backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 262 comment(s) - last by LoweredExpecta.. on Dec 25 at 7:23 PM


Daniel Petric, 17 years-old, stands trial for murdering his mother and seriously injuring his father after they took away his copy of Halo 3.  (Source: Kotaku)
Video game critics are surely salivating over the latest story of video game-related juvenile crime

Video game critics have long tried to establish a link between violence in video games with real world juvenile violence.  They have tried to censor video games, stating that it is necessary to curb psychotic juvenile tendencies. 

However, most experts have long agreed that studies have shown no clear link between video games and violence and that video games have beneficial effects according to some studies.  Crimes of a psychotic nature are not a new development, mental health experts say.

Still, those advocating banning video games surely were salivating over the shocking case of Daniel Petric, age 17.

Daniel Petric stands accused of shooting his mother and father, killing his mother and critically injuring his father, who was only saved by the arrival of his daughter and her husband.  Allegedly Daniel Petric, 16 years-old at the time, committed the crime because his parents took away his copy of Halo 3.

The lawyers for the accused argue that their client was under mental duress, having been injured in a snowboarding accident and unable to do anything besides watch TV and play video games.  The accused wanted to get Halo 3, but according to testimony, his parents forbade him from buying it. 

Undeterred, Daniel Petric bought the game.  Returning home, he had the game taken away by his father, who placed it in his lockbox, which also held a 9 mm handgun.  According to prosecutors, Daniel Petric gained access to this lockbox and took the game and the handgun.  He then entered the family living room on October 20, 2007 and innocently told his parents, "Would you guys close your eyes.  I have a surprise for you."

His parents complied.  Daniel Petric then, according to testimony, shot both of his parents in the head.  His father has recovered and is delivering key testimony in the case.

His father Mark Petric, a minister at the Life Assembly of God in Wellington, Ohio, says he and his son have since reconciled.  He says that his son came to him, stating, "Dad, I'm so sorry for what I did to Mom, to you and to the family.  I'm so glad you are alive."

His father responded, "You're my son.  You're my boy."

The case surely hits uncomfortably close to home for many parents that have had to discipline their children.  However, when considering this tragic case it is important to remember that such conflicts have long taken place -- psychotic tendencies outdate video games by healthy margin.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/17/2008 11:24:05 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Daniel Petric gained access to this lockbox and took the game and the handgun. He then entered the family living room on October 20, 2007 and innocently told his parents, "Would you guys close your eyes. I have a surprise for you." His parents complied.

Daniel Petric then, according to testimony, shot both of his parents in the head.


That just sent shivers up my spine. How horrible :(




RE: ...
By nosfe on 12/17/2008 11:27:26 AM , Rating: 5
for me it was this:
quote:
His father responded, "You're my son. You're my boy."


RE: ...
By eye smite on 12/17/2008 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 5
Is it just me or has anyone noticed how the preachers kids are always getting in the most trouble? I don't think it was the video game that sent him postal as much as it was the parenting. That's just and opinion though, I could be wrong.


RE: ...
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 11:52:37 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. When I got to the part that said the father was a minister, I thought - Oh, well that figures!

And the parents won't let the kid play Halo, yet the father keeps a pistol. I don't get it. The kid was 16. I wouldn't let my 7yr old play shooting games, but by the time my boy is 16, I'll have made sure he knows how to properly handle a real weapon.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 12:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but by the time my boy is 16, I'll have made sure he knows how to properly handle a real weapon.


Agreed. Teach them to respect guns for what they are and how to shoot properly. Then they're less likely to make stupid mistakes.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What other purpose does a pistol have except to kill other human beings?


None? I thought that was the point. Would it being a rifle or shotgun have made it better for you? Or if he poisoned them, stabbed them, beat them with a hammer?


RE: ...
By StevoLincolnite on 12/17/2008 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 3
I can think of several, Pistol Shooting is an -actual sport- in many places of the world.

However a gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 4:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
Now you are talking symatics. The other uses for it exist because one cannot go around shooting people!!

But you don't pretend to get better at shooting pistols in case you decide to go out hunting elk with it some day.

I am not saying right or wrong. Plain and simply a handgun's target is people.

Does one call nuclear bombs, demolition equipment? Helps clear a city of buildings before new construction begins?

It is what it is.


RE: ...
By Manch on 12/17/2008 11:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
My handgun's target is whatever I aim it at. I use mine for snakes/rodents. I keep rat shot in it.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 4:24:09 PM , Rating: 1
Are you stupid? The response was to the guy saying knowing how to use it would have prevented this.

A pistol's purpose is to kill human beings. Knowing that, the young man grabbed the gun and shot his parents. Seems clear he knew how to use it.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you stupid?


Are you? Would it have changed anything whatever tool he used? If he was taught proper gun usage, usually a respect forms not to misuse the item in the first place. Anybody above the intelligence of an ape could figure out how to use a gun with a few minutes.

So what if that is a pistol's use? If it was a rifle laying there, do you think somehow they would be less dead now? If he found a knife or a hammer, do you think he would have suddenly not snapped because they have other uses? The kid lost it, don't blame the gun.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 4:45:37 PM , Rating: 4
The point is saying a pistol's purpose is to kill people means it is a weapon. Which is not true unless someone chooses to make it a weapon. A firearm is just a firearm until someone makes it a weapon. If I take my pistol to a range, it's purpose is not to kill people. Saying every gun is a weapon is the language that those who are anti-gun use to try and strip people of their rights to own guns.

Every gun is a potential weapon. But so is every baseball bat, brick, iPod, pencil, etc. Someone determined to kill can use almost anything to commit the act if they know how. Had a gun not been present the boy probably would have slashed his parents throats. He had a mind to kill his parents. A gun was just one tool available to complete the task.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 11:31:26 PM , Rating: 1
A girl beat her boyfriend to death with an iPod.


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/18/2008 10:53:22 AM , Rating: 2
Certainly they would have existed. They made survival, by defense or hunting, a much simplier prospect. Requiring less time for simply staying alive, and more time doing other, possibly productive, things.

Besides, we all know that electricity truly only exists to run the Electric Chair.


RE: ...
By Jypster on 12/17/2008 7:08:30 PM , Rating: 5
FITCamero.. what are you saying mate?

A gun is designed to kill or wound. The other things you mentioned are not. You are saying that a nuke is not a weapon as it is not being used as well?

It comes down to what the object is designed for. Yes some things can be used as a weapon but that is "used" not designed.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 12/18/2008 4:35:52 AM , Rating: 4
Guns are designed to intimidate. They do this by having the potential to kill or wound. The police (in the U.S.) use guns to apprehend criminals tens of thousands of times every day without ever firing a shot. Likewise, muggers use them to steal from people without ever firing a shot.

The decision to use a gun to kill/wound instead of to intimidate is entirely up to the wielder.


RE: ...
By Fireshade on 12/19/2008 10:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
@Solandri:
quote:
Guns are designed to intimidate.

You're missing the cause for intimidation: guns are invented and designed for killing.


RE: ...
By rudolphna on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By rudolphna on 12/22/2008 6:55:49 PM , Rating: 1
That wasnt sarcasm by the way.. >_<


RE: ...
By bodar on 12/17/2008 9:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
A gun is a weapon, but it is only as dangerous as the person who wields it. Let's be honest, when Samuel Colt was designing the Colt 45, he was not envisioning how fun it would be to shoot targets for sport. Guns have several legitimate uses, but the primary one has always been to threaten, disable, or kill another living thing, whether it's in hunting, self-defense, or war.

Is admitting this some type of horrible thing that means the hippie liberals will win and take away everyone's guns? NO!

I have never owned a gun (though I wouldn't mind it), but I firmly believe in a citizen's right to do so. I just can't understand why you won't just call a spade a spade. It's like saying swords are intended for Renn-Fair attendees and Japanophiles to cosplay with. Guns are tools used to kill people faster and more efficiently. That's a weapon in my book, but I can't see why it matters.


RE: ...
By mars777 on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By robinthakur on 12/18/2008 7:41:50 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst you are correct in stating that a firearm does not become a weapon until you turn it on a living person, the ability for one gun in one person's hand to cause harm above that of an iPod (regardless of the music choices contained on said iPod) is magnitudes greater. For that reason, their purchase is heavily controlled in most civilised countries. If everyone were rational, responsible, stable and calm 100% of the time, you wouldn't have any murders. Are you saying that nobody who is responsible and trained in firearm usage has ever lost it and shot somebody in a crime of passion because they had a gun to hand?

In the UK, you are no longer allowed by law to own a pistol. You can go on a shooting range and use their guns, but personal ownership is illegal. This was in response to a massacre in Dunblane where a guy killed kids and teachers, following which there was a public outcry, and the law was changed. I would imagine this inconvenienced and annoyed some gun enthusiasts, but if it saved lives and they had to get a new hobby, is that really so awful?


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/18/2008 11:03:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
and the law was changed. I would imagine this inconvenienced and annoyed some gun enthusiasts, but if it saved lives and they had to get a new hobby, is that really so awful?


We will probably never agree on this, but yes... anything that puts citizens at the mercy of the government and military is awful.

Not that I don't think it would be great to not ever need guns, but the human race isn't there yet, and even if they were, it's a big universe.


RE: ...
By psychobriggsy on 12/18/2008 8:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
The knife was invented to cut meat, veg, etc. Sure, it can also be used to cut people.

The gun was invented to kill people. Sure, it has other uses nowadays for vermin control, and 'sport', and also they're cool, but the core functionality and raison-d'etre is to kill other people.

That's it. End of argument.

You can't get rid of guns in America, it's way too late, regardless of the powerful lobbyists who would stop such change anyway. But the statistics don't lie, gun deaths are very high per head of population in the US. And the proliferation of guns there means that they're easy to spread to other countries for criminal use - like having the non-immunised kid who gets measles, who then infects the kid who can't have the measles jab for medical reasons.


RE: ...
By stlrenegade on 12/18/2008 9:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree up to a point. Granted, anything can be used as a weapon, and while nowadays guns are used for sport as well as weapons, I think the initial reason why guns were created was to use as weapons, then for hunting. But that's not really the point of this discussion.

quote:

but by the time my boy is 16, I'll have made sure he knows how to properly handle a real weapon.


quote:
Agreed. Teach them to respect guns for what they are and how to shoot properly. Then they're less likely to make stupid mistakes.


I don't see how this has anything to do with him using a gun to kill his mother and injure his father. Why would training and respect for the gun make the kid decide not to shoot his parents? It sounds like he was going to try and kill them no matter what, and the gun was the easiest way to do that. I think this has to do more with his psychological state than gun training. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with gun training that have shot or killed people.

Training isn't the issue, the kid's frickin' nuts!


RE: ...
By Chernobyl68 on 12/18/2008 6:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Go watch Bourne Identity for proof of this, using a ball-point pen.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you are saying is, learning to drive a car and getting a license would prevent someone from intentionally driving it onto the sidewalk and killing a few people??


No, just leads them to be less likely to do so. Nothing stops the determined person from doing what they desire to do.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But calling what he did a mistake because he wasn't properly trained, NOT AT ALL THE CASE!


No one called it a mistake. Also saying that because a pistol was made to kill people is why he killed someone is NOT AT ALL THE CASE either.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 11:34:38 PM , Rating: 1
We can't rate you down idiot. We posted.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? no one?


I see less likely to make stupid mistakes, I see no where him specifying this was a stupid mistake. I believe you are adding in your own spin on things.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 5:11:03 PM , Rating: 4
Knowing how to use it and using it for a certain purpose are two different things. In the case of a gun, knowing how to use it includes aiming and pulling the trigger, loading it perhaps. Mostly, the functions of the gun. The intended USE however, was to kill his parents. Whether or not he knew how the gun worked would not have changed his intent or purpose of using it. Teaching someone that a gun is "only for defense" or "for hunting", and "never aim it at anyone" is NOT going to change his mind. It is completely ignorant to think knowing anything about gun usage and safety would change whether or not he killed his parents with it.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is completely ignorant to think knowing anything about gun usage and safety would change whether or not he killed his parents with it.


I never said it for sure would, but it surely wouldn't hurt. But it really wasn't the point of my post. I have a feeling if we check the stats, most of the kids doing stuff like this had no formal gun training.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 7:39:05 PM , Rating: 4
But gun training or not, it wouldnt matter. If the kid was intent on killing his parents, how would any gun training make him NOT do it?

If it's gun safety you refer too, maybe now he'll make sure he takes off the safety before pulling the trigger.


RE: ...
By MickKelleher on 12/18/2008 5:34:23 AM , Rating: 1
Lets face it, most kids make a lot of mistakes and tend to fly off the handle at the most insignificant thing. Hell I did plenty of shit when I was that age.

It's not about the right to own arms, it whether having such a lethal weapon in your house with children is such a good idea. If there wasn't a gun next to the game in the box it's unlikely there would be anyone dead in this case.


RE: ...
By clovell on 12/18/2008 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it will. You should read some sociologists' views on how the gun culture in America differs from that of Switzerland.

Respecting firearms and their lethality is an important part of gun safety. Such training is highly correlated to lower gun violence.


RE: ...
By hrah20 on 12/17/2008 1:07:48 PM , Rating: 5
as chris rock said = what ever happen to CRA-ZY !!, you can't be crazy no more?


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 3
Some ppl hunt with pistols, shooting competitions, or good old recreation. Everything ends up with multiple purposes.


RE: ...
By Adonlude on 12/17/2008 4:45:42 PM , Rating: 1
Pistols are people killing machines period. Just because using them is fun and sports have been made out of them their fundamental reason for being doesn't change. Hunting is a sport becuase some find it fun but its purpose is still to kill.

No need to defend the existance of pistols as there is nothing wrong with any of this. I own 3 pistols... so far. Hunting is a good food source and some people need killing.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 4:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever killed anyone with your pistols? If not how does that make them "people killing machines"? PEOPLE can be killing machines that kill other people. Guns are a tool that allows them to do it more efficiently. Baseball bats can kill someone just as effectively as a pistol. You just have to be closer and it might take a few swings.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
A tool, who's specifically designed purpose is to kill human beings.

That is the point.

Again, cracking me up buddy... Baseball bats kill as effectively as guns? Tell that to Chief Kiss Me Arse of the Sault tribe... Oh wait, you can't their bows and arrows and spears got wiped out by guns.

In this case, you think the kid could have taken his mom and dad with the bat? Doubtful.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 12/17/2008 5:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In this case, you think the kid could have taken his mom and dad with the bat? Doubtful.


Okay, maybe you're 300lbs and move like a snail, but if he got them to close their eyes.. one whack to the dad first, and then the mother would probably be too stunned to avoid a similar fate in short order, particularly if he was quick and methodical about his task. Particularly a metal bat. One hit, one kill, if done properly. That should be obvious, but then again, you are one of the most strident argumentative liberals that post here. :P


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, get off your b/f's peepee.

A 16 y/o holding a baseball bat??!?!?! "Son, why do you have that bat?"

We are not talking about Steven Seagal here buddy. Quick? Methodical? A kid. Not a killing machine.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 12/17/2008 5:34:07 PM , Rating: 4
He's not a kid. He's 16. I know in liberal happy land he might be a child (along with most adults -- geez, adjustable rate mortgages, too complex for the average Joe), but not too long ago in history a 16 year old "child" might be a trained methodical killing machine in a professional army, proficient in hand to hand combat as well as wielding a short sword and spear. He might also have a wife and child to return to once his campaign was over (which might involve 1 or even 10 years marching, on foot, hundreds or thousands of miles). The physical capacity for violence is certainly there regardless of if you're naive enough to realize it.

I don't know what world you live in, but it's not this one.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Kid does imply child.

Ringold, get off the Kool-Aid... Take that vicadin and go to sleep.

I cannot even read your rant. It's just babble.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
*** does NOT ****


RE: ...
By nstott on 12/17/2008 8:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Are you the monitor that spews BS?

Teen Charged In Baseball-Bat Slaying Of Mother
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/16268438/detail.html

Boy, 15, Arrested In Baseball Bat Death
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/16327117/detail.html

Town shocked by teen's baseball bat slaying
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/14/baseball.kill...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050413-...

And here's one that FIT is sure to love:

iPod Used In Domestic Homicide
http://www.liquidgeneration.com/rumormill/ipod_kil...
(yeah, that last one's just a joke.)

What we need are child safety locks for bats...and iPods.

Moonbat BS tool!


RE: ...
By Ringold on 12/18/2008 2:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I cannot even read your rant.


I know; liberals come across fact or information that contradicts their world view, and to save themselves from any sort of internal discord it all appears as babble. Psychology 101. :P


RE: ...
By xsilver on 12/17/2008 5:56:58 PM , Rating: 3
I'll chime in - How many teenage killers did so without the use of a gun? If bats/knives etc are just as lethal, they would be the weapon of choice.

If you look at a country that has very tight gun control - you rarely hear kids killing people because they cant find an effective method.
FYI just so I'm not represented as some liberal crackpot - here in australia we have tight gun controls and the last time I remember a kid murdering people was done through poison/knives. Killed his entire family to inherit the fortune. He failed - it was quite a few years ago though.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 6:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting point.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 11:38:49 PM , Rating: 3
Here in the US states with stricter gun control laws have higher crime rates. I could care less what the statistics are in other countries. Knowing a citizen could be armed and faces no repercussions for shooting you as you break into their home is a big deterrent against crime.


RE: ...
By xsilver on 12/18/2008 12:28:44 AM , Rating: 4
I have no comeback for that attitude of "who gives a rats what other countries are doing = usa kicks ass"

you win - dont pistol whip me, just make sure you dont whip out your pistol too fast and do a plexico burress ;)

oh and btw. USA still has high crime rates, its just an arms race. (you cant compare one state to another because the bad guys will easily be able to get guns cause they dont follow the law. duh)
Personally, here in AUS, I have never even seen a gun in my lifetime except on the dusty holster of a police officer.


RE: ...
By bodar on 12/17/2008 9:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the potential is there, but the fact that you would compare the fighting ability of someone who has been taught the arts of combat since he could walk and hold a sword, to a modern-day, suburban snowboarder is pretty laughable.

The gun, much like the crossbow, changed the face of warfare by allowing people to kill more efficiently with less training, less physical prowess, and at greater distance than weapons like swords and clubs (bats).


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't get your point. So far your point is it's design. In all honesty, some handguns were designed for side arms while hunting, .44 mag was made to take down bears.

Literally your point is that it was made to kill people. My question to you is, so? Explain why this matters? Explain how if it was a shotgun, which was made for hunting, would have made this situation different? Had there been rat poison around, which was made to kill rats and used it to kill them, would it have been different to you?


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Slowly read.

FIT said that this could have been prevented with proper training in using a gun. Called it a stupid mistake in fact.

I said, a handgun's purpose is to kill people.

What more training did he need? He used a device for killing people to kill people.

He got it right.

More training in using a gun would not have stopped him from picking up the gun and shooting his parents....

He needed more training in dealing with his emotions, maybe...

You all insinuated that I said hand guns are evil. I did not ever. I simply stated the fact that they exist to kill. And handguns specifically to kill people. Any attempt to give them another purpose is really just kidding yourself.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You all insinuated that I said hand guns are evil. I did not ever. I simply stated the fact that they exist to kill. And handguns specifically to kill people. Any attempt to give them another purpose is really just kidding yourself.


So? It is a fact that taking a bullet to the brain is hazardous to one's health, doesn't have any real relevance to this story other than the parents being shot there. Stating random facts doesn't really do anything, you are just trying to attack guns under the guise of just pointing out facts.

Also the fact remains not all handguns were designed to kill people, as I said the .44 mag was made to kill bears and other large game when the rifle can't be used, same with the .50.


RE: ...
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
How paranoid are you!!!!

And the government really has alien spacecraft in Area 51!

Get off it dude. And not all nuclear weapons were meant to kill people either.. Just prevent others from using them.. Right?


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 7:54:20 PM , Rating: 3
The nuclear buildup WAS used as a deterrent against opposing nations (russia/soviet union) to basically make them back down, not to use them as weapons (only if necessary).

Also, handguns were not designed totally on the basis to kill other people. A handgun is a weapon which serves multiple purposes, mainly as defense. The origins of the gun date back to war, but the premise of a weapon is designed for defense rather than offense. That means whether its used to kill a human, bear, or destroy a machine, it doesnt change the fact of it's original purpose vs its intended purpose.

Definition of gun:
"A gun is a weapon that propels projectiles such as bullets."

Definition of weapon:
"A weapon is a tool used to apply or threaten to apply force for the purpose of hunting, attack or defense in combat, subduing enemy personnel, or to destroy enemy weapons, equipment and defensive structures."

In no way does it say it's purpose is to kill people.


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/17/2008 2:46:28 PM , Rating: 1
Well, it can be used to kill critters, or just to wake people up and let them know they should be elsewhere.

However, if he had really known how to use it properly, he wouldn't have manaaged to shoot someone in the head when they weren't moving and not kill them.

That's a bit beside the point though. Obviously the kid, and probably the parents, are a bit messed up. And we don't have nearly enough info to figure out the why's and how's.


RE: ...
By Manch on 12/18/2008 12:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, if he had really known how to use it properly, he wouldn't have manaaged to shoot someone in the head when they weren't moving and not kill them.


sometimes people just get lucky:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e60_1186197116


RE: ...
By splint on 12/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently people here hate the idea of teaching kids to be responsible with guns.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear that way. Seems silly, if they are shown proper methods and learn to respect something, they are less likely to do something stupid with it. I first shot a rifle when I was about 8. I was just handed the rifle and I figured it out quick enough.


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much. My friend has already gotten a rifle for his son. His son is only around 10. Not a big deal, since they do make rifles for children.


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/17/2008 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 5
Yup. By the time I was 16 I had 2 rifles and a handgun that lived in my room, along with the ammo. My parents ran me through the obligitory hunter safety course as soon as I was old enough.

And even though I got reaaaally pissed at my stepdad a time or two, I never considered shooting anyone. Go figure.

Maybe I just had better firearms, the ones that don't create homocidal urges.


RE: ...
By Yames on 12/17/2008 5:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but how about being respectful of life. Obviously he had none.


RE: ...
By jeff834 on 12/18/2008 12:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah knowing how to use your gun automatically makes you less crazy. I'm not saying guns are good or bad, but that doesn't really make any sense. If the kid's crazy, he's crazy. He needed better parenting and possibly therapy not proper gun instruction.


RE: ...
By robinthakur on 12/18/2008 7:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, or just don't keep a lethal gun in the house. Granted the kid was clearly likely to exact revenge using whatever weapon came to hand, but probably a combination of his immature ability to reason and the sight of a loaded pistol next to his confiscated copy of Halo3 (and the game's subject matter) probably made it much easier to inflict catastrophic and fatal injuries.

At 16, I think its agreed that most young adults minds and reasoning aren't fully formed. Giving them and teaching them how to use a deadly weapon wouldn't be my idea of responsible parenting, but then, I'm not American. Perhaps he thought their force field would regenerate after a couple of hits...

Given that he killed his mother and critically injured his father, I don't think there's much of an argument for "teaching him...to shoot properly" over and above his current ability, unless you're saying that if he was properly taught how to shoot, his father wouldn't have survived. I suppose "your boy" wouldn't miss, would he?


RE: ...
By Dharl on 12/17/2008 12:45:35 PM , Rating: 5
I'll have to agree and disagree with the Minister's Children comment. Being one myself I know how harsh it can be. Often times you are judged very harshly by others, especially those of whatever congregation you attention. There is Irony in that statement...

quote:
Undeterred, Daniel Petric bought the game. Returning home, he had the game taken away by his father, who placed it in his lockbox, which also held a 9 mm handgun.


Anyways, what I find disturbing here is his parents did everything right . How many times have people said here that it's
quote:
The Parents bought a game for an child younger than the age rating
or
quote:
It's the parents fault
I could easily list another 20 examples, but the point is made. In this situation the parents told the child he was not allowed to have this game. He disobeyed and bought it anyways. The father took the next step when he found this out and disciplined the child by taking the game away, and nothing else.

I find it interesting that the father did not get rid of the game completely. It seems like he would be willing to eventually give it back to his son to play. A bit of change of heart, but not without some punishment first.

Anyways, this kid has some serious problems. He was willing to not only disobey in buying the game, but to break into his father's lockbox. Take his father's gun, and try to kill those who loved him. Disturbing and sad.

On the bright side for the video game violence arguement. The kid never even played the game before doing any of them. He was motivated by pure anger over not being able to buy or play a game he wanted. Selfish.


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyways, what I find disturbing here is his parents did everything right .


Really? You think so? So explain how they got shot.

quote:
On the bright side for the video game violence arguement. The kid never even played the game before doing any of them. He was motivated by pure anger over not being able to buy or play a game he wanted. Selfish.


Lack of evidence to make a proper conclusion. He owns an Xbox 360. What other games does he own? How many does he own? How many of them are violent? Assumptions are not fact.


RE: ...
By Dharl on 12/17/2008 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Really? You think so? So explain how they got shot.


Yes I do. Ok here is a simple explaination. The son saw his father's gun. Planned to distract them by betraying their trust and love for him. Pulled the gun up to the back of one's head and pulled the trigger in cold blooded revenge. Turn and did the same to the father.

Simply put it's called murder.

How often do parents in stories like these actually punish there children? Honestly this is probably the first I've heard of.

Most stories like this revolve around parents who buy games for kids who are entirely too young to play them, or parents who don't give a damn and let the kids buy/play/do anything.

These parents were trying to teach this child respect for both their decisions and their authority. He disregarded this and took it a step farther by attempting to kill them. His is a path few trod and only those truly troubled follow. If he didn't do this now, he would do it later at the end of another postal worker joke.

I remember when I was younger my mother took my old NES and games and threw them in the trash. Before that she had tried by taking it away for a month for being disobedient. It got the point across, and I'm grateful for all her efforts. I may have been mad at the time, but that was all.

Going so far as to kill, and attempt to kill your parents is way beyond any normal rational reaction. Especialy from a 16 year old boy.


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 3:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
So you're going to say the parents did the right thing all the time, by this one occassion?

I don't know the whole story, but if all they did was take away the game, I wouldn't consider that proper punishment. That just puts him back at square one. A good form of punishment is to put him further back than square one. Take the game, ground him, take allowance. You can give him a little ass whooping, but he's a bit too old for that kind of crap. Only really do that in the pre-teen years.

How about his upbringing? Did they pay attention to what he does, who he hangs out with, etc?

Again, you simply don't know enough to assume that the parents did everything right. If they did, why would their own child shoot/kill them?

It's possible they sheltered the kid too much and he ended up just venting in this situation. It's also possible that he watched a lot of violent movies, played a lot of violent games, and just brought it out.

My last thought, let alone any thought about these parents is "they did everything right."


RE: ...
By clovell on 12/17/2008 4:17:55 PM , Rating: 5
Who gives a damn? Whatever they did, they didn't deserve to be shot. If they had, the kid would be making allegations, and since those aren't forthcoming...


RE: ...
By Crysalis99 on 12/18/2008 9:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
Alright, I kind of know what I am talking about here. My credentials are: I live in a small suburb of Cleveland area. I have an aunt/uncle/cousins who live in Wellington, OH.

It is one of those little podunk towns. I do know it is a rather redneck town. I do not know just how conservative it is but judging from the things I have seen from the occasional family gathering in that area, it is mildly conservative in the least.

I can't buy that the parents did everything right with their son. IF I remember correctly (don't quote me just yet, I will have to get reassurance from my aunt next week at Christmas), which I am pretty sure I do, this was one of the Assemblies of God churches my aunt tried to go to in the late 90's. One of my cousin's, who is gay, was rather in closet at the time, went to this clergy man and was asking for help/assistance. This pastor responded and I do quote "You should just hang yourself, you're going to hell anyways."

If someone has the mindset to tell someone that, do you seriously think they have the right answers on parenting?


RE: ...
By MrBowmore on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree...

quote:
Sometimes, I just don´t get American type of hypo critic, twisted policies. A 11-year old boy was allowed in a gun-expo in America and blew his head off accidentally as a cause of the recoil


What? No gun show I have ever seen even has the weapons with magazines in them. Most of the time they have locks through them as well. You have to ask the person at the table to see the weapon, they then unlock it and check the chamber and magazine for ammo before giving it to you. Even if they got it without all that, what person has a loaded gun at a gun show on the table? Lastly, how does one blow off your own head from recoil?


RE: ...
By LivingDedBoy on 12/17/2008 3:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What? No gun show I have ever seen even has the weapons with magazines in them. Most of the time they have locks through them as well. You have to ask the person at the table to see the weapon, they then unlock it and check the chamber and magazine for ammo before giving it to you. Even if they got it without all that, what person has a loaded gun at a gun show on the table? Lastly, how does one blow off your own head from recoil?


You clearly don't remember that story. The child was firing the gun with permission from his parent and the stall vendor in a shooting range set up for the event. The gun twisted in hands and he consequently shot himself in the face. That was a case of shit happens and indeed it does.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 4:52:20 PM , Rating: 1
So that is the case of a stupid parent letting their kid, who obviously didn't know how to properly hold a gun, fire a weapon. And sorry but a gun does not recoil so fast that the bullet has not left the chamber by the time the gun has spun around 180 degrees. Perhaps the gun spun around and then the kid pulled the trigger again. Ever see the video of the handgun that so powerful that most people firing it can't hold on to it? None of them got shot even though some of them got hit in the face by the gun flying out of their hands.

Regardless. Is an accident a reason that gun shows shouldn't be allowed or that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns? No. It's a reason for parents to be smarter and not let their kids handle guns if they're not properly trained.


RE: ...
By Cuddlez on 12/17/2008 5:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
[Citation Required]


RE: ...
By bodar on 12/17/2008 10:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444510,00.html
http://www.kake.com/national/headlines/35562789.ht...

All it proves is that there are people stupid enough to believe that a 65-lb 8 year old should be firing a submachinegun, just like they shouldn't be juggling chef knives.


RE: ...
By MrBowmore on 12/18/2008 4:57:53 PM , Rating: 1
What I meant with my 1:st post was that many parents in especially America don´t seem to have focus on the right issues.
They ban their kids (who actually are grown men/women by law in some aspects and states) from playing stupid videogames (witch is fine some times, go out and play when the sun shines!) while polishing their handguns/uzis or whatever.

Parents taking their 8!year old sons to gun expos deserves to be shot in the head as I see it.

To be honest, how many terrorists are being shot by civilians in a year and whats the percentage compared to the innocent childes that sacrifices their lives for the utmost stupid "rights" to carrying guns?

Here it comes, the "reason" for voting me down: The only reason americans are carrying/owning guns is because of fear. FUD. FOX.
That, and there may be because americans still are paranoid over being shot in the back, regarding one of the largest genocides in modern history were made by every one of their ancestors (The slaughtering, raping and stealing of the real "Americans".


RE: ...
By callmeroy on 12/17/2008 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's not enough information in the story (admittedly I only skimmed over it) to judge WHY the parents denied him from playing the game.

As usual these days many of you are putting the cart before the horse here -- what happened to the rules of "I am the parent" "you are the child".....ever have your mom or dad simply state "...as long as you life under my roof....", I think a parent has the right to deny their child of anything so long as it isn't cruel or abusive in that denial.

Frankly its none of our business why the parents didn't want him to play Halo3 -- maybe there is backstory that wasn't reported or even made known to the reporters of this story. Maybe this kid was a bad kid or causing problems for a while now and punishment was no games until...blah blah blah happens.

I'm not saying I agree with it or not, but some parents are just that way.

This kid is a whack job, and i have no sympathy for him at all -- if he died tomorrow violently, it wouldn't make a dent in my world in the least.


RE: ...
By KCjoker on 12/17/2008 5:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
So let me get this right....people on here bash the ones that judge but you're doing it to this guy's dad because he's a preacher?


RE: ...
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/18/2008 1:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I follow.

What do you find so absurd about prohibiting a shooting game and keeping a pistol in the house? How are those two even connected beside the obvious?


RE: ...
By V3ctorPT on 12/17/2008 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
So... When does a movie come out? "Inspired in true events"...

That kid isn't normal, just look at his face :s he must be full of xanax or something...


RE: ...
By dragonbif on 12/17/2008 5:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
For this comment I would have to say it is true but not in the way you are thinking. Kids today have some odd complexes such as the they have it and I want it.
For this kid he grew up with his parents telling him "no you can't go to that party because there are no parents home and they are drinking" or "you can't play some video games because they are too violent." He felt like he was being abused in some way like most kids that see other kids at school have or do something they want but their parents wont let them.
For example little Jen is 16 years old and she wants a cell phone of her own with a full texting plan. Her parents tell her they can't afford a $70 a month plan so she can't get it. Jen pulls out the "but Jana has her own cell phone and her parents pay for it." the parents still say "no" and Jen pissed calling her parents retards and all sorts of other things because she can't have a cell phone. This happens all the time with these sorts of things and some kids fell like they are being abused by their parents when they don't know that Jana is doing some "favors" for her father for the phone. Not really but I am just saying that some kids just do not know what real abuse can be.
Now if Jen pays for this phone herself that is when the parents should gve the hells ya go for it. If the kid is willing to work for it then it is ok but all things in moderation right? Hopefully Jen will figure out that she can't talk for 100000 hours a month or talk on it at school in class.
Now it is the parents' job to guide their kids to the age of 18 as the best they know how even if that means no violent video games. After 18 and the kid move out of the "parent's home" they can dow what they want with the knowledge they have been given. There are some parents that should not even have kids. For example (true story here) this family lived down the street from me and did not have high morels or stadards, if they had any. They would let their 15 year old daughter have sex with her boy friends in their home and even give the boy friend a condom when he would go over. The girl ends up pregnant and the parents of the girl get all pissed off at the boy saying it is his fault. I turned out that the boys parents did not know what he was doing at the girls house and were even told that "they were behaving themselves" by the girls parents.


RE: ...
By Samus on 12/18/2008 12:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it just me or has anyone noticed how the preachers kids are always getting in the most trouble?


There is a Simpsons episode at least 10 years old that stars Jessica Lovejoy, a 'preachers daughter' as being a little hellion.

The problem begins when these children are forced to comply with their parents beliefs.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 12/18/2008 4:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it just me or has anyone noticed how the preachers kids are always getting in the most trouble? I don't think it was the video game that sent him postal as much as it was the parenting. That's just and opinion though, I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure that's just an artifact of the press choosing which stories play well with the public. If some trailer trash kid offed his junkie parents, people would just go, "well that figures," and that would be the end of their interest. It doesn't make a good story. But when a preacher's kid does it, the irony makes for a good story, so the press plays it.

Same thing happened with the gay guy about a decade ago who was taken to a remote location, beaten up, and killed because he was gay. That story was all over the news for almost a year. But a couple weeks after that incident, a christian guy was taken to a remote location, beaten up, and killed because he was christian. The press hardly gave that any airtime. The first story involved a majority oppressing a minority, so makes a good story. The second story involved a minority lashing out at a majority in a nasty way, so doesn't make a good story.


RE: ...
By aapocketz on 12/17/2008 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
...for taking away _____

the only reason this is on DailyTech is because it has Halo 3 mentioned. You could replace that with anything, and it would be valid. I vote for "Bratz doll." This kid needs serious help, I have met disturbed kids like that, its freaky to know it could go this far.

In fact you could make an argument that this is why you shouldn't shelter your kids so much. It wasn't so much that Halo 3 was "taken away" as he was forbidden to purchase it (at 16 no less). They should have let him play halo and forbid him to snowboard.

Also you could perhaps make an argument that this minister didn't need a 9mm laying around. Or perhaps he needed a better lock on his gun cabinet. Or perhaps not hide his kids toys in the gun cabinet.


RE: ...
By Maximilian on 12/17/2008 12:50:38 PM , Rating: 1
Fuck that, thats cause for disownment.... many people have been disowned for much less than shooting their mom in the head. Dad is really forgiving.... too forgiving.

As for the halo 3 thing, whatever, it was his "favourite toy" and it was taken away. If it wasent halo 3 then it wouldve been something else. The kid was screwed to begin with for doing that. No doubt jack thompson and co will ignore that.


RE: ...
By HrilL on 12/17/2008 1:36:09 PM , Rating: 3
If the dad wasn't forgiving then he wouldn't believe in what he teaches...


RE: ...
By clovell on 12/17/2008 4:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
and a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I don't mean to question the authenticity of the man, but grappling with forgiveness on this scale is a monumental task. I couldn't do it, and I've no problem saying he may very well be a better man than I.

I hope they try him as an adult.


RE: ...
By Murloc on 12/17/2008 4:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
This guy looks mental, and if his father says that then it's a strange situation.


RE: ...
By wordsworm on 12/18/2008 12:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
What I find retarded is that these retards are saying that the game killed the parents. OK, so, if the kid had taken the game out and killed his parents with it, I'd understand.

The game didn't kill the parents, the damn gun killed the parents. Is no one sane in this world? Come on people! If they want to ban something, get rid of the damn guns! Games don't kill people, guns kill people.


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/18/2008 3:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Guns don't kill people Wormy. People do. Guns do, however, make it easier.


RE: ...
By StormEffect on 12/17/2008 11:29:21 AM , Rating: 5
This kid sounds psychotic either way, he needs help. Usually I'm more the type to call for extreme punishment, but I'm just so creeped out. Many years ago, under my parents roof, there were a couple times they took away a video game or two. Never ONCE did I consider hurting them.


RE: ...
By marvdmartian on 12/17/2008 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if that's a case of psychosis, or rather just bad parenting? If they never taught him enough morals to where he knew it was bad to do such a thing.....

Too often I see younger people who act as if the world owes them everything, and are crushed when they find out it's just not true.....and most of the time it can be traced back to the parents that gave their kids anything they wanted, on demand, without ever teaching them any reality.

Just reading the story, I'd say this kid is your typical, "I want it, I want it now, my parents are full of it, and I'm going to do whatever I want to do!!" type, that never learned that actions can have consequences. And it took the death of his mother for him to learn that lesson.


RE: ...
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if that's a case of psychosis, or rather just bad parenting? If they never taught him enough morals to where he knew it was bad to do such a thing.....


Hmm...and the father was a minister... o.0


RE: ...
By othercents on 12/17/2008 11:44:39 AM , Rating: 5
Actually I think the reverse is true. They were overly protective and tried to ingrain their morals causing a backlash of bad behavior. It is shown especially when the kid purchased the game even though his parents forbid it. I don't see a reason to forbid Halo 3 for a 16 year old unless you believe that the violence is "evil". Which could be the stance a minister would take.

Other


RE: ...
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 11:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
And a minister taking that stance probably wouldn't keep a gun in the house. Eh, everyone in that story was wacky.


RE: ...
By DFranch on 12/17/2008 11:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
You could argue that the parents find violence revolting except he had a gun in the house.


RE: ...
By MozeeToby on 12/17/2008 1:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
I would argue that Dad knew something was mentally not right with the kid. Knew the kid was prone to violence and outbursts. Knew the kid was potentially dangerous.

And that is why he forbid violent games. We all say, '99.9% of kids can play these games without any problems'. To me, it seems like Mom and Dad recognized that their kid was in the .1%.


RE: ...
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, taking the game away is what caused him to shoot them, not playing it.


RE: ...
By rcc on 12/17/2008 3:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have enough info to know. They may have refused the game to him because he needed to get out more and exercise to get over the effects of his injury, and he just wanted to stay home and play games. We don't know.

Either way, he's mess up and we don't know why.


RE: ...
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 3:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much what I've been saying. Bad parenting? Purely just a psycho? Who really knows.

Me personally, I lean towards too strict of parenting and the kid just had enough after all the years and lashed out.


RE: ...
By Bender 123 on 12/17/2008 4:09:13 PM , Rating: 3
In a simplistic sense, yes...but there are many other uses for guns. I have used firearms many times in the past for target shooting, skeet, etc...and if the father was a hunter, a rifle and handgun are basic tools of the sport (I dont hunt, as I have no use for venison/game meat). Nothing "violent" in that, even compared to what happens at your friendly meat processing plant.

Having a gun and being anti violence are not mutually exclusive.

You could make the same case if the kid slit the parents neck with a knife, dropped a piano on them, ran them over, etc...The tool used does not define the crime, its the act that defines the crime. The kid, for whatever reason, did not know/care that the response to the punishment was over a line...

My point is, in absence of a gun, it would have been something else.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 12/17/2008 5:04:15 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get the fixation on the gun. If not that, like others say, it'd be something else; baseball bat would work well. Is it just the normal liberal fixation on guns, or is there some deeper argument here?

The ultimate case for a gun is self defense, though. So what if he is a minister? Ever even hear any of the stories from the bible? If you don't think Jesus/god would condone some old-school Clint Eastwood style ass kicking in the name of defense or justice, you'd be wrong. Remember Saving Private Ryan? Praise Jesus, then headshot another Nazi.


RE: ...
By robinthakur on 12/18/2008 7:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
There's nothing particularly liberal about not wanting to be shot with a gun, its more to do with seeing the horrible injuries/deaths they cause. Do conservatives enjoy being shot, or do they always imagine that they'll be the only ones holding a gun?

The last time I checked there was a seperation of church and state in America and it hasn't gone the way of Saudi Arabia, and a gun merely allow you to defend yourself using more extreme prejudice than a baseball bat affords. defense and justice based ass-kicking are very subjective terms; who's to say that in his warped state the kid didn't think he was in the right?

Lastly, is America really so unsafe with criminals/bears/the government threatening to invade your homes that you constantly feel the need for a gun to feel safe? If so, then the ability to own guns should be the least of your worries. Whilst the appeal of shooting targets on a range appeals to me, the thought of keeping one in my home (or needing to) is a horrible thought.


RE: ...
By arsmitty86 on 12/18/2008 11:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm kind of sick of this entire argument... That's what I call the "sheep in you". If your naive enough to listen to the media and think that your safe or your disturbed and think that taking guns away will solve the problem. The big key thing that people always seem to forget is this. What do criminals do? BREAK THE LAW. IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE THEM. I carry mine 24/7 withe the exception of being at work ( I work at a highschool). GUNS don't kill people. People kill people. Your all idiots who think otherwise. Heres a clue. I can kill someone with a knife. Should we outlaw them? How about hairdryers since I could toss them in a tub with someone I ddin't like? Matches? Gas? where does it end? The kid was warped. The training issue is a real argument. Something no one is considered is that someone who has handled a firearm on a regular basis knows what they are capable of and is more apt to respect them and not use them against someone. Someone whos only used them in video games or movies conversley is likely to be desensitized as they've never seen someone or something shot in person. Hunting is a good deterrnt. No one in their right mind enjoys watching anything die. I give up. The worlds going to hell faster and faster everyday because the F#ckin dems want to take away our rights and shove things that are fundamentally wrong down our throats...


RE: ...
By glennpratt on 12/17/2008 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's all conjecture, you don't know why it wasn't allowed. Perhaps he didn't get Halo 3 because he needed to focus on things other then gaming, but so far, who knows.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 12:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
While i agree with your categorization of certain kids, i know the type, im not sure if that was the case here. The only downside to this whole issue though is that they are going to try to incorporate video game violence to the actual violence.


RE: ...
By bldckstark on 12/17/2008 12:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Too many people think that parenting causes behavior like this. Kids are born with the 80% of their personality intact. They learn to make decisions based on learned behaviors, by watching their parents or personal experience. A parent can't stop a kid from doing pretty much anything they want to do.
I have twin boys. They are identical. They have been raised exactly the same way. One of them throws awful fits when he gets disappointed by something, the other takes things in stride. One of them breaks every rule we set for them, the other rarely does. Guess what, the one that throws the fits is the one that rarely breaks the rules. Go figure.
That said, hiding the kids contraband with your guns is really stupid. What was the logic? The kid wants this so bad that I have to lock it up to keep him from taking it back, so I will put it in with my handgun?


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 12:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of hard to tell whether or not bad parenting affects personality. You don't have two chances with the same kid to see if they turn out any differently. The parenting thing does really show with certain people though. Oftentimes you can look at a kid's personality and correctly tell how he was raised almost instantly.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
forgot to comment on ur twins. Im not denying that personality is not somewhat set by birth, but parenting does have an affect on people in certain ways. Unless you have the exact same kid (not even twins are exact enough) twice, then you will never know if parenting helped or not.


RE: ...
By Bender 123 on 12/17/2008 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
My twins are the same way...You can punish them equally and one learns and the other just shrugs it of. Parenting has a great deal of affect on the child, but some are just more daring than others. Some are quiet by nature. Your parenting wont affect the base behavior, but it will build up that voice that tells them whats a good and bad idea, so they learn limits.

And sometimes a persons wiring is so screwed up, no amount of parenting will affect them...Despite our best efforts, some people are just crazy...simple as that...they dont operate on the same plane as the rest of us.


RE: ...
By Darkefire on 12/17/2008 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I remember buying Timesplitters 2 shortly after it came out (I was 17 at the time, mind you). My Dad saw me and my brother (15) playing it and promptly made me return it to the store because it involved shooting people. Oh, I argued with them. I had a long and animated conversation with my Mom about the differences between virtual violence and real violence and exactly why people enjoy the former and not the latter. I inevitably lost all of these arguments.

So I did what any rational young adult would do and cheated. I made sure to borrow the violent games from friends and play them while my parents weren't home. They got the hint pretty soon after and let me have the run of the display case at the store. And to imagine, I didn't have to shoot anyone!

Life in prison is too good for this scum. Hell, the electric chair is too good for him. He shot two unarmed people in cold blood for being the kind of good and decent parents America needs; I say we burn him at the stake.


RE: ...
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 4:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
"good and decent parents America needs"

I think that's pushing it. I agree that from their point of view, they are showing some care, and are simply trying to be nice and keep violence away from their son, but it would be stupid to think that their actions were correct since there's no real evidence linking violence in video games to real world violence.


RE: ...
By trisct on 12/18/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Lock up this little creep. Give him 15 years with nothing to do but think about what he's done.

And no Halo 3 in prison, either...


Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 11:28:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
His parents complied. Daniel Petric then, according to testimony, shot both of his parents in the head. His father has recovered and is delivering key testimony in the case.


Man, this just goes to show you how much 9mm hand guns suck. Two head shots at close range, only 50% kill ratio.




RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Misty Dingos on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 11:38:43 AM , Rating: 3
OMG! I shouldn't be laughing! But I am!


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're not the only one.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 1
I got mine because I wanted something cheap to shoot. And honestly, regardless of the caliber, with a good home defense round, they're all going to blow a hole in someone breaking into your home while not going through walls.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 1
9mm rounds have a BAD habit of going right through people and through walls. Rifle rounds and shotgun slugs are best for home defense. Most decent rifle rounds fragment on impact cause of the velocity which minimizes collateral damage chances (except the crappy AK round 7.62X39 which just tumbles, but still less likely to damage collaterally).


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Ryanman on 12/17/2008 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
...actually, a 5.56mm round from an AR-15 variant will tumble. The AK's 7.62 rarely does.

As for 9mm, good for target practice as Camaro said. And for home defense, you won't have to deal with nearly as much recoil - so it evens out.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:32:54 PM , Rating: 1
http://journalsip.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES...

Try again. Ballistics gel tests prove this time and time again. 7.62X39 fired from an AK has a tendency to tumble and veer downward. 5.56MM Fragments and spreads pretty evenly.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By callmeroy on 12/17/2008 12:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
I failed to see the funny in the original tasteless comment , though I wasn't one to rate anyone down. Actually i think the ratings on any discussion board are pretty stupid. Do folks really care about ratings on these things?

One comment I did chuckle at though was the "crappy AK round 7.62" -- since its one of the most highly touted, most used round in militaries around the world and the AK is probably the finest assault rifle every made.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:28:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One comment I did chuckle at though was the "crappy AK round 7.62" -- since its one of the most highly touted, most used round in militaries around the world and the AK is probably the finest assault rifle every made.


I chuckled at this, cause you clearly don't know jack about ballistics or firearms. You fail to find my original comment funny most likely due to the same reason.

The AK is the worlds most commonly used firearm because it is cheap to make and shoot, it fires a NATO standard round, it has loose tolerances which help it fire through most anything and just about any moron can pick one up and fire it.

Now the down sides are its horrible inaccuracy, horrible ballistics of the round and lack of quick take down/modularity enjoyed by the AR platform. Shoot an AR, then an AK, you will see the difference.

Recoil is better controlled through a spring loaded, dampened stock and the rifle is more accurate by leaps and bounds. Also a fun fact, the lethality of the 5.56 round within normal combat distance (around 200 yards or less) is higher with the 5.56. The 5.56 round fragments within a few inches of impact, the 7.62X39 just tumbles. So while the bullet is larger, it really does less damage. AR can be had in just about any caliber you desire as well, all the way up to .50.

Remember the true goal in bullets is to try to damage organs and cut arteries. Blood loss drops people faster than most everything else short of a head shot. The 7.62 leaves a slightly larger temporary cavity than the 5.56, but the actual size of damage is much smaller.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By rcc on 12/17/2008 3:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The AK is the worlds most commonly used firearm because it is cheap to make and shoot, it fires a NATO standard round


Okay, I don't disagree with most of what you said, however, I believe it uses a standard Russian round, commonly available, but not a NATO standard round.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 3:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
You would be correct. I'm mixing it up in my head with the 7.62X51 (.308).


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By afkrotch on 12/17/2008 4:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
You do know the AK uses a lot of different rounds and of course different models.

AK-47 - 7.62
AK-74 - 5.45
AK-101 - 5.56
AK-103 - 7.62

Only real reason the AK-47 is still being used, is because of the sheer abundance of them. The AK-74 is just as easy to make as the 47, just ammo isn't as easily attainable.

I'm going to say the 7.62 does more damage, because it tumbles. Which do you think would be much more damaging? A bullet that goes cleanly through someone or one that tumbles into someone and possibly stays inside tumbling?


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 4:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which do you think would be much more damaging? A bullet that goes cleanly through someone or one that tumbles into someone and possibly stays inside tumbling?


Neither, that is why the 5.56 is used, as it fragments. The point of NATO standards is to make a bullet as humane as possible. The 5.56 usually kills quite quickly and humanely as can be when getting shot, same with the 7.62X51 (.308). Tumbling usually just opens small cavities and you will die slow if at all.

The only reason they are thinking of changing from the 5.56 is because of poor long range capabilities and problems with not dropping armored units. I am hoping they go 6.5 Grendel as it is an amazing round and it would make ammo for mine much cheaper.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By inighthawki on 12/17/2008 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
I would rate that up but i already posted. +1 by me though, funny comment. People take things too seriously sometimes...


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By glitchc on 12/17/2008 11:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing like a good 44 cal. to do the job for you eh? Or better yet, a 50 cal, so you can take half the head off with it...

Maybe he should've just used the pistol from Halo 1. Could've taken his parents out from a block away, at least.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 11:43:55 AM , Rating: 1
I dunno man, at that range I always chose the 8 gauge shotty over the pistol.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 11:50:50 AM , Rating: 1
Personally, I prefer a .45 or .357. Plenty of punch without so much recoil you can't hit a barn at 10 feet. Just so happens those two loads tend to be the highest knockdown ratio handgun cartridges. Of course, rifle is better than any handgun anyway so that is my number one choice.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 9mm Sig P225. My next gun will probably be a .40 caliber P229. Co-worker has one and I shot it. Recoil wasn't much and was nice and accurate.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
Try a Ruger P345, you won't waste your time with the .40 or the 9mm again. Kicks like a 9, punch like a high power .40. I was debating on getting the new mid frame Ruger .357, cause it was amazing.

Looks like I will just have to live with my Alexander Arms AR-15 Carbine 6.5MM Grendel I have ordered (got rid of my Bushmaster AR-15 Carbine 5.56MM for this).


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Lord 666 on 12/17/2008 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
No KH45?


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Lord 666 on 12/17/2008 12:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, HK45


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like HK's .45. I shot a USP and it kicked like a bastard for a .45, it was heavy and wasn't very comfortable for me. The Ruger just kicked its ass in everything except rounds (8 vs 10).


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Sanity on 12/17/2008 12:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
Pistols are fun (I own a Glock 19) but for home defense, the first choice should be a 12 gauge. Just point and shoot. You only really have to be close, not a marksman. Having said that, I'm hoping my next purchase will be a Colt .45 SAA model P1870. Those guns are a thing of beauty. I'd love to wear one on each hip. Though learning to shoot left handed can't be easy.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By callmeroy on 12/17/2008 1:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I prefer shotguns for home defense myself, but then I have no kids either -- if I had small children in my house i'd probably like more accuracy...just in case.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By rcc on 12/17/2008 3:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention everyone knows the sound of a 12 gauge pump chambering a round. It's a great deterent.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By glitchc on 12/19/2008 2:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
:S I was being sarcastic. I even made it obvious with the Halo reference.

To all the people who responded to my post: You do realize you were debating the efficacy of one weapon over another.... for killing parents, right?


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By DASQ on 12/17/2008 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 1
More than likely the shooter only scored glancing hits to the head. Even a 9mm round will easily kill at point blank ranges with a centered head shot.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 12:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
So will a .22, not impressive. Had it been even a .223 rife, it would have been "coitens" for all of 'em


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By SlipDizzy on 12/17/2008 1:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
Gzus666:

Your comments are awesome 99% of the time. This is one of those times.

Anyway, if I was this kid's father and he just shot my wife/his mother. We would no longer be family, friends, or acquaintances. I'm sorry, but that is a scar that will never heal.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your comments are awesome 99% of the time. This is one of those times.


The other 1% might be those times when I'm really bored, so I start a random argument to entertain myself. I thank anyone who argued with those, cause it kept me entertained.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By gstrickler on 12/17/2008 1:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a 9mm is quite effective, with the right ammo and a good marksman. I'd say that in this case, neither applies. Probably had standard target ammo and he's not that good a marksman.

I prefer the .40S&W, nearly as cheap to shoot and a significantly better round.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By Gzus666 on 12/17/2008 2:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
A .22 pistol is quite effective with the right ammo and a good marksmen, doesn't really make it a good round.

Have to say the .40 is a way better round for sure though. Pistols I prefer .45 or .357, just no replacement for these.


RE: Tasteless Comment Time
By waltzendless on 12/18/2008 2:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
The kid should've back-knocked them and gotten 2 assassination medals. Then wait for them to respawn, of course.


Psychotic? Hardly.
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 1:09:46 PM , Rating: 1
First of all, 16/yo's have sex. Get pregnant/get someone pregnant. Do drugs. Drink alcohol. Write music. Perform on stage. Work/have jobs. And in some parts of this country, shoot guns at people every day.

Only in middle/upper class white America does this count as Psychotic. How many of you have watched movies/documentaries about Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Wyatt Earp. The "kids"/gang members in those stories kill people too. And most of you probably come to think of those people as tragic heroes....

A person isn't psychotic simply because they use the most extreme case of violence to resolve conflicts. Would it be any less psychotic if the kid started punching the parents? Clearly the young man's moral center is faulty. But that is true of anyone who uses violence to resolve conflicts. Just in white America we don't see young men/women committing these types of crimes... Ask the citizens of Detroit, L.A., Queens, NYC, if any of them have ever seen a 16 y/o shoot someone with a gun. I don't they would describe the person as psychotic. Nor would you.




RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Spivonious on 12/17/2008 1:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
So if lots of people do it, that makes it okay? I hope you're not in any position of power.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 4:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
??????

Did I say it was okay? My point is labeling him as pyschotic is comforting I am sure, but killing someone you disagree with is not new... And not even close to pyschotic.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By clovell on 12/17/2008 6:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
In this context, it generally is.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 1:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Clearly the young man's moral center is faulty. But that is true of anyone who uses violence to resolve conflicts.


So a soldier who shoots a terrorist so that that person can't kill innocents has a faulty moral center? No.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Bender 123 on 12/17/2008 4:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
No...But i have never met a combat veteran who likes to talk about his service or people he killed either. They are not proud of the people they killed, just the service of protecting others. They almost always discuss the enemy as a person and feel pain from that, but also see what was at stake.

There is nothing wrong with that situation, but at least the soldier most likely feels the affect of snuffing another persons life.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By FITCamaro on 12/17/2008 4:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
You said anyone who resorts to violence has faulty morals. The fact that maybe soldiers feel bad about killing people doesn't change your stated belief that they have bad morals because they chose to resort to violence to solve a conflict.

So which is it? Is it anyone or only those who don't feel bad about it.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
But then soldiers are not going around murdering people now are they.

The conflict we are talking about is not war... Personal conflicts with other people in society.. That's the context...

Not, I am a member of a terrorist organization and you are a part of the civilization I hate...


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Bender 123 on 12/18/2008 10:26:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yo, FIT...I am Bender 123 you are combining statements from myself and BSMonitor. Different people dude.

BTW...I am more on the logic side that there is no absolute here. I use guns and was aware of there intended purpose, but i also have never shot a living thing.

I believe killing is wrong in all situations, but i am logical enough to know that that if your going to make it a me or you fight, I would rather it be you...


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 4:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
Right, cause that's the context of this article. Terrorists at the point of killing people..........

The king of out-of-context comments FIT returns.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Kalessian on 12/17/2008 11:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you said, BSMonitor, about the far above stuff too.

You're right, he didn't have to be "psychotic". He could have been so angry that he couldn't think straight, and some 16 year old men have more hormones to blind them than others do.

I'm not condoning it, but not every person who breaks the 'acceptable moral code of society' is a crazy in a sense that they have no idea what they are doing.

Personally, I agree with Chris Rock. I think all this psycho stuff is because all of the psychology majors discovered their degrees were useless.

Also, the people who said he needed gun control advice. That's ridiculous. Do you guys think to yourselves, every time you see a gun-related crime, "Gosh, if only he had taken a hunter's safety course, then none of this would have happened..."

BS is right, he needed a different kind of help, not gun safety help.

If someone can point me to concrete evidence that gun safety lessons reduce a person's tendency towards violence I'd love to see it.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By clovell on 12/18/2008 4:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
Gun safety and training on a societal level is correlated with lower gun violence (See Switzerland).


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By clovell on 12/17/2008 4:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
I describe him as psychotic because he committed pre-meditated murder against the woman who bore him into this world with little to no justification, not because of race.

Nice try, though.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Ringold on 12/17/2008 5:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nice try, though.


Indeed. Not only did he manage to play the race card, he tossed in some class warfare! The only thing missing was a global warming reference.


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By BSMonitor on 12/17/2008 5:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Indeed. Not only did he manage to play the race card, he tossed in some class warfare!


Good to be old and close-minded. Again it is what it is. The guys I see in Detroit are Mexican, White, Black, all kinds... But I do not see the articles on this site about those 16yo Detroit natives who commit these type of crimes being called psychotic. I think they are called criminals. Or Rappers maybe? That fit your stereotypes better?


RE: Psychotic? Hardly.
By Ringold on 12/18/2008 2:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who knows those kind of economically and culturally challenged people, and went to high school in a rather bad inner city school due to Florida's attempt at desegregation, those people are entirely different. They're normal human beings, like you and I. They may suffer from being raised in a culture that has for decades had a rotten core due to the corrupting influence of the welfare state, but beneath it all, human beings with emotions. Sure, some are nasty, with little or no compassion or regard for human life, but most of those have been made that way by their environment.

This kid, which everyone but you must understand, is not at all like those people. In fact, for someone who claims to know poor inner city blacks, you apparently forgot the most important relationship in a black mans young life; that with his mother. Do you actually know any of these people you're talking about, or do you just see them out the window as you drive by them in your Prius and pretend you know them?


A point not adderssed yet
By kontorotsui on 12/17/2008 12:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
There is a point nobody has addressed yet.

How is it possible a kid can use an hand gun at his age?
I mean, unless the father was so idiot to leave it cocked and loaded, he's sup