Latest child shooting in US

Xavi6

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/760019/us-teen-charged-with-shooting-brother

US teen charged with shooting brother

08:53 AEST Wed Mar 4 2009

A 13-year-old boy has been charged with fatally shooting his 10-year-old brother after an argument over where to sit to watch a movie, authorities in the US state of South Carolina say.

Kershaw County Sheriff's Captain David Thomley said the teen shot his brother in the face on Monday.

US newspapers named the dead boy as Gayloyd Roberts.

The teen was charged on Tuesday with murder, but authorities weren't releasing his name because of his age.

Thomley said the boys and an eight-year-old sibling were home alone with their 15-year-old sister because school had been cancelled due to the threat of snow.

Authorities said the children's father had been charged with unlawful neglect because he left a loaded shotgun against a bedroom wall.

/snigger


Wonder if this sort of treatment could be adapted for the cinema and used on people whose phones ring.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Xavi6 wrote: »

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/760019/us-teen-charged-with-shooting-brother



/snigger


Wonder if this sort of treatment could be adapted for the cinema and used on people whose phones ring.

1 more gun death,
and still no deaths attributed to you know what

IvySlayer

Xavi6 wrote: »

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/760019/us-teen-charged-with-shooting-brother



/snigger


Wonder if this sort of treatment could be adapted for the cinema and used on people whose phones ring.

What film were they watching?

Shooter? Why do the leave out the important bits.

amacachi

Xzavier Juicy Radiologist wrote: »

1 more gun death,
and still no deaths attributed to you know what

Gravity? I know, it's one of nature's biggest killers.

papajimsmooth

Shotguns are for noobs

Manic Moran

Hmm...

A 13-year-old boy has been charged with fatally shooting his 10-year-old brother

<snip>

US newspapers named the dead boy as Gayloyd Roberts

<snip>

authorities weren't releasing his name

They've got to be kidding. How many people are there in South Carolina who have brothers named Gayloyd Roberts? Overheal? That's your neck of the woods, right?

NTM

Overheal

Hey I just live here. I don't have any ties here and don't know a damned thing.

You got to be real mean to call your kid Gaylord. Especially Gaylord Roberts. Gaylord Bobs? Anyone?

What a smart person to leave out a loaded shotgun though. Boy gee whiz, dumbass.

Zangetsu

When will ever learn

Professey Chin

Zangetsu wrote: »

When will ever learn

Who is this ever you speak of

EDIT: Post 1,000!!!!
Bow before me 3 digit people!!!I have less of a life then thee :pac:

acontadino

americans:rolleyes:

Zangetsu

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Who is this ever you speak of

EDIT: Post 1,000!!!!
Bow before me 3 digit people!!!I have less of a life then thee :pac:

I'll get my coat...

shqipshume

very sad
They never will learn there, lock up your guns and out of reach.

Manic Moran

shqipshume wrote: »

They never will learn there, lock up your guns and out of reach.

But if you do that, then you can't use them when you need them.

There should be a bit of a middle line, depending on where you are, how old your kid is, and so on.

NTM

Overheal

Unfortunately guns are a constitutional right. In comparison a Car and the ability to drive on public roads is Not a constitutional right, for which the State is allowed to impose licensing and an education requirement. Sadly any untrained idiot can own a gun.

Sam Vimes

Overheal wrote: »

Unfortunately guns are a constitutional right. In comparison a Car and the ability to drive on public roads is Not a constitutional right, for which the State is allowed to impose licensing and an education requirement. Sadly any untrained idiot can own a gun.

Isn't there supposed to be a part of the amendment that says you can own a gun as part of a militia for the purposes of overthrowing the government if it becomes necessary?

And if that's true isn't the amendment kind of being misinterpreted? I don't actually know if it's true mind

Pepe LeFrits

These days you'd need a small thermonuclear device to overthrow the government. That should be a constitutional right. Pick them up at Walmart along with the bog-roll.

giggsy664

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Who is this ever you speak of

EDIT: Post 1,000!!!!
Bow before me 3 digit people!!!I have less of a life then thee :pac:

Pppfff. N00B


Now I'd hate to be called Randy Gaylord.


Its a real name.

Really.

Overheal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Isn't there supposed to be a part of the amendment that says you can own a gun as part of a militia for the purposes of overthrowing the government if it becomes necessary?

And if that's true isn't the amendment kind of being misinterpreted? I don't actually know if it's true mind

This very issue came up in US Politics the other week:

All able bodied males who are citizens or who have declared an intention to become citizens of the US between the ages of 18 and 45, and are not members of the National Guard or Active Military are members of the Federal Militia. United States Code Title 10 Section 311.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055492378

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

These days you'd need a small thermonuclear device to overthrow the government. That should be a constitutional right. Pick them up at Walmart along with the bog-roll.

Originally all Thermonuclear devices were properties of the civilian operated Atomic Energy Comission, and the Military had to obtain permission for the use of all plutonium/uranium cores and their containers (bombs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Atomic_Energy_Commission

Since the 70s the AEC has been dissolved and nuclear responsibility now rests with the Department of Energy. The DoD still has to obtain the consent of the DoE for the use of nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy#Responsibility_for_nuclear_weapons

Civilian use of nuclear fuels (Power Plants, Waste management) is the responsibility of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Regulatory_Commission

Nuclear Materials are property of the State and The People, the Military does not have direct control of them. Sleep easier now?

javaboy

I intend to become a citizen of the US. So now I'm technically a member of the Federal Militia? Awesome! Pew pew!

FruitLover

Manic Moran wrote: »

But if you do that, then you can't use them when you need them.

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of times I was chilling out in my living room when suddenly I decided I needed a firearm!

Oh, wait...

Terry

IvySlayer wrote: »

What film were they watching?

Shooter? Why do the leave out the important bits.

It was a Michael Moore film. He showed them how to buy cheap ammo at walmart.

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Who is this ever you speak of

EDIT: Post 1,000!!!!
Bow before me 3 digit people!!!I have less of a life then thee :pac:

STFU 4 digit person.

javaboy wrote: »

I intend to become a citizen of the US. So now I'm technically a member of the Federal Militia? Awesome! Pew pew!

Lazers?

Anywho, the British are coming.
We all need to arm ourselves. The yanks have it right. Those Brits might invade here in the morning if given the chance. They will then spread their own version of democracy. We need guns to fight against that sort of possible oppression. We also might need guns to fight against the right wing religious nuts. Those people don't like anyone who doesn't agree with them, but they'll bomb your country to bits until you do agree. If you resist, then you are a rebel and an insurgent.

Arm yourselves, folks. The hysteria is coming.

Manic Moran

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

These days you'd need a small thermonuclear device to overthrow the government. That should be a constitutional right. Pick them up at Walmart along with the bog-roll.

Actually, I'm not convinced that there's a law in the US saying that they're illegal to own, if you fill out the right forms and get approval from the right agencies. People in the US owning fully functional tanks and artillery pieces is unremarkable, except for the cost, it's just a paperwork and approval process.

Of course, the cost is a bit of an issue when it comes to nukes. Most governments can't afford them, I doubt many people can. And that's assuming that ATF and DoE give approval, which I doubt they will.

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of times I was chilling out in my living room when suddenly I decided I needed a firearm!

I didn't say it was a frequent event. But when you need one, nothing else really will suffice in lieu. Frequency of use has nothing to do with suitability. For example, the only thing my smoke detectors have proven good for so far is waking me up at stupid o' clock in the morning when the things beep to let me know the batteries are running low. They've certainly not been used for a fire. Are you implying that because of the statistical unlikelihood of need, that I should simply stop buying batteries for the things?

Just like in Ireland, I have the right to defend myself in my home. Unlike in Ireland, the US and State government has not legislated away my ability to reliably exercise that right.

NTM

Orion

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

These days you'd need a small thermonuclear device to overthrow the government.

Or Jack Bauer :pac:

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just like in Ireland, I have the right to defend myself in my home. Unlike in Ireland, the US and State government has not legislated away my ability to reliably exercise that right.

NTM

I like to deter armed criminals with strongly worded, non-slanderous, critisism.
In the unlikely event of faIlure I unleash the ultimate power of righteous democracy and perform a non-violent citizens arrest.

FruitLover

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are you implying that because of the statistical unlikelihood of need, that I should simply stop buying batteries for the things?

While there may only very rarely be a need for a smoke alarm, there's very little consequence of having one even so. A child can't blow their brother's head off with a smoke alarm. But when you have a lethal weapon lying around (so I can get to it quickly!!!111oneone) then kids die.

kowloon

FruitLover wrote: »

While there may only very rarely be a need for a smoke alarm, there's very little consequence of having one even so. A child can't blow their brother's head off with a smoke alarm. But when you have a lethal weapon lying around (so I can get to it quickly!!!111oneone) then kids die.

Small parts, choking hazard? I don't know, I give up...

Helix

shot his brother in the face...

...a loaded shotgun

that wouldve left a mark

Cuddlesworth

Overheal wrote: »

Unfortunately guns are a constitutional right. In comparison a Car and the ability to drive on public roads is Not a constitutional right, for which the State is allowed to impose licensing and an education requirement. Sadly any untrained idiot can own a gun.

In 2005 motor related deaths in the States were 25.1% of the total injury/mortality rates. Poison was next with 18.8%. Guns took third place with a mean 17.7%.

Considering all the hoops to go through required with motoring and the fact it still ranks much higher as a cause of death would you still say the following hoops are needed for firearms?

Although after looking at the death related figures, all we need to do is sit back and wait. America seems to be sorting out the problem itself. We could speed things up by removing safety labels.

Mr.Lizard

It's just a case of the terrible teens. He'll grow out of shooting people in the face once he get to college ..... unless of course he goes Virginia Tech.

Gone Drinking

Kid1: Shotgun!

Kid2: what?

Kid1: I called shotgun, thats my seat!

Kid2: You can't call shotgun on a couch

Kid1: O RLY?