8-year-old boy intentionally shot and killed his elderly caregiver - Police

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Alfndrate**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

Duh. Maybe you should try reading the article and reflect on how sketchy the info about violent video games is in that article, as is the case with Sandy Hook. Of course we know there's a well-funded lobby springs into action every time a kid shoots someone, to say it's really the fault of a video game and not the firearm. Yet we have violent video games in the UK, and not too many kids shoot their granny.

So the blame is purely on the gun and not on the fact that it was easily accessible and the child was playing video games above his maturity level?

Also KK, this wasn't done with an "assault rifle", it was .38 caliber pistol, so I think this has less to do with the "gun mentality" of America and more with the failings of the parent/caregiver.

Edit: Link where I got info about the gun that was used from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/8-year-old-boy-played-violent-video-game-killed-90-year-old-woman-charged-cops-article-1.1435828

**Dreadclaw69**

KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.

I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

In some strange chance that my safe pops open, and the locked closet falls apart creating a light of awesome showing my children where the firearms are, they have STILL been taught how dangerous firearms can be and that they have no business touching them when Im not present. My children know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that what that kid did was wrong, dangerous and stupid. Its as simple as teaching them between right and wrong, and setting boundaries that they know they should never cross.

Im not saying my kids are on a higher standing or anything, because I know they are not perfect, but for gak sakes, teaching a child rules and them knowing punishment is abound when they break them is all it takes. Unless the kid is a frigging psychopath. Then Im sorry but there isnt much you can do with crazy

I agree 100% that this is on the parents. When I worked retail and 10 year olds were coming up to buy GTA I'd refuse unless a parent was there in person and said that they were buying the game. If they asked what was in the game I'd tell them, and many parents would lead the child away by the hand and tell them to pick something else. There were always those parents that didn't care and just wanted the kid to shut up and leave them alone.
Second of all the gun owner should have been more responsible. A firearm, especially one that is loaded, should never be within easy reach of a child. That child should also know the dangers of a firearm and know that they should never play with it. Ever.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The obsession with "assault weapons" on both sides of the gun debate is an indicator of the change in the psychological drives for weapon ownership.

The fact that this incident featured a pistol, and not an "assault rifle" aside I, like many others, am still waiting for a definition of the term "assault rifle" that keeps getting thrown around. Right now the de facto definition seems to be; a regular semi-auto rifle that looks tacti-cool.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

I'm certainly not saying the UK is perfect. But the chances of being killed by a gun are minimal. Whether by a gang, or by accident.

As for the US, the argument about the guns already out there is made repeatedly. But it's rather like the argument about giving up smoking: what's the point, when I've probably done all the damage already?

A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. A single step here might be to allow things like research into gun safety - research which, IIRC, firearms advocates managed to forbid, several decades back.

Years ago, research showed american kids were around 10 times more likely to die from firearms accidents than kids in other developed countries. But now the gun lobby actively tries to discourage or ban real research, simply so they can blame other factors. Like video games.

**Soladrin**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
I'm certainly not saying the UK is perfect. But the chances of being killed by a gun are minimal. Whether by a gang, or by accident.

As for the US, the argument about the guns already out there is made repeatedly. But it's rather like the argument about giving up smoking: what's the point, when I've probably done all the damage already?

A journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. A single step here might be to allow things like research into gun safety - research which, IIRC, firearms advocates managed to forbid, several decades back.

Years ago, research showed american kids were around 10 times more likely to die from firearms accidents than kids in other developed countries. But now the gun lobby actively tries to discourage or ban real research, simply so they can blame other factors. Like video games.

That's not how smoking works. If you quit the damage is completely revertable.

And while I agree with you that they have too many guns over there, I'd say it's mainly because it simply increases the chances of accidents to happen. I'm pretty sure the correlation between lega fire arms and crime was debunked a while ago. Wasn't it something like 1% of crimes were committed with legal fire arms? (correct me if I'm wrong, I read this months ago)

**whembly**

Avatar 720 wrote:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

Did you actually read the OP instead of just the thread title? The entire article posted tries to link the killing to video games (GTA IV in particular). We are discussing the article presented, you should try it.

Duh. Maybe you should try reading the article and reflect on how sketchy the info about violent video games is in that article, as is the case with Sandy Hook. Of course we know there's a well-funded lobby springs into action every time a kid shoots someone, to say it's really the fault of a video game and not the firearm. Yet we have violent video games in the UK, and not too many kids shoot their granny.

We do, however, have random shootings pretty much every week or so. Gun crime, whilst less of a problem here, still isn't solved by illegalising weapons.

You're trying to shift the blame onto the prevalence of the weapons themselves, rather than where it rightly belongs, for example with the mental state of the shooter, the upbringing of the shooter, the carelessness of the owner etc.

Illegalising guns in America would solve a lot of the cases of accidental shootings, but it would be only cutting the head off the hydra; the potential owners would still be careless, people would still be mentally ill, it would not cut at the heart of issue whatsoever. If the heart of the issue is tackled instead, then there shouldn't be a need to illegalise guns - accidental shootings would fall by themselves. Purposeful or gang violence would be likely unaffected either way, since it's doubtful they'd abide by the law anyway, so illegalising guns wouldn't stop them.

Here... have an internet cookiez...erm... exalt!

What he said guys!

**d-usa**

Games can cause this kind of thing. That is why they do have ratings on them. Which don' t do jack when somebody buys a game for an 8 year old and lets them play it. More regulations on video-games are not going to fix that, it's stupid parenting.

More gun regulations are also not going to fix this. Requiring 200 hours of safety training, $1000 safety bond for insurance, 6 months waiting period, a 3 round magazine, a trigger lock, and a gun safe isn't going to do anything when somebody goes through all of this and then leaves the gun out where a kid can reach it.

Heck, an illegally purchased fully-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine that is actually locked in a gun-safe is safer than a legally owned single shot .22 pistol that is left out in the open.

Video games can be dangerous and damage young minds. That's why they have ratings. Guns can be dangerous, that's why we have gun laws. Idiots letting an 8 year old have access to both are always going to undermine whatever laws we might pass.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Games can cause this kind of thing. That is why they do have ratings on them. Which don' t do jack when somebody buys a game for an 8 year old and lets them play it. More regulations on video-games are not going to fix that, it's stupid parenting.

More gun regulations are also not going to fix this. Requiring 200 hours of safety training, $1000 safety bond for insurance, 6 months waiting period, a 3 round magazine, a trigger lock, and a gun safe isn't going to do anything when somebody goes through all of this and then leaves the gun out where a kid can reach it.

Heck, an illegally purchased fully-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine that is actually locked in a gun-safe is safer than a legally owned single shot .22 pistol that is left out in the open.

Video games can be dangerous and damage young minds. That's why they have ratings. Guns can be dangerous, that's why we have gun laws. Idiots letting an 8 year old have access to both are always going to undermine whatever laws we might pass.

And this is pretty much the crux of the matter - responsibility. The person who bought the game, the gun owner, and the parents (if all different individuals) were under a duty of care. And each of them failed miserably with the result that someone lost their life.

**DeathReaper**

azazel the cat wrote:
Well there's no point in creating mandatory safety courses and storage laws for firearms, because an 8-year-old that wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun no matter what.

A gun locker, with a proper lock will prevent "an 8-year-old that wants a gun" from getting said guns...

**Seaward**

DeathReaper wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Well there's no point in creating mandatory safety courses and storage laws for firearms, because an 8-year-old that wants a gun is going to be able to get a gun no matter what.

A gun locker, with a proper lock will prevent "an 8-year-old that wants a gun" from getting said guns...

Not if the gun isn't put in it.

**SilverMK2**

Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

**djones520**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

djones520 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

Thanks for those numbers djones, could I bug you for a source for my own use later?

Also I'm glad we both agree on this particular issue!

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

**djones520**

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm

This was just in regards to children deaths I believe. Children accidentally shooting adults are rare, but happen as well. There was at least one instance in Michigan last year were a kid accidental killed his father while they were hunting.

But yeah, statistically, the number is small. It just tugs at the heart strings more because kids are involved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Not if the gun isn't put in it.

Seatbelts won't help you if you don't wear them. The goal isn't just to have a seatbelt in every car, but to give a cultural nudge to ensure that people want to wear seatbelts and back that up with punishment for those found not wearing seatbelts. Now it is rare indeed for someone to be in a car without being belted up (at least in the West) and there is a real negative attitude to be found whenever anyone says they travel without using one.

So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

Latest stat I could find was 122 deaths, and about 3000 shootings in the US. In comparison nearly 1,000 children die each year in unintentional drownings.

So yeah, sad it happens, but unless we want to start mandating padlocks on all swimming pools...

Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

Illinois is definitely a nanny-state in swimming regards. It's illegal to go swimming without adult supervision until your are 17 here.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:

Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

Huh... child endangerment/negligence happens all the time:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/local/la-me-ln-arrest-san-diego-shooting-boy-20130619
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8743602
http://www.pomeradonews.com/2013/06/19/gun-owner-arrested-in-boy%E2%80%99s-accidental-shooting-death/

Sure, there are cases where the parents walked... But, to say that there's a lack of prosecution is disingenuous.

**Alfndrate**

Kanluwen wrote:
Well, most public swimming pools are required to have lifeguards or parents accompanying children--and there have been cases of prosecution.

There is a lack of prosecution whenever these cases of firearm incidents occur. Prosecution would send a clear message of "Get your act together or you could be next".

Sadly, the same does not hold true for most beaches, as there are beachfronts that have signs posted that say, "No Lifeguard on Duty, Swim at own Risk"

**Kanluwen**

djones520 wrote:

Illinois is definitely a nanny-state in swimming regards. It's illegal to go swimming without adult supervision until your are 17 here.

That is actually interesting. I know that here in Raleigh, you can be asked to leave my neighborhood pool if you are under 17--but that is not because of any kind of laws rather because you have to be accompanied by a "resident" 18 years or older.

whembly wrote:
Sure, there are cases where the parents walked... But, to say that there's a lack of prosecution is disingenuous.

And implying there is an overabundance when you find 3 links(two of which are the same story), all in California, is far more disingenuous Whembly.

**SilverMK2**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

**Frazzled**

Sorry thats unconstitutional. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Sorry thats unconstitutional. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

Yeah, who cares about morons having firearms or kids accidentally shooting each other right?

Gotta have dat Constitution protected!

**mega_bassist**

KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.

I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

In some strange chance that my safe pops open, and the locked closet falls apart creating a light of awesome showing my children where the firearms are, they have STILL been taught how dangerous firearms can be and that they have no business touching them when Im not present. My children know, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, that what that kid did was wrong, dangerous and stupid. Its as simple as teaching them between right and wrong, and setting boundaries that they know they should never cross.

Im not saying my kids are on a higher standing or anything, because I know they are not perfect, but for gak sakes, teaching a child rules and them knowing punishment is abound when they break them is all it takes. Unless the kid is a frigging psychopath. Then Im sorry but there isnt much you can do with crazy

This. So much this. KC earned my Exault for today.

**Grey Templar**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Even if it became the law for all guns to be stored in a gun safe when not in use it would do nothing to prevent this.

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

All it means is that if someone was found to have stored the gun improperly they will suffer prosecution, but that will only happen after any damage has already been done.

a gun accident is all the enforcement needed. The punishment for leaving a gun out is the tragedy of an accidental shooting.

We should definitely promote gun safety, but making it a law is going to do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

**Disciple of Fate**

I dont get how they turn this argument around. This argument seems to pop up once every few years in the US, why? In the Netherlands we never have those debates, but then again its not gun violence/accidents. But isnt blaming games just an easy fix? Violence has been a cultural thing for thousands of years. Now games seem to be more of an outlet for that type of cultural heritage. Blaming violent games for the death of this woman is like saying people who steal your car play too much GTA or stab you because of AC.

In 20 years almost everyone will have played games, so we can finally start blaming everything on them. Now Im not taking sides on the gun issue, because as an European it seems strange (again a cultural thing) to me and I can find points for both sides. But this is almost obviously the fault of the parents/guardians.

On gun safety, might be an idea to give more training about this to get a gun license, or extra training when that person becomes a parent. Like a part of childproofing your house.

**Kanluwen**

Grey Templar wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Even if it became the law for all guns to be stored in a gun safe when not in use it would do nothing to prevent this.

You're absolutely right. Because while the gun lobby can crow about how there should start being disclosures of mental illnesses as part of the process to obtain a gun(never mind that it violates the confidentiality between a doctor and a patient), they get (figuratively) up in arms when one suggests that law enforcement(local, state, or federal--take your pick) should be allowed to perform random checks of registered firearms owners to ensure that the guns are properly stored and safety measures followed.

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

We should definitely promote gun safety, but making it a law is going to do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

The simple problem is that much like the whole seat belt issue, everyone thinks "It can't happen to me".

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sorry thats unconstitutional. Do not pass go do not collect $200.

Yeah, who cares about morons having firearms or kids accidentally shooting each other right?

Gotta have dat Constitution protected!

now you understand. Where should I send your complementary copy of the Bill of Rights and ACLU membership to?

Right, because the ATF is pretty toothless as an organization. Their powers as an enforcement branch are pretty much a joke.

Ruby Ridge...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Even if it became the law for all guns to be stored in a gun safe when not in use it would do nothing to prevent this.

People that are careless enough to leave guns out where kids can get them are not going to care enough to follow said law because its unenforceable.

All it means is that if someone was found to have stored the gun improperly they will suffer prosecution, but that will only happen after any damage has already been done.

a gun accident is all the enforcement needed. The punishment for leaving a gun out is the tragedy of an accidental shooting.

We should definitely promote gun safety, but making it a law is going to do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

What GT said.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

How about instead of laws on gun storage, we make it illegal for 8 year olds to kill the elderly. That would have helped, right? An we can make laws that say breaking laws is against the law. Then no one would break the law.

I miss the old days when people were accountable for their actions AND the minors they were raising. Instead of excusing the bad behavior of their kids, they corrected it.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
So what would going through all this fix again? How many deaths can be contributed to an unsecured firearm, and is that number high enough to warrant a nationwide change?

You also have a little added protection against older children, other family members etc taking your guns, as well as securing them generally from anyone else who might be in the market for weapons. Legislating and promoting on the safe storage of guns can also (eventually) lead to people making sure they store guns unloaded, reducing accidental shootings etc...

Why do that when it's not a significant problem?

**Talizvar**

Opportunity was given: access to the gun.

A game provided some "ideas" of using it: "aim at head, pull trigger".

Child decides possibly in the name of experimentation to try it out.

Probably genuinely thought it would not "actually kill" grandma since what he saw was only a game, not real life.

My kids can try out the most insane things and as you step through their "logic" you have to explain a few things.

Every time they get their hands on some toy weapon they do an exemplary job trying to kill each other. Insert a non-toy weapon and I am sure someone would be dead.

This is why I have to point out what is proper "practice/toy" fake weapons and show under controlled conditions what a real weapon can do so they do not get confused and understand the catastrophic results.

There is no accidents, just a series of poor choices leading to an unfortunate end. Tragic for all concerned. Sorry to hear.

**Ensis Ferrae**

KingCracker wrote:
This really comes down to parenting IMO.

I have an 8 year old son, he has NEVER played a Grand Theft Auto game in his life. Ever. When I had it I wouldnt even let him watch me play it, because its definitely not meant for a child to see, specially at that age.
I have firearms in my home, locked up and no chance for either of my children to get to them.

On another take of that, a family friend of mine regularly plays Halo with his boys, about the same age as KCs. The thing is, he is playing WITH them, not saying, "here's halo, have fun", he is actively engaged in what they are doing. Each person has their own way of raising their kids, and so long as they dont end up like the OP, and end up a "contributing member of society" then, I think you have succeeded as a parent.