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.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Fifteen-year-old boy who murdered two people with a handgun got the weapon from his father, who took him gun shopping and let him pick out which gun he wanted. Naturally police have arrested the father   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 67
    More: Florida, handguns, Osceola County  
•       •       •

10130 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 9:17 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-20 07:19:14 PM
11 votes:
Makes sense to me. He enabled someone to be irresponsible with a gun he owned. Imagine of the dad had let his son drive the dad's car without a license and the kid ended up intentionally running someone over with it?
2013-08-20 07:28:15 PM
9 votes:
The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.
2013-08-20 07:28:03 PM
6 votes:
We should start doing the same to the "parents" of kids who accidentally kill themselves with guns they find laying around.
2013-08-20 09:39:56 PM
5 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.
2013-08-20 07:28:34 PM
5 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: Makes sense to me. He enabled someone to be irresponsible with a gun he owned. Imagine of the dad had let his son drive the dad's car without a license and the kid ended up intentionally running someone over with it?


I agree.  He should never have done it in the first place, and he should have locked the gun in a safe the moment he fund out the kid was sneaking it out of the house to go shooting.

That said...  Lothar?  Konrad?  Are they white supremacists, or recent German immigrants?
2013-08-20 08:14:07 PM
4 votes:
Fark that. Charge the dad with felony murder.
2013-08-20 10:05:14 PM
3 votes:

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


Why not?
I'd say this is, at best, a case of straw purchasing. The BATFE should be all over the father when he admits to buying a gun for his underaged kid AND letting him use it unsupervised.  Not calling the cops when he knew the son was out shooting people, and not properly securing the weapon when he knew his son was taking it, that's aiding a crime right there.
There's all kinds of criminality in the fathers actions that enabled his son to kill people.
Both of them should be dragged in front a Judge and Jury.

/For the record, being pro-gun doesn't mean you're in favor of criminal activity.
/Its the fact that some people don't want to be victimised that drives them to arm up in the first place.
/This man was letting his kid carry on like a hoodlum.  He's got to answer for that.
2013-08-20 09:45:27 PM
3 votes:

MFAWG: I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.


I've been a police officer and a owner of both handguns and rifles (I currently don't own any firearms as I sold them all when I moved to a nicer area).  I think it's ok to teach a kid about firearms (that they're dangerous, not to point a gun at a person, it's not a toy, etc).  My son watched me clean my handguns on the kitchen table when he was around 12.  Showed him how to handle a weapon (how to check if it's empty, clear it before handing it to someone else, etc)...but even then, I didn't take him shooting.

Personally, I don't think it's ok to take a first grader shooting a handgun.  I always kept my handguns locked up in a safe or with a trigger lock (I haven't hunted since before he was born so I haven't owned a rifle in more than 20 years).  I don't have a problem with parents taking their kids hunting around 12 or so...depending upon the maturity of the kid...it can be a cool bonding experience.  My son wasn't especially responsible (at least to my liking) and I stopped hunting before he was born.  As a result, I didn't take him target shooting with a handgun until he was a junior in high school (we rented).  He was brought up with a healthy respect for weapons.  Now he's 19 and in the Navy...he's definitely responsible (and a good shot).

I think what the father did in this case was recklessly irresponsible...his reckless disregard led to the murder of 2 people.
2013-08-20 09:39:51 PM
3 votes:
If your kid claims to be having trouble with other people around town, and your apparently only solution is to buy him a carbine and 100 rounds, then I question both your parenting and conflict-resolution skills.

Also, your kid might be a homicidal psychopath. You might want to look into that.
2013-08-20 09:37:29 PM
3 votes:
Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.
2013-08-20 07:52:56 PM
3 votes:
Hey Subby:

The man is accused of knowingly allowing his son to take a weapon from his home to shoot people with, not purchasing a weapon.

Purchasing a weapon for your son = totes legalsies

Letting your child remove your weapon from your property to repeatedly commit murder = totes not legalsies

Read the farking article
2013-08-20 07:41:19 PM
3 votes:

doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?


Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

2.bp.blogspot.com

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.
2013-08-21 01:33:17 AM
2 votes:

b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Walking to the bus stop, apparently.
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 10:24:38 PM
2 votes:
Gun or no gun, if you're too damn incompetent ot too damn lazy to teach your kid right from wrong, you should face charges when he kills someone. Enjoy prison, you assclown.
2013-08-20 10:11:01 PM
2 votes:

inglixthemad: LordJiro: Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?

Yeah, I admit I kinda went a bit extreme. I'd say "Locking your doors, with the gun out of sight" would be safe enough, unless you live in a REALLY shiatty neighborhood.

Black letter law says that if he secured the house, as the 'sole occupant', he is indemnified. Now 'sole occupant' can apply to a multi-family residence (apartment building) providing that separate locks exist for each occupant to secure their own space. At that point, the weapon does need to be in their own 'secured space' for the indemnity.

Also, I know people that are farmers. They possess ammonium-nitrate and diesel fuel (in large quantities) on their property. Are you going to blame them if someone steals a bunch to make a fertilizer bomb while they're at a wedding?

You can't hold someone responsible for the actions of a random person. The only reason dad is on the hook here is he didn't secure the weapon from a minor in his household. He has a parental responsibility for his child.


I think knowledge his kid was farking around and failure to properly secure the weapon after might have something to do with it.
2013-08-20 09:44:33 PM
2 votes:

WTFDYW: Still nothing on FARK about the teens that shot the jogger because they were bored. And NO. this guy should not have been arrested. the kid should have.


You're off you meds. I'm very pro-Second Amendment and this father knowingly armed his minor
son with full - or at least constructive - knowledge that the kid intended to use it on others. This goes beyond mere bad parenting.
2013-08-20 09:40:18 PM
2 votes:
OhioUGrad: I'm going to become a hobbit.

/maybe just invest in a bullet proof vest


it's called Mithril, and I doubt you have enough dough.
2013-08-20 09:30:27 PM
2 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.
2013-08-20 09:28:16 PM
2 votes:

Doktor_Zhivago: Hey Subby:

The man is accused of knowingly allowing his son to take a weapon from his home to shoot people with, not purchasing a weapon.

Purchasing a weapon for your son = totes legalsies

Letting your child remove your weapon from your property to repeatedly commit murder = totes not legalsies

Read the farking article


actually purchasing a weapon for your son is only legal if you are tthe "actual" owner and he has access to the weapon except under your supervision.
2013-08-20 09:23:37 PM
2 votes:
If your child is under 18 you are in fact responsible for his farkups. Did you know that juvi charges by the day like it's a goddam hotel? A month is rather expensive.

/he got better
2013-08-20 07:41:01 PM
2 votes:
Yes - parents are responsible for what their underage children do. Whether that's throwing a fit in a restaurant or cold blooded murder.
2013-08-21 01:16:33 AM
1 votes:

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
2013-08-21 12:08:56 AM
1 votes:

Fubini: I should also point out that bumpfiring doesn't really increase the lethality of a weapon. Even with a special stock, it takes too much precision to be performed in a life-or-death situation. If you did get it to work you'd just end up with a wildly inaccurate and jam-prone weapon.


Another way to say this is that with a burst-fire weapon you're not used to you'll usually land the first shot and lose the rest of the burst.  The difference with bump firing is that you'll miss the first shot too, and it doesn't matter whether you're used to it or not because you're intentionally holding the weapon in a way that farks accuracy up the arse sideways with a pile driver.

It's basically worth trying if there's a bear literally chewing on your boot.  I wouldn't use it in a self-defense situation (or a murder, I guess) even if I was literally in barrel-whip range.

Or, to put it in even shorter terms, this is the long-arm version of aiming by holding the pistol sideways over your head with your wrist loose... and then carrying it in the waistband of your sweats just over your penis.
2013-08-21 12:04:44 AM
1 votes:
If you want to know anything about firearms, I found this amazing tool.  They call it the googles or some hipster shiat like that, you can find it here  http://www.google.com .  If you want to legislate something you know nothing about, you are the worst kind of ignorant asshole, a willfully ignorant asshole.
2013-08-20 11:49:00 PM
1 votes:
I spent a month in Australia during the Sydney Olympics. I had numerous natives query me on the gun culture of the US ( as if I was an expert). I did my best to explain.


A star athlete being shot like a carnival target.....no words.

This will work wonders for the US's international rep.

/sucks all around
2013-08-20 11:16:52 PM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

And how would you find out who that weapon belonged to? That might involve some form of registration and we all know that while our hobbyist friends are terribly keen on protecting their rights, many go soft when it comes to accepting any responsibility or accountability.


Quit being a biatch unless you support registration of each bullet/brass combo. I mean like, identifying marks and such.

Because registration on a tube doesn't mean fark all..
2013-08-20 11:09:14 PM
1 votes:
...I'm a pretty big gun rights advocate, but that dad was clearly an irresponsible moron.
2013-08-20 11:00:03 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

A car is a practical necessity for most of the country to get to work, buy groceries, and generally deal with the challenges of life.  Cars are also built primarily for transportation.  Guns, on the other hand, are not a necessity for the vast majority of people (only law enforcement, license security, and the military) and are primarily designed to kill.  Cars != guns.

I'd be willing to concede an exception if the weapon is reported stolen, but require that it be reported stolen immediately upon the owner discovering such, so, if you can prove you were on vacation or a business trip it doesn't kick it until you get home, but if you were home that night and didn't call, you're out of luck.

I'd also promote mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners, yearly license/registration fees charged for each weapon owned, and requiring all gun owners to register their weapons and upon doing so agree to surprise inspections of their storage practices from law enforcement (Germany does this, and it seems to work well for them).

If that means some people can't afford to own guns or get so fed up with the hassle and expense that they decide not to own guns, all the better, it means less guns floating around.


"Cars != guns"
So what if someone stole a knife from my house and committed a crime with it? A baseball bat? A crossbow?

What if my front door was locked and dead bolted and someone stole my gun? Surely that's safe enough, right? I mean, it's pretty clear that a locked and dead bolted door says "do not enter my property."

How is it the fault of the legal owner of a thing that someone else stole his property and commits a crime?

"Germany, surprise home inspections"

Germany != the US. Last I checked, Germany didn't have a right to bear arms in its constitution.

Again, if you want to repeal the second amendment, get your talking points in order and go for it. That's your right in a democracy and I have no problem with it.

Instead, you admittedly want to nickel and dime gun owners out of their constitutional rights. That, I have a problem with.

You also want to set up a situation which will disproportionately disenfranchise poor people over rich people.

That, I have a BIG problem with. Are you racist, or do you just think poor people are too prone to crime to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights?
2013-08-20 10:59:47 PM
1 votes:

poot_rootbeer: OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: Cars != guns.

That is correct.  One is a Constitutionally protected Right.  The other isn't.

Which is more important to Americans' economy and livelihood?


The Constitution.
2013-08-20 10:58:41 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.

/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.


Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.
2013-08-20 10:54:39 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?


Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.

/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.
2013-08-20 10:43:34 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?

Holy crap, really?


Lets look at some of the more pertinent amendments from bill of rights.

1st: Freedom of Speech. Hate speech is proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases it incites violence and discord among citizens. Therefore, every citizen must pay an additional $500 to purchase a free speech permit before utilizing these rights.

2nd: Guns are proven to be detrimental to society. In the worst cases, they are used to commit crimes and murders. Therefore, everyone must pay an additional $500 to purchase a gun safe to utilize these rights, even in cases where are gun safe is not needed.

4th: Search and seizures have a proven beneficial effect on society. They allow police to catch criminals and put violators behind bars. Therefore, you must pay and additional $500 to purchase your "unreasonable search and seizure exemption" to exercise your rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

5th: Rights in criminal cases are detrimental to society. They allow known murderers to walk free on technicalities. Therefore, you must pay $500 for a "criminal rights exemption" in order to exercise these rights.

6th: Fair trials are detrimental to society, just as criminal rights are, because they allow known criminals to walk free on technicalities. Therefore, you must purchase these rights for an additional $500 on top of a lawyer. No excuses - if you can afford a lawyer, $500 is not too much to pay.

7th: civil cases are burdensome to the judicial process and can be proven to have a disproportionate case load on judges and lawyers. Therefore, to exercise your rights to bring a civil suit against someone, you must pay and additional $500 above and beyond any filing and lawyers fees. No excuses - if you can afford to bring a civil case, you can afford $500.


Now, which of these are you OK with? Which are you not?

And are you OK with the fact that in every single instance listed, access to your rights is based upon a financial fee and this would disproportionately affect blacks versus whites per capita?

Really, I have no problem if you want to repeal the second amendment. Get your talking points in order, and go for it. That's your right in a democracy.

But until the second amendment is repealed, stop trying to nickel and dime gun owners out of their constitutional rights with excessive fees and requirements like "you have to own a gun safe to own a gun."

Just because YOU don't care about your rights, doesn't mean that others don't.
2013-08-20 10:43:09 PM
1 votes:

poot_rootbeer: There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this.

If the kid hadn't got a firearm and ammunition from his father, he probably just would have got one from somewhere else or shot those people with a knife or something


Well there are stories like this one of a few teens ganging up on an innocent and killing them, and often involve other weapons than guns.  No one ever went after the dad who bought his kid a ball bat that was used to club a kid to death.

However, in cases involving guns the dad should be locked up.  That gun should've stayed in a gun safe till dad took him to a range.  But don't think these kids couldn't have killed without a gun, for it is more about the mentality than the weapon on hand.
2013-08-20 10:39:07 PM
1 votes:
WTF is wrong with people! My son has a pellet rifle that he doesn't use without me present. That father should be charged with accessory to murder.
2013-08-20 10:37:51 PM
1 votes:

theflatline: JosephFinn: Supplied a minor with an illegal weapon.  Both he and the shop owner should be arrested.

Father bought it in his name, took it home.   Gun shop owner has nothing to do with this.

Do you think if a father bought his son a Ford pickup and the kid used it to run over people, that the dealership needs to be sued?  Or if my father buys a knife from Macys, and I stab someone with it, Macy's is responsible?


If the kid had already purposely ran over someone with that Ford pickup and the father didn't take away the damn keys, then yeah.

The gun dealer, however, can't be held at fault so long as it was sold legally.
2013-08-20 10:31:02 PM
1 votes:
My father started me shooting at six with a ppk at the local gun range.

At age 10 I was given a .177 crossman air rifle that shot pellets or bbs.

At age 12 I was given a 22, single shot, that was bolt action, but you it had a spring loaded firing pin, so you had to chamber the round and pull back the spring loaded bolt with the firing pin.  Literally 2 minutes between shots.

At 13 I qualified as a Sharpshooter with the NRA.

I never shot anyone.  I do not hunt.

At 22 I bought a Glock.  Kept it for a month before selling it, realizing that it was bad news if I carried it.  Since dad sent the whole family through the concealed carry course.

Ironically of our dead-eye family, mom is rated as an Expert.  But that is due to her father giving her a bow as a six year old and her uncanny eye site.

I have 2 lightweight 38s in the house with shaved hammers and plastic handles.  They are both hidden in false panels, one upstairs and the other downstairs.

It takes a responsible citizen and training to learn how to own and handle fire arms but the small percentage that does not use them correctly tarnish it for the rest of us.
2013-08-20 10:30:22 PM
1 votes:
There's nothing that could have been done to prevent this.

If the kid hadn't got a firearm and ammunition from his father, he probably just would have got one from somewhere else or shot those people with a knife or something
2013-08-20 10:23:24 PM
1 votes:

Elegy: TuteTibiImperes: Absolutely I would think you should bear some liability if your gun was used in a crime, even if it was stolen from your home, your vehicle, or taken from you while you were carrying concealed.  If that liability seems like too much for some people, maybe they will reconsider owning guns.  Depending on the circumstances I could see civil vs criminal penalties, but the threat of a weapon being stolen is reason enough to own a gun safe.  If you can't afford a gun safe, you can't afford a gun.

First, you're farking insane. In this hypothetical, you want to arrest me, the victim of a crime, for no other reason than being the victim of a crime.

So if someone stills my car and commits a crime with it, am I liable even though the doors were locked.

Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.

Congratulations, you just priced poor people out of the market. Since many black people are poor, you also disenfranchised a significant percentage of African-Americans out of their constitutional rights, while allowing white people to purchase access to the same rights.

What's next, a poll-tax, you racist fark?


Holy crap, really?
2013-08-20 10:18:18 PM
1 votes:

FrancoFile: Ishkur: 69gnarkill69: An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Fun stat:

Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.

Except that it's not a Gaussian distribution.

If you live and work in low-crime areas, and do not have a gun in the house, your odds of being shot are much, much, much less.


Just don't live for 500 years.
2013-08-20 10:18:10 PM
1 votes:
"Lothar" and "Konrad"?? Good lord, just their NAMES scare me!
2013-08-20 10:16:09 PM
1 votes:
After getting more details, I think the father should be charged as an accessory to murder.
2013-08-20 10:16:09 PM
1 votes:
No that isn't a bump fire stock....no it isn't a submachine gun.  No it isn't any type of assault weapon.  Most all full size semi-auto centerfire pistols these days pack more firepower than this firearm you ignorant dolts are freaking out about.

It is a high point carbine

That thing is basically the bottom rung of the firearms spectrum.  It is make of plastic and the pot metal used in die cast cars, uses a blowback design that makes a heavy and cumbersome action, and is basically something that an idiot who doesn't have much money buys to look like a mall ninja.

They aren't crap and are generally reliable, cheap, and have a good factory warranty.  However it is of no real practical use for much of anything.  I sold one I picked up on a trade (gen 1 even uglier than that one) for $150 about 2 years ago.
2013-08-20 10:15:43 PM
1 votes:
The kid got his pick of guns and he goes with a Hi-Point?
2013-08-20 10:11:10 PM
1 votes:
I see Fark goes full retard at night...
2013-08-20 10:08:14 PM
1 votes:
Before allowing your child to handle a firearm, you must first ask yourself, "is this person responsible enough to be trusted with a deadly weapon?"   Sometimes the answer is yes, even as young as 8 years old (with adult supervision).  Sometimes the answer is no, no matter how old the child is.  My stepdaughter fell into the latter group.  Which is why I kept my firearms locked up securely.  I'm pretty damn sure if she had access to them, she would have done something not just stupid, but possibly fatal to someone.

No matter how responsible the person is, however, so long as that person is a minor, they must always have adult supervision when handling a gun.  No farking exceptions.  EVER.
2013-08-20 10:01:20 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Tellingthem: And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.

I'm not blaming video games nor am I saying this kid got the idea from playing video games (who knows if he even plays video games). I'm just noting the similarities: This specific kid had such an appalling disregard for firearms and their lethal consequences that he literally went out and killed people in the middle of the farking street, GTA style. Almost as if expecting them to pop right back up and re-spawn with a health boost or something.

I've never heard of any gun crime like that before. This kid is seriously sick in the head.


I bet it was movies more than anything.

24.media.tumblr.com
2013-08-20 10:01:03 PM
1 votes:
Death sentence for the kid, 10-20 years for dad.
2013-08-20 10:00:45 PM
1 votes:
Good. I'm all for gun rights, but I'm more in favor of parenting.
2013-08-20 09:55:42 PM
1 votes:

Elegy: But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS.  If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.  Because that is what you did by not securing it in a way where anyone able to pry open a door or window could not get at it.
2013-08-20 09:54:59 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


The Hi-Point Carbine doesn't qualify as an assault rifle under any definition of the term unless "scary & black" is the new definition for assault rifle.

Anywho, the dad should be arrested just for getting a Hi-point.
2013-08-20 09:54:41 PM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: And you know somebody will blame video games for it. Oh well what can you do? Ban the games!...ban the guns!...ban everything! Just the same old stuff spewing back and forth.


I'm not blaming video games nor am I saying this kid got the idea from playing video games (who knows if he even plays video games). I'm just noting the similarities: This specific kid had such an appalling disregard for firearms and their lethal consequences that he literally went out and killed people in the middle of the farking street, GTA style. Almost as if expecting them to pop right back up and re-spawn with a health boost or something.

I've never heard of any gun crime like that before. This kid is seriously sick in the head.
IP
2013-08-20 09:52:19 PM
1 votes:
[imokaywiththis.jpg]
2013-08-20 09:51:20 PM
1 votes:

freetomato: Am I supposed to be outraged? My reaction:

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 180x120]


Bears/grumpycats repeating.

/subby really thought there is something wrong or unusual about this?
2013-08-20 09:50:52 PM
1 votes:

b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.



Two teens charged with murdering Melbourne baseball player Chris Lane

Seems there's a lot of that going around these days.
2013-08-20 09:46:28 PM
1 votes:

Elegy: You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


If psychopaths like these broke into your house and stole your guns you wouldnt be around to be arrested the next day.
2013-08-20 09:46:01 PM
1 votes:

69gnarkill69: sheep snorter: Dang it 'Murica. What happened to you that bored white kids keep going about and killing people because killing relieves the boredom.

Oh yea right.....
[i.imgur.com image 570x713]

An Australian baseball player out for a jog in an Oklahoma neighborhood was shot and killed by three "bored" teenagers who decided to kill someone for fun, police said.

Silly white kids.


*that's* the part you focused on?

Go back to /b/.
2013-08-20 09:42:46 PM
1 votes:
If your kid claims to be having trouble with people around town, and your apparently only solution is to take him out and buy him a carbine and 100 rounds, then you might need to work on both your parenting and conflict resolution skills. Also, your kid might be a homicidal psychopath. You might want to check into that.
2013-08-20 09:36:47 PM
1 votes:
This is why I oppose multiculturalism. Look at that gang.
2013-08-20 09:32:24 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


LOL that would mean people would have to take personal responsibility, and no one believes in THAT!
2013-08-20 09:29:00 PM
1 votes:
Am I supposed to be outraged? My reaction:

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-08-20 09:24:15 PM
1 votes:
The father should be arrested. What is the problem?
2013-08-20 09:21:24 PM
1 votes:

MFAWG: TuteTibiImperes: doglover: Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?

Googling around it appears this is what a Hi-Point .45 Carbine looks like:

And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.

An object for perspective would be nice.


www.gunpundit.com
2013-08-20 09:02:13 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


This. I've been advocating this for awhile now.

/with the mitigation that the weapon is reported missing or stolen prior to any illicit behavior committed with it
2013-08-20 08:45:49 PM
1 votes:
Looking at his cohorts, it appears his gang was multi-racial and had a female as well. Nice to see kids can cross ethnic and gender barriers to find common interests.
2013-08-20 08:43:42 PM
1 votes:
They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.
2013-08-20 07:53:22 PM
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.


You're walking the argument. He essentially let the son have access to it knowing it's illegal for a minor to have a handgun. That's world's different than a handgun being stolen from an owner and being used illegally.

TuteTibiImperes: And I thought all the gun nuts were assuring us that people didn't buy assault rifles to hunt and kill other people.


That's a dishonest statement, and you know it. The abusive taunt was just flare. It's as honest as saying gun control advocates believe banning guns will eliminate all murders.
2013-08-20 07:37:06 PM
1 votes:
Carbine = Handgun?

Are we going by the medieval definition where "handgun" means anything that doesn't require a sledge and oxen to move?
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report