Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after argument over Christmas gifts
cbsnews.com
A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.
The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister's children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.
The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.
"They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store," Gualtieri said.
Just as the architects of the Constitution intended
As the 2nd amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, well-regulated militias shall have the right to keep and bear arms. Also, in a twist completely unrelated to that other sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I'm talking rifles, muskets, flintlocks, hell, even futuristic weapons nobody's invented yet. Not part of a militia? Doesn't matter. Completely unregulated? That's right. Also, by 'people' we mean everyone: kids, witches, the addled, it's a free for all!
Of course, most people only know the final trimmed-down edited version of that amendment. The original was much better, IMO.
Your command of the English language is... incomplete. Read this, then re-read your comment:
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
At 14 and 15, both of these kids are too young to legally own a pistol in Florida.
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx
So, yeah, pretty sure they aren't concerned with the Constitution.
You’ve made an excellent point, just not the one you think
You’re playing chess with pigeons, I wouldn’t bother
Trying to regulate the weapons used in our hellscape dystopia is just a method of maintaining the hellscape and avoiding any real change to society at large.
So which changes would you suggest to help solve this problem?
That those kids got the guns illegally and would have done so regardless of what laws were in place? That point?
Ah yes, the "If it's not going to stop 100% of the problem, let's not do it at all" bullshit.
That old chestnut.
If random check stops don't stop 100% of drunk drivers, why do them at all. Your just punishing the drivers who AREN'T driving drunk!
If seatbelts don't save 100% of lives, why regulate that we wear them. Muh Freedums!!
It bullshit excuses made by people with literally nothing of any real sense to fall back on.
Not on that guy's side, but he didn't strictly say that we shouldn't have those laws.
He said that if you're siteing a case where we did have those laws and a bad thing happened as an example for why we need laws like that in place to stop the bad thing from happening, it falls a little flat.
Not that the idea of having laws like that is bad, but citing individual cases is flawed, as no amount of regulatory structure will ever prevent 100% of cases.
To frame it a different way, I could argue that there's literally no country on earth with strong enough gun laws, because there's no country with zero gun deaths. I could argue that we need random searches of people homes to try and find guns, or imprisoning people who talk about guns, because the current laws clearly aren't good enough because people are still getting shot. Doesn't matter if it was only 1 incident in the past 30yrs. Still happened, so we need stricter laws.
That's obviously an absurd level of hyperbole, and I want to reiterate that I'm all for regulation on firearms. Just wanted to point out that the core argument here is unideal.
The guy said "would have done so regardless of what laws were in place".
As in, this happened, and there are already laws, so there's no point in stronger laws or more restrictions.
That's like saying "Sure, there are hundreds of fatalities in this factory, but they already get 10c fines whenever there's an at-fault accident. The accidents would have happened regardless of the fines! There's no point in higher fines since the fines have shown they're not working!"
That's all valid, but I think you've missed my point.
While I disagree with "the laws did nothing so why have laws," I also disagree with, "the laws didn't work, so we need harsher laws." Both are flawed logically.
There is, in fact, a level of restriction that goes too far in the name of preventing crime. We could lock everyone in jail for instance, as people in cages can't commit crimes (ymmv). That's obviously a bad idea though, for many reasons.
And I'm with you. I think we need to evaluate what that right balance is. What I was pushing back on was the idea that, "if there's even one gun death ever, then the laws didn't go far enough, and we need more restrictions," which I took to be the sentiment of the OP. That lack of nuance worries me is all.
I don't know if the gun laws that were violated were good enough or not. I didn't look them up, tbh. But you can have all the laws in the world, and have them be completely useless if they aren't properly enforced. Maybe the laws are actually good, and the enforcement mechanism is flawed? Maybe both are good and this is just an unfortunate side effect of it being impossible to police everyone all the time. Or maybe the laws themselves are flawed and the OP is right that something needs changing. I don't know. But I do know that it's a big issue with a lot of nuance, and that a knee jerk reaction of "we need more laws" is unhelpful at best and detrimental at worst.
I don't know what you mean by "logically". There's no "logical" way to determine what will work. This is a matter of human nature, not logic. But, science strongly suggests that harsher laws do work when it comes to guns. Places with strong gun laws have been clearly shown to have fewer gun crimes. That doesn't necessarily work for everything. During prohibition, strong laws forbidding alcohol did somewhat reduce alcohol use, but it definitely didn't eliminate it, and it dramatically increased crime due to smuggling alcohol. For guns, the picture is much clearer. When they're harder to own legally there are fewer gun crimes.
In this case it's more "we need the same laws as the rest of the civilized world, which doesn't have all these problems with gun crimes".
I really think we're just having two completely different discussions here mate. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I never did.
I also don't know that I think it's worth the time to hash out at this point. We're just talking past each other.
Imagine applying that logic to anything else:
"He would have been murdered regardless of what laws were in place. There's no reason to change the penalty for murder! The 10c fine already ensures that only criminals will murder other people."
"The city already has a firefighter, and the city block still burned down! What's the point in adding more firefighters if we already have a firefighter and we still get major fires?"
...
The kids got the guns illegally because it's incredibly easy to get illegal guns in the US. The biggest reason for that is that it's so incredibly easy to get legal guns too. In places like Japan or England where it's hard to get legal guns, it's extremely hard to get illegal guns, so the criminals tend not to use illegal guns.
If "would have done so regardless" were true, there should be no difference in gun crime in the UK vs the US. But, they're not. It's not because the US has far more of a problem with mental illness or something, it's because the tool designed for killing is harder to get.
Well, in MY state random stops ARE illegal. Thanks Oregon! Frankly, I'm surprised more states haven't done that.
https://romanolawpc.com/oregon-dui-checkpoints/
There are things that CAN be done, you just have to start with rejecting the idea of "hurrr durrr take all the guns" because that can't be done due to the 2nd amendment.
In THIS case, we know the two kids already had priors for car burglaries.
So #1) You find out who legally owned those guns, then you charge them with improper storage and/or failure to report a stolen weapon.
#2) When kids are arrested for a crime like burglary, you search their homes to make sure weapons weren't anything that were burgled.
“The solution to ensuring our freedom to own guns is to restrict all our other freedoms. “
Oh come on, regardless of where you stand on the issue, you can't think of any change in law could contain that would prevent someone from getting a gun?
FTA:
"Both teens have prior arrests for car burglaries."
Seems likely they stole the guns from cars, so maybe make it illegal to keep your gun in your car?
Hard to say until the gun origins are traced back, but they weren't legally purchased by or for the kids.
Hmm, so the source of the guns were the cars that were broken into. Hmm, yes. So what law can you imagine that would have even prevented the option for those gun owners to keep guns in their cars? C'mon, you've got this. Hint: How did the car owners get the guns?
Nothing that could be blocked because of the 2nd amendment. You can't prevent people from legally owning guns.
Now, if you want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, we have a process for that...
First you get 290 votes in the House, then you get 67 votes in the Senate, then you get ratification from 38 states, so all 25 Biden states +13 Trump states.
Good luck with that!
The constitution was written by a bunch of geriatric slave owners who barely washed once a week. Every single one of the signatures on that paper comes from someone that would be considered mentally deficient in this day and age.
You shouldn't be proud of it standing in the way of sane legislation, nor the fact that gross gerrymandering keeps it that way.
Regardless of how you FEEL about the 2nd amendment, it is the law of the land and it's not going anywhere until we can get 290 votes in the House... you know, the legal body that took 15 tries to get the simple majority of 218 to decide who their own leader was.
But hey, we got 311 to bounce out George Santos, so it IS possible to get that level of agreement, it just won't happen on guns.
“Regardless of the geriatrics who wrote the constitution, it will never change due to the geriatrics who are now in power”
While your comment is entirely true, it represents a seriously flaw in the way that our country determines what is best for its people
Realistically, the actual wording of 2nd amendment is actually rather specific. But that leads to a whole different ugly ass problem - what to do about the corrupt SC?
Ugh
Yup, that's a problem and it's only getting MORE conservative, not less.
Adding term limits would require an Amendment which can't be done for the same reason changing the 2nd can't be done, the vote hurdle is too high.
Packing the court isn't the answer, because the next president of the opposing party would just re-pack it the other way.
So the only thing that can be done is make sure Biden wins in '24, and the Dems win in '28 and hope that by '32 Thomas and Alito have aged out. Thomas will be 84 in '32 and Alito will be 82.
If they're still hanging on, then it's a matter of voting D until they're gone.
Because if Trump or another R is in office when they leave, you can forget changing the composition of the court in our lifetime.
Unfortunately this is not possible. There are many businesses and such that have signs to the effect of "no guns in here." In some states those signs hold no legal weight, but in some they do. In states where they do hold legal weight, your choice becomes
Just never carry because the grocery store I'll be in for 15 minutes out of my day has a sign they think will keep mass murderers out (spoiler warning: mass murderers target those signs. Not that it's more likely you'll get shot there necessarily, just that their signs only matter to people who aren't about to murder 25 people, as the murderer has other crimes to worry about vs me, where I just want some damn nuggies so prison actually matters to me.)
Carry in the store illegally. Honestly more people are doing this than you think, but as I said in some states this can become an issue for you.
Leave it in the car while I'm in the grocery store. Legal, not exactly safe, but since I am literally legally forced to be unsafe: "not my fault." If you want to charge people with leaving a gun in a locked car and then the gun gets stolen, you have to at least meet halfway and let people with a permit carry at all times and not force them to leave it in the car. You may say "just go to a competing business. Well the way my state law is set up you can't carry in ANY bank regardless of permission, any government building, and a few more places. And I'm fine with either, make them leave it and no charge or let them carry it and charge if they don't, but I'm not fine with "you have to leave that in the car even though you'd rather leave it in the holster, and if it gets stolen we'll put you in prison for life."
Yes it is, you just don't like the idea of being inconvenienced by public safety laws.
[citation needed]
This is an excellent reason to strengthen gun laws and make some examples out of the people who decide to violate the law.
Show me where this has ever happened (life in prison for having a gun stolen from you)
It never fails that the pro-gun argument is always just loaded with dishonest hyperbole. Guess that's expected from a cause that has zero public benefit. Part of your argument is to just casually admit that people are illegally carrying guns all the time, and you say it like it's some sort of argument in favor of guns...
"Inconvenienced" here means "no banking, and no buying food, cooked or otherwise." So it's a little more than a simple inconvenience. Which again is one thing, and that's fine, I can leave it in the car when I go in to those places, BUT if a possibility of prison time exists for me following the law and leaving it in the car, yes, that becomes a problem. Frankly I'd have to reevaluate following the law, as if I leave it, it gets stolen, and used in a murder, and as such I'm charged in concert with the murderer, it now becomes less risky to just break the law and carry in the store. This law would make many others reevaluate similarly and do the same, killing the effectiveness of the signage in the first place.
Well, let's start with all school shootings.
And here's an article from the Anti-Self Defense movement's favorite news outlet, biased towards them, that says I'm right. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/us/mass-shooters-soft-targets-challenges-cec/index.html
When gang and drug related shootings where 4 or more people are shot including the shooter, which everytown considers mass shootings (and they're technically right but of course most of us are thinking of Sandy Hook or Vegas and it feels weird to me that everytown likes to blur those lines, but I digress), it does open up a bit, but that's because drug dealers and gang members (crips, bloods, piru, gangstas desciples, ms13, sur13, folk, etc) don't hang out in gun free zones most often (sometimes parks, so sometimes they do but typically it's "the block" and US streets and apartment complexes are not gun free zones.)
So it really depends on if you want to include drug dealers and gang members. It's already illegal to have a gun on you while selling or murdering someone for their drugs though (and how to fix that is an end to prohibition not more prohibition. They're drug dealers obviously they have connections to get illegal shit). It's not necessarily illegal to be in a gang though I don't think, I'm not sure we can criminalize that here but I could be wrong, but usually most people in gangs have felonies that preclude them from legal firearms ownership if they're of age to, usually resulting from said gang activity.
You just doing occular patdowns of your fellow Aldi patrons on the regular, or...? How tf you plan to catch em without security at every door ever patting down every customer ever? If you're in the US you likely have at least one conversation with someone concealed carrying a week and you'll never even know it.
In the hypothetical "we should charge people with having their gun stolen if it is used in a murder" I'm saying we should actually totally "not do." That's where. We don't currently, people say "we should..." I say "we should not..." this is called a conversation, welcome to it.
That's what we're calling "you can't read" now?
Edit: OH maybe you can read but you're not familiar with how US laws work, just thought of that. Did you read the story the other day going around lemmy that talked about a guy who is charged with murder for a car crash but he was miles away in handcuffs when the crash occurred? What had happened was guy A and guy B were car hopping -- checking door handles and stealing from unlocked cars -- the police roll up and light them, guy A puts his hands up, guy B runs in their car, gets chased by the police, blows a red light (or stop sign but that is inconsequential to the outcome) and kills guy C. Guy A and guy B are both charged with the murder of guy C because they were acting in concert according to the court system. This is definitely a systemic issue that affects minorities, particularly black people, disproportionately, but I have no doubts that this same system would be applied to charging someone for being stolen from, if what was stolen is used in a murder. Currently we don't usually charge victims of theft anyway, so it isn't a current issue as far as having your gun stolen is concerned (but don't hang out with sketchy people because if you thought y'all were just about to smoke a blunt but dude robs the minimart, you're robbing the minimart too without even knowing), but I don't think we should make it an issue.
Ah, so the gun was purchased legally by one of those trustworthy, responsible members of the well-regulated militia. Nothing to see here, then.
"Well regulated militia" didn't mean the same thing back then.
Well regulated = well armed and equipped.
Militia = general public who could be called up at a moments notice for public defense.
See:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
So:
"A well armed and equipped public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Your comment has been reported, but as you had links and appeared to be arguing in good-faith, I decided to leave it. With that said, I completely disagree with your words.
Review Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.
Militia was what we now call "National Guard". Speaking from experience, as a former guardsman as well as vet in 2 other branches. Back when I went to basic, this was well discussed as a given. I'm surprised people think otherwise to this day.
Unfortunately, it's the Supreme Court who defines such things and, as cited in D.C. vs. Miller above, they very clearly set the definition as noted.
Since that ruling, they have further clarified it in McDonald vs. City of Chicago (necessary because Heller involved Washington D.C., which isn't a state).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
Generally when I point out these inconvenient facts the response is "well, who cares what the Supreme Court says! Get the court to reverse it!"
Which, sure, can be done, we saw that with Roe vs. Wade, all it took was 50 years and the appointment of one conservative judge after another.
In theory we could flip the court, Thomas and Alito are the two oldest members of the court and highly conservative, so electing a Democratic President in '24 and again in '28 would virtually assure flipping the court.
Then the problem becomes keeping it, because the next three oldest are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
I wasn't arguing with you about what they say NOW. I was pointing you to what they literally said THEN.
You said "a well regulated militia didn't mean the same thing back then"
I merely pointed you to the founders own words to show you that you were wrong.
It wasn't an amendment. It was baked into the first article.
You pointing out the RECENT supreme court ruling was a bad faith argument against my rebuttal.
Yes, I'm pointing out that the Supreme Court now has defined what the founders meant then. :) They are the arbiters of what the founders meant after all.
There's a TON of history they go through in Heller, and McDonald and the recent ruling from New York, Bruen.
All worth reading if you have the time.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
Bruen is the one with most of their historical reasoning because it's the one that requires a historical precedent for gun laws, which is a new twist.
It's all made up dude! The Supreme Court can rule any way they want based on any reasons they want. There are no standards, there are no rules, there is no restraint. They can make up anything and then change their minds whenever they want and nothing can stop them. Stop believing in their reasoning, they just work backwards from the result they want.
We all need to care what they meant so long as we continue living under their system and that's not changing any time soon.
Oh man, I think I saw a fish swim by. It was definitely not blue or yellow, either!
you know those minors, always committing major felonies no matter whatcha try to do.
FTA:
"Both teens have prior arrests for car burglaries."
So, yeah, apparently so... probably where they got the guns.
Guess what, if those kids were breaking into cars in London, there's 0 chance they would've acquired guns that way (not to mention, it's irresponsible to store a gun in a car to begin with).
England doesn't have a 2nd Amendment, but yeah, kids killing kids seems pretty universal:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/march2022
US per capita homicide rate is 6.4. UK is 1.2
HMMM.
Those stats don’t show kids killing kids. It does show about 50% of perpetrators were aged 16-24 though.
Also UK has a homicide rate of 11 per 100,000. The US rate is 63 per 100,000.
What if I told you it's much easier to use and illegal gun when they are readily available?
Only country where this happens regularly to not have figured anything out. Stop embarrassing yourself and just post thoughts and prayers
USA is not the only country with civilian gun ownership and carry being legal.
So with such crime stats it should be your first thought that the problem is narrower (EDIT: and more USA-specific) than people having guns.
Unless you've already made up your mind and now just want to somehow nail facts to it.
That Jordan Lund is too stupid to insult
The solution is to examine how these guns got out of the legal system and into the illegal system.
The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere so you can take that pipedream off the table barring 290 votes in the House, 67 votes in the Senate, and ratification from 38 states.
So what CAN we do?
Well...
#1) Hold gun owners accountable for storing a gun in something like a car that can be easily be broken into or stolen.
#2) When kids are arrested for something like burglary, you search their homes for weapons.
So to start with: universal registration and ID/licensing for gun ownership, and strict liability on registered owners for crimes committed by their guns.
I'm in, sounds great.
If the US had gun laws similar to the rest of the world then the chances of children getting hold of them would be far lower.
True, but that's not going to happen as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place and there are close to 1/2 a billion guns in the country.
EXACTLY RIGHT! That's why need to outlaw Abortion, have speed limits, make fraud illegal, make murder and illegal and keep all other laws in place! Because laws DON'T WORK!
Yeah, if only there weren't so many millions of guns in this country that literally any pubescent dumbshit and his brother can get one illegally without any effort! But yeah no the system is flawless and the problem unfixable cool yeah I agree.
I've seen estimates of 475 million+ guns in a country of 330 million+ people, so, yeah. Tons of guns and not enough people taking securing them seriously.
These kids being car burglars makes perfect sense too... here's a stat from my city:
https://katu.com/news/local/car-gun-thefts-increase-portland-police-say
"Kapp said nearly half of stolen gun reports from that last 15 months were firearms stolen from personal vehicles.
"That’s 47% of guns are stolen because they were stored in a vehicle; either the vehicle was broken into or the vehicle is stolen with a gun inside. That is a huge number," said Kapp.
Kapp said gun owners should also have documentation, like serial numbers, in secure, safe spaces."
You would think by now that people would know "Don't leave ANYTHING of value in your car!" but apparently not!
Ignore the mob. They know nothing but insults. It's a damn echo chamber in here.
Jesus.
The 14 year old brother shot his 23 year old sister.
Then the 15 year old brother shot the 14 year old brother, and disposed of the handgun.
The 23 year old sister is dead. The 14 year old brother is stable.
The 14 year old is being charged with first degree murder. The 15 year old is being charged with attempted first degree murder.
The sister had a child, which was not harmed.
Everything about this is messed up and tragic
...and preventable. Emotional teenagers should not have access to firearms!
Emotional humans should not have access to firearms, except under exceptional circumstances.
The US military knows this and it's why most people on military bases are not allowed to walk around armed, though they all have access to weapons when necessary.
Well legally they don't have access to firearms. They also shouldn't have access to Heroin, and legally they don't, but it killed 3 of my friends before we even graduated, so in practice...
They also shouldn’t be out stealing cars.
Guns shouldn't be in cars if they're not at least locked somehow
This whole thing is tragic and beyond dumb.
It would be tragic if this didn't feel like reading a weather report.
It's also tragic because it feels like reading a weather report
The 23 year old sister had 2 children, one of which was already 6 years old, if my reading skills aren't failing me.
he's going to kill his uncle when he's like 12
Arguable
I thought you said "armed", and if only... if that kid had been packing he could have been the good guy with a gun who would have mowed down all the bad guys and saved the day.
What a wonderful family, with a lot of stable geniuses!
More guns in the hands of the other children would have kept this travesty from occurring. #hopesandprayers
'Murica!
If the 11-month old was armed, all this could have been stopped!
That's the nice way of saying she drowned in her own blood.
Just FYI, this is not limited to children. There's plenty of adults who have zero idea on how to handle stress without flashing a piece. I've seen about six different people use that as a method of indicating I'm getting over in your lane on my way into work pre-pandemic.
I’m pretty gullible and I believe a lot of stuff. So I’m asking this sincerely.
Are you saying that in America people are tapping their widow with a Glock and giving you the stink eye to get into your lane? Like, instead of indicating and then waiting for a safe gap?
America is pretty big, and that isn't something that happens where I live (Seattle)
But there are parts of this country where a surprisingly large percentage of people are completely fucking insane and peacock with weapons in reckless ways. It also isn't unusual for children to have guns, even if it isn't legal.
There's a high school in rural Colorado that has given up on doing anything about guns in their high school because something like 30% of students are armed on any given day.
I grew up in Tennessee, and students were allowed to store guns in their cars parked in the high school parking lot.
I have met many people who open-carry and then openly emphasize it to others because they want to be intimidating. It's a part of their identity, and they will let you know in inappropriate ways.
This country is weird. I'm happy to live in a less violent part of it.
Reno 911! did a bit on this topic. Metal detector at school, manned by the sherriffs. They'd let you surrender your piece and keep it until you left. They had a valet wall behind them and like, claim tags and shit.
I apologize for the tiktok link: https://www.tiktok.com/@reno911tvfan/video/7216351539382979886
I think it is generally unlikely but am also sure that there are places where this is part of the culture.
In Florida you’re allowed to use lethal force if you justifiably believe that your safety is threatened. When lockdown first started, there was a video of a dude having a meltdown at a Costco because he had to wear a mask. The person at the door was a woman of 65-70 and the man child pumped up his chest and yelled “I feel threatened” at her, which I learned in Florida for threatening to murder someone over an inconvenience.
That does seem to be what he is lying about, yes.
I wouldn't be so sure. I saw someone pull a gun at a fast-food drivethrough because there was a disagreement about whether the dude ordered french fries. And you're literally responding to an article about a kid killing his sister with a gun over presents. What makes it so unbelievable to you?
I'm not doubting guns have been used in road rage incidents before, I'm doubting he's seen it 6 times since the pandemic.
And I'm doubting the effectiveness over a blinker because tbh I'm not making eye contact with other drivers at 75mph, I'm a little busy, so I won't even see the gun like I would "the flashing light called a turn signal."
They said pre pandemic not post
Fair, I assumed he meant since then, but it looks like he hasn't seen anyone do that since the pandemic maybe? Are we just referring to all of recorded history before 2019 as "pre-pandemic" now?
In any case I don't believe this dude has seen it happen six times in his life or any of his past lives, flat out.
🙄
:€
He wasn't saying it was effective. And typically on freeways and interstates, the speed differential between cars, which are also all moving in the same direction, makes it much easier to make eye contact and see individuals in their cars.
The lack of a large speed differential is also one of the reasons assisted driving systems are most effective on interstates, freeways, and highways.
He indicated their success by neglecting to use the word "try."
Keep your eyes on the road man, you're going to get in an accident.
Do they brake for armed motorists?
I sense you get this a lot in your life, but: 🙄
He who smelt it dealt it.
👍
( . )( . )
Jesus. Where the fuck do you live that people do that?
Good God what city do you live in?
If only there was a good sibling with a gun to stop him...
technically, there was 😐
There was - it made things worse:
"The 15-year-old brother came outside with his own semiautomatic handgun and allegedly shot the younger teen in the stomach"
This sentence is a great argument for the Oxford comma.
The sentence is a great argument for editorial oversight. How'd a copy editor let that go to print???
Copy editor got laid off
*ChatGPT please copy edit this for me"
This whole article was confusing for me.
Strict liability for whoever was the legal owner of the gun(s), I say.
Whoever let these children get their hands on the firearm is absolutely a murderer. Even if it someone who let their gun get stolen from their car. Definitely if it was a family member or friend.
Oh, I remember that event with an actor killing a camera operator with a prop gun (jokingly pointing it at her) or something.
The person responsible for props was a complete dumb baboon and guilty of murder, yes.
However, I was shocked by the fact that so many people think that pointing a real gun, even if it's a prop, at somebody without checking that it's not loaded is normal and thus that actor was innocent. They were defending that action as if they themselves would really have taken a gun and squeezed the trigger while pointing at someone without checking.
So maybe it's about responsibility and education, not ownership of guns.
Because, say, Moldova (off the top of my mind), hardly a rich country or even with a healthy society, has gun laws more liberal than in USA, and doesn't have school shootings and such events.
Switzerland and Austria have very liberal gun laws, again possibly more so than in USA, and don't have such a problem.
Can't speak for Moldova or Austria, but I would not call Switzerland's gun laws liberal.
They are VERY strict. Gun ownership rates are high, but there are tons of restrictions and licensing requirements on ownership and sale of guns there. The country is proof that having a strong regulatory structure does not necessarily prevent gun ownership and should absolutely be considered a model for where the US regulator environment should be moving (universal registration including 2nd hand sales, full license checks for all purchases including ammo, effective bans on large categories of weapons, mandatory training, and the like).
People who love "gun rights" always cite Switzerland without even doing the most basic Wikipedia-level research on it.
People winning arguments in their heads shouldn't come to real ones.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those places where you're required to take some kind of classes to be able to qualify to own a gun? Isn't it also pretty easy for anyone from the police to be able to take them from you within reason if they find you to be violating some laws?
Yeah. If "taking some kind of classes" is not obligatory in the US, then we have the main reason for all the accidental shootings and kids takings their parents' guns right here.
Three years ago I had to stop my 17 year-old adopted sister from hitting our elderly mother over $30 of missing Amazon crap on Christmas day, then I called the sheriff on she and her baby daddy. Five cars came to mediate the situation.
Needless to say, I don't go to family Christmases anymore.
Families suck.
Sorry to hear that. That's awful. If you have your own family in the future, that's your chance to make sure nothing like that happens in it. We learn from the mistakes we experience.
I honestly feel like we get better with each generation from experiences like this.
I've read too many history books to think that things get better with our species over time, and my time is too valuable to me to waste on kids, but that's just me.
I hope the choices you've made are fulfilling for you.
Oh I'm certain our generation is kinder to our kids than those that came before us. History shows us a lot of cruelty to each other over the years but it also shows us a huge improvement over time, particularly in the last 60 odd years.
But thanks I appreciate where you're coming from and for sure I'm a better dad than my dad was and for sure he was a better dad than his dad was.
Hopefully we're getting there. :)
I hope you have the opportunity to build a family (via biology or social bond) that better lives up.
I learned to be happy on my own, which is the best thing ever if you ask me.
I don't need other people to live a fulfilling life, and I hope I never feel like I need anyone but myself.
America is hell.
A lot of third world countries are.
And Florida’s answer to this, along with so much of the country, is more guns. Absolute insanity
Go into any of the relationship subreddits today and for the next few days and you will see countless Americans melting down into various degrees of rage and bitterness over Xmas presents.
It’s like this very goddamn year.
Can anyone explain this part of the culture to me?
I’m not saying I hate all Americans or anything ridiculous like that, the cast majority of Americans I’ve met are good hearted people but when it comes to Xmas and in what I’m given understand is the modern vernacular: “y’all cray.”
Don’t any of your families still watch the Charlie Brown Christmas? Because you really should.
Go toxic places to read toxic things. I've never heard of this. But also I can't imagine going to a relationship board and expecting to come away with anything but misanthropy regardless of time of year.
Materialism is really big with a lot of people. My in-laws kids are spoiled rotten and only accept big brand name stuff because that's all their parents give them for Christmas and Birthdays. Same people who can't afford to pay their mortgage and are likely to lose the house in a few months.
I like present-less holidays. Better to focus on just being with people I find. Also helps if there's a lot of good, homemade food.
For me it’s all about consumables and experience. You like sauerkraut? I just made you a jar. You like classical music? Here are two tickets to the symphony. I just avoid stuff unless it’s like plates for someone who moved into their first apartment.
Americans live in a state of constant stress that is satiated by material possessions and trying to impress or be better than others. These kids were just trying to get their dose of imbalanced brain chemicals
Is it all about how terrible the gf/bf is for not magically getting the super perfectist thing ever?
It’s mostly people running a mental ledger then comparing the value of presents to how much they do in the relationship as a journal for the shortfall in gift value.
Often siblings resenting one another for perceived (or even sometimes objectively clear) favouritism.
The sibling thing I get.
Anyone who does the first one isn’t ready for relationships.
Unclear why second brother being charged with attempted murder but it is presumably because there was a delay between the two shootings.
Revenge kill your own family....hmmmmmmmm
muricaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!111!!
Well, those kids had already been born, so IDGAF. Vote Republican!
A daily occurrence in Red States, unfortunately.
I mean, probably true, but misleading? You're definitely way more likely to get shot in pretty much any major US city, almost all of which are blue.
Not making any value judgement of one vs another. Just saying that this particular issue is pretty ubiquitous. Definitely not just a "red state" thing.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/16/america-gun-deaths-crime-south
It's actually both a huge and growing issue in red states specifically. Plus the guns people are using in crimes in states with more restrictive gun laws are coming from the states with less restrictive gun laws.
Basically, the more people who have guns, the more likely those people are to use those guns. Go figure.
Those figures are per capita however. So while there are more gun deaths in California, you are significantly more likely to be killed in New Mexico to gun violence.
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/cities-in-blue-states-experiencing-larger-declines-in-gun-violence-in-2023/
This would never have happened if the sister had had a gun of her own : she would have been able to retaliate, and kill her brother before he could kill her, and we would have gotten a happy ending. I just don't understand, it seems so simple to me : just issue a gun to every child over the age of 5 (months)! There, done !
Just another NRA Freedom Celebration™ folks…. Nothing to see here.
Christmas is ruined forever for that family.
Florida: the dong of amerkuh
probably need more guns?
This is where USA culture feels alien to me. It is well known that children at that age tend to have poor emotional regulation, and underdeveloped physical and mental skills. The adults have duty of care, and they've allowed the child to wield a gun and kill someone. I would think that surely the parents have been criminally negligent in this case. But no, in the USA it's apparently totally normal for children to carry around lethal weapons as though they were a toy. The outcome is sad, but unsurprising.
The 23 year old sister should've had a gun also, to protect herself from 14 year old boys /s
Sanest Floridan family.
That whole family is fucked up.
Kid whips out a gun, and the "adults" did nothing about that. Just shoo him outside with his firearm after threatening to murder his brother.
Now one is dead, one is charged with murder, and one is charged with attempted murder. Fuck it. Charge everyone at that house with murder and get them all out of society. Fucking trash.
why is this news on here we don't need to hear about this shit
Sir this is the news community