RMurphy

Not unless the discussion turns political. Thus far, I have not seen anything of that nature; however, it is entirely possible that I missed something as I am human. Thankfully Jim is also available, as are the Site Moderators and the Admins -- all/any of us can move a thread if it's a problem.

Did I miss something that was political here?

ralper

No, you didn't miss anything political. This is a good discussion, leave it here.

ralper

I've heard mention that the parents should be brought up on charges. What would you charge them with?

I know that people are mentioning that the 9 year old is scarred for life. I wonder if she even fully comprehends what happened.

RedY2KS2k

As was stated earlier, full auto weapons manufactured before a certain date are legal to own, they just require expensive paperwork. I can go to a local club/range and rent a couple of automatic weapons, for some (by my standards) obscene cost and the cost of a bunch of ammunition. They even periodically have machine gun shoots where I could fire a Browning .30 cal machine gun from a tripod, for a price. I've seen a Thompson submachine gun for sale there, listed at North of $25k. These represent no threat to us, because someone determined to kill large numbers of Americans can find other means for less money and paperwork.

This is the second such "accident" reported in the media over the last few years. How the hell do you let a child fire a full magazine on full auto before they have demonstrated control over a 3 or 5 round magazine? If they can't control the recoil from 3 or 5 rounds, what would you expect when given 20 or 30 rounds?

Prior to 1936 there were absolutely no restrictions on what Americans could own. Since then, the Feds have always avoided the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.

RMurphy

Aye-aye, cap'n.

Since it wasn't you who said he thought the thread was going to be moved to Politics, I would kind of rather hear from the person who suggested it should/would be moved if he saw something political.


I don't wonder. At nine years old, a person can comprehend what it means to shoot a hole clear through someone's head and kill them, accidentally or not. And the aftermath (people's immediate responses at the moment, then paramedics, police, etc) had to have been pretty intense as well. Something this traumatic, no... I don't think she will forget it.

RedY2KS2k

Given the amount of blood likely involved, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, as a society we need to tread lightly when it comes to declaring a parent unfit and their child a ward of the state. Just one man's opinion...

ralper

I hope you're right but I'm not so sure.

RMurphy

I don't think I said anything about the parents. I just said that I think the girl will never forget it and that a nine year old can definitely comprehend what it means to shoot a hole through someone's head and kill them. Ralper asked something about what charges the parents could face (I'm paraphrasing), but I didn't respond to that question. If your comment is in regards to *his* question, then I see why you made that comment.


I hope you're right but I'm not so sure.
[/quote]

I'm sure you must mean something other than what I'm reading (that you hope she never forgets it). I would wish beyond all else that the little girl could forget the horror of knowing she was in any way, shape, or form, involved in the death of another human being. I could never hope that a young person would remember in vivid detail such an event. But unfortunately, something that traumatic, it's unlikely she will forget it.

ralper

I'm sure you must mean something other than what I'm reading (that you hope she never forgets it). I would wish beyond all else that the little girl could forget the horror of knowing she was in any way, shape, or form, involved in the death of another human being. I could never hope that a young person would remember in vivid detail such an event. But unfortunately, something that traumatic, it's unlikely she will forget it.
[/quote]
No, no. You've got it all wrong.

What I mean is I don't think that she completely understands or comprehends what happened. I simply don't think that a 9 year old has the ability, or experience to fully comprehend the meaning of death (or life) or even what happened.

I personally don't think that she'll be scarred for life, partly because people that young have the ability to recover from trauma much better than older people, but mostly because I truly don't think that at her age she actually fully understands what happened or what it means.

RMurphy

Well, I have never met the girl, nor have I any vast amount of expertise in child psychology. However, the few journal entries I read seem to indicate that she is past the age when most children are anticipated to have what is apparently defined as a "mature understanding" of the four key components of death.

"The majority of studies suggest that by age seven most children have achieved a mature understanding of the four key components. This finding will provide a useful guideline for individuals working with children around death-related issues, although a particular child's understanding will need to be determined on an individual basis."

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mfr/4919...;view=fulltext

Sadly, she might still be young enough to blame herself for this tragedy, just like many children unfairly blame themselves for their parents getting divorced, etc.