Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   School shooting massacre averted. List found targeting six elementary school students including one girl because she was annoying. Suspects are two ten-year-olds who brought a gun and knife to school   (articles.latimes.com) divider line 208
    More: Scary, elementary schools, school shootings, ammunition clips, massacres, knife, attempted murder  
•       •       •

7814 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2013 at 2:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 10:20:21 PM  

guyinco6nito: Either way, I think there should be a law: If you have a gun and don't secure it and someone else gets it. YOU are responsible for whatever happens to that gun. The adult who owned that 1911, all of a sudden they are charged with bringing a gun into a school (even though some kid did it). That's probably several years in prison? Someone steals your poorly secured gun and shoots someone, YOU are charged with murder too. Pass that law, where you are responsible for whatever your gun does, and people will start securing their firearms.


Yep, charge them just like we should charge you when you fail to properly secure your car, kitchen knives, hammers/tools, baseball bats and anything else you own that can be used as a weapon.

Yes, people should secure their firearms, but that's no guarantee someone won't be able to get to them and use them.
 
2013-02-20 01:10:47 AM  

Darke: James F. Campbell: Children who set cats on fire should be executed.

/Not kidding.

Reminds me of Ender's brother... what was his name....?  Peter?


That novel is a very creative exercise in finding a superior moral justification for genocide.
 
2013-02-20 11:20:06 AM  

PacManDreaming: guyinco6nito: Either way, I think there should be a law: If you have a gun and don't secure it and someone else gets it. YOU are responsible for whatever happens to that gun. The adult who owned that 1911, all of a sudden they are charged with bringing a gun into a school (even though some kid did it). That's probably several years in prison? Someone steals your poorly secured gun and shoots someone, YOU are charged with murder too. Pass that law, where you are responsible for whatever your gun does, and people will start securing their firearms.

Yep, charge them just like we should charge you when you fail to properly secure your car, kitchen knives, hammers/tools, baseball bats and anything else you own that can be used as a weapon.

Yes, people should secure their firearms, but that's no guarantee someone won't be able to get to them and use them.



That's true PacManDreaming, there is no security system or lock that is 100% safe.  Perhaps the 10 year old in this article is an expert lockpicker or some kind of criminal mastermind :-)

Joking aside, you bring up the example of cars, which something I've been thinking about compared to guns a lot lately.  Here's how I view it:  The government mandates drivers licenses before someone can get behind the wheel.  They do this because with untrained hands, a car can be very dangerous and any government needs to protect it's citizens.  I think most state governments require car owners to purchase liability insurance for their cars.  They do this because with cars something can go wrong and people can get hurt, and the government can force you to buy insurance if you want to exercise your right to drive.  Also the government can require you to go to the DMV every couple of years to renew your license.  They do this because as people get older their eyesight can deteriorate and they might forget the rules of the road.  We don't want blind senile people driving, because someone could get hurt.

If we don't need these kinds of protections for guns, why in the WORLD do we need them for cars???

Sure kitchen knives and hammers can hurt people, but guns are special cases, and if you leave one laying around and something bad happens, I think that should be a crime.  What does a person do if they have a gun they don't want anymore?  Can you just throw it out?  Can you leave a gun in a trash bin in a park?  Could you just throw it out on the sidewalk and put a sign on it that says free?  Why not?

There was a sad story here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274182/Tmorej-Smith-boy-3-s ho ots-dead-finding-pink-handgun-lying-home.html
Where parents let a 3 year old play around with a pink pistol, until he shot himself in the head and died.  No charges will be filed, but I think the parents committed a crime of negligence and I think there should be a law.  (or we can just accept that bad things happen and get rid of drivers licenses and auto insurance while we're at it)
 
2013-02-20 12:15:05 PM  

guyinco6nito: if you want to exercise your right to drive


You don't have a constitutional right to drive.  It's a privelage.
 
2013-02-20 12:49:20 PM  

Farkage: guyinco6nito: if you want to exercise your right to drive

You don't have a constitutional right to drive.  It's a privelage.


Wow Farkage, I must have been misunderstanding the United States!  I was under the impression that the government only has the right to restrict people based on the powers spelled out in the constitution.  Here I was thinking we are a free country where everything was legal unless explicitly prohibited by a constitutional law.

Now I realize that all the freedoms and rights I enjoy are really just temporary privileges the government allows me to have while I stay in line.
Thanks for the clarification!  ;-)
 
2013-02-20 01:17:20 PM  
Please pardon the sarcasm, I do think this is an important issue.
It seems like there are two perspectives, either:

The government has all the rights and control, and the laws spell out what the citizens can do.
or
The citizens have all the rights and control, and the laws spell out what the government can do.

I always thought what makes America great is that our country is based on the latter principle.  Though lately it seems like we're straying dangerously close to the former.  I realize it seems oxymoronic to argue for our freedoms at the same time as proposing gun restrictions, but we do that kind of thing all the time.  We give up certain rights for the common good and general safety.  I'm not able to set off industrial fireworks in my backyard, I'm not able to own a flamethrower or rocket launcher, I'm not allowed to fire a gun into the air in celebration, and I'm not allowed to drive drunk because it could hurt other people.

If a parent leaves their car keys around and a 7 year old grabs them and goes for a joyride, I think the car owner is liable for either not watching their children, or for leaving something dangerous where a minor could get a hold of them.  It should be the same for guns (which are much more dangerous than cars) where if you don't secure them reasonably (could be just a single line of security.  A locked safe, or a trigger lock, SOMETHING besides leaving a loaded gun in a junk drawer with the safety off) the gun owner shares some liability for what happens.

(then again the supreme court struck down the DC handgun ban, with justices asking the lawyers if a home invader would kindly wait for someone to put on their reading glasses to enter a combination to a trigger lock.  That was definitely hilarious but I'm not sure about the implications.)

We give up our god-given rights so that we can live together safely.  If the 2nd amendment means that ABSOLUTELY NO laws can get in the way of owning weapons, and it spells out that we need the ability to be armed to defend ourselves from either tyranny or invaders, I just want someone to tell me why I can't own a rocket launcher, tank, attack helicopter, or nuclear bomb.  (in a time when muskets were the primary weapon for individuals and armies, the 2nd amendment made sense, but in today's world even assault rifles won't amount to much)
 
2013-02-20 01:29:14 PM  

guyinco6nito: Farkage: guyinco6nito: if you want to exercise your right to drive

You don't have a constitutional right to drive.  It's a privelage.

Wow Farkage, I must have been misunderstanding the United States!  I was under the impression that the government only has the right to restrict people based on the powers spelled out in the constitution.  Here I was thinking we are a free country where everything was legal unless explicitly prohibited by a constitutional law.

Now I realize that all the freedoms and rights I enjoy are really just temporary privileges the government allows me to have while I stay in line.
Thanks for the clarification!  ;-)


Yeah, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and I really can't tell if you're trying to be serious or not...  The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you rights, it limits what the government can do.  From day 1 the courts have found that driving isn't a right.  You have a right to travel (which they can't prohibit in the "show me your papers" sense), but driving has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-02-20 08:55:44 PM  

Where wolf: omeganuepsilon: phalaeo: BigBurrito: FTA: "To me, 10- and 11-year-olds do bad things," he said. "They throw rocks through windows. They shoot BB guns at people's cars. They hit people with sticks, they set a cat on fire. Those are things that children do. But this was a plot to kill."

Is this really a thing? Cats on fire? What the hell is wrong with people.

Came in here to point this out.  Setting a cat on fire is just a thing children do?

Some, yes.  Kids to an insurmountable amount of stupid shiat because they don't have a sense of what will happen, and a complete lack of a sense of repercussion, backed by insatiable curiosity.  Same with toys up the nose or a million other retarded things.

Can't even say it's particularly psychotic unless it's an older child.  The indicator for that is how they feel afterward.

No, I'm going to disagree and say setting a cat on fire is a bad thing.  At 10/11, a kid has touched a stove and learned that fire hurts.  Applying that fire to another creature is not something that comes out of curosity. I might believe setting ants on fire with a magnifying glass was "something kids do," but even then, where are you going to find a magnifying glass these days?


Whatever.  Prove it without use of morality granted by religion or cat lovers.

Curiosity did kill the cat after all.

As to the ants.  What would you say if I were to say it were morally no different, setting a cat on fire and setting an ant on fire. I know many people that will kill many an animal with gleeful abandon, sometimes slowly.  Why does a cat get a special sanction?

Because you love them?  We poison, even mammals, by the millions if not billions each year.  Quite an industry. That poison makes them die to death by bleeding from every orifice to include the teeth, or they get caught in a trap and starve to death in some forgotten location.

Why do mice, rats, and whatever other creature not get that special exemption?

What about fish, some of them we spear on a hook and hold them out to get swallowed alive as bait.  Do the same with worms.

Where's your rantings and ravings on how that is all wrong?

Seriously, we eat unfertilized eggs from chickens and other life forms, slay all variety of sentient life to eat, in some places even cats. In many cases we slay for the pure enjoyment of it all.

Besides.  Typically, the kid that tries to set the cat on fire merely singes it in a small spot with a stealth approach and a bic.

If you've got some unbalanced kid with a 5 gallon bucket of gasoline, that's a different story, obviously.  Kid will probably darwin himself.

In that case, the method is indicative of mental issues.
 
Displayed 8 of 208 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report