blame nor be the focus of the blame.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

While the gun may have contributed to the mother's death,

She was shot. You think it may have contributed to her death? I would think that independently what you think about gun ownership, the fact that a gun was involved in this fatal shooting incident would not be in dispute.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Evert said:

She was shot. You think it may have contributed to her death? I would think that independently what you think about gun ownership, the fact that a gun was involved in this fatal shooting incident would not be in dispute.

I think what I meant is that if the gun wasn't available the kid might have resorted to something else, like a knife, hammer, poison, etc. In that hypothetical case, one could argue that the gun didn't contribute to the death because it would have happened with or without it.

OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
avatar

bamccaig said:

It was probably just a final stress-er that pushed him over the edge.

Sorry, but I have to ask you a personal question: "are you blind?" I specifically said that it was a chain of events that led to that disaster. Now you are taking my words out of context and thinking of them as sole reasons.

bamccaig said:

I'm not saying not to voice your opinion. I'm saying that if you're going to tell us not to voice our opinion then you shouldn't either. It's not fair to voice your opinion and then tell us not to. :)

I'm getting an impression that I'm living in some parallel universe. My post wasn't about guns, gun ownership etc. I've just pointed out that the kid should not have access to it. And in the next sentence I said, that it was the last thing that sparked the tragic events that followed.

bamccaig said:

I agree that the gun should have been properly locked up though. I just don't want the gun to take all the blame nor be the focus of the blame.

That's the first thing we will agree here. Good start.

[My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online]
"Final Fantasy XIV, I feel that anything I could say will be repeating myself, so I'm just gonna express my feelings with a strangled noise from the back of my throat. Graaarghhhh..." - Yahtzee
"Uhm... this is a.cc. Did you honestly think this thread WOULDN'T be derailed and ruined?" - BAF
"You can discuss it, you can dislike it, you can disagree with it, but that's all what you can do with it"

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

if the gun wasn't available the kid might have resorted to something else, like a knife, hammer, poison, etc.

Then again, it he might not have, if it was a spur of the moment action.
Which I would be amazed if it wasn't. Most people do not plan cold-blooded murder - especially not of their parents.
Even if the kid was ill treated by his parents (which, based on the available information, is pure speculation), most ill-treated kids don't go and kill their parents. Many don't even hate their parents later on. A child's love for its parents is a very powerful instinct that is very hard to overcome except in a spur of the moment.

Quote:

In that hypothetical case, one could argue that the gun didn't contribute to the death because it would have happened with or without it.

Yes, in the hypothetical case where she hadn't been killed with a gun, I agree, the gun didn't contribute. But since we are clearly not dealing with a hypothetical case but with a concrete case where someone was shot it's pretty clear the gun did contribute.

Sol Blast
Member #9,655
April 2008
avatar

I wonder if the detectives first on the scene had this same debate when they found the body...

"Johnston! Take note! I think a gun may have been used in this killing!"
"Now now McCloy! Let's not jump to any conclusions here."

Disclaimer: I'm intentionally exaggerating the given argument. Not actually having a go at anyone for believing a certain thing.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Evert said:

A child's love for its parents is a very powerful instinct that is very hard to overcome except in a spur of the moment.

I disagree. A child that is abused or mistreated by his parents can easily overcome the instinctual bond between them.

Evert said:

Yes, in the hypothetical case where she hadn't been killed with a gun, I agree, the gun didn't contribute. But since we are clearly not dealing with a hypothetical case but with a concrete case where someone was shot it's pretty clear the gun did contribute.

Actually, the hypothetical case I mentioned was one where the son kills the mother whether he as a gun or not. It's not about whether the gun is used in the hypothetical. It's about whether the gun's presence had a significant effect on the outcome.

I'm not denying that a gun was used to kill the mother. I'm simply arguing that the gun might not have changed the end result (i.e., the death of a woman). Maybe my phrasing is specific to North America or Canada? :-/

axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001

1) the family shouldn't have a gun in the first place. How useful is a gun in a house? not useful at all. It's not that the average Joe can defend himself using the gun.

2) The social aspects of the event are totally ignored (peer pressure, economic status etc). It's a worrying fact, because we tend to forget that society is more than the sum of its members.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

axilmar said:

1) the family shouldn't have a gun in the first place. How useful is a gun in a house? not useful at all. It's not that the average Joe can defend himself using the gun.

I've already pointed out recreational uses for guns. Where do you store a tennis racket when you aren't using it? At the tennis court or at home? You don't have to be interested by recreational use of firearms, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it either.

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

I disagree. A child that is abused or mistreated by his parents can easily overcome the instinctual bond between them.

Do you have anything to back that up?

I've known people who have had, shall we say, troubled relationships with their parents. None of them have broken their parental bond. My girlfriend works with children who have sometimes been maltreated or abused. Most of them don't break with their parents.
It's not impossible, but it's certainly not easy - and abuse alone does not lead to a weakening of the parental bond.

EDIT

Quote:

I've already pointed out recreational uses for guns. Where do you store a tennis racket when you aren't using it? At the tennis court or at home?

That may sound like a clever argument, but I'd like to see statistics for the number of tennis-racket related crimes to the number of gun-related crimes.
I'm not going to argue one way or the other (since it's pointless and I think my position is clear), but I'd just like to point out that this is not a particularly strong or clever argument.

axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001

Quote:

I've already pointed out recreational uses for guns.

There is always paintball.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

Where do you store a tennis racket when you aren't using it? At the tennis court or at home? You don't have to be interested by recreational use of firearms, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss it either.

Many people actually store their rackets and (if you like golf) golf clubs at their favorite course. Same goes for guns. MANY shooting ranges will have lock boxes available for you to lock your gun up in.

Quote:

That may sound like a clever argument, but I'd like to see statistics for the number of tennis-racket related crimes to the number of gun-related crimes.

*related lethal crimes. I'll bet the statistics fall way over with one extra word added.

edit: Heres some interesting statistics for you, Canada actually has higher per capita gun ownership than the US, but much lower gun related deaths (per capita), especially in home.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Evert
Member #794
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Heres some interesting statistics for you, Canada actually has higher per capita gun ownership than the US, but much lower gun related deaths (per capita), especially in home.

I know, I've seen Bowling for Columbine.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

I know, I've seen Bowling for Columbine.

You have to wonder how that works... But then we have some actual gun laws regarding storage...

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Does that include things like Rifles? And other large gauge guns?

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

 1   2   3   4 


Go to: