You can't make this stuff up!

It's not just the parent's fault. Some kids are born bad.

Haven't you read, "The bad seed"?
 
That a four year old can get access to his parents gun means that the blame here is FIRMLY on the parent.

Unsure of gun storage laws in Ohio, but in Australia we're only allowed to keep guns in our home in a locked storage container, where the doors remain locked and the lock is a certain height from the ground.
 
slant said:
It's not just the parent's fault. Some kids are born bad.

Haven't you read, "The bad seed"?
Click to expand...

It's still the parents' "fault" (though I would choose the word responsibility). If parents have a Bad Seed, they should be even LESS careless to leave a loaded gun where their child could get it and cause harm to himself or others with it.

We're talking about a four year old. Who obtained a gun. In their house.

Parents fault. Entirely.
 
ZenCat said:
It's still the parents' "fault" (though I would choose the word responsibility). If parents have a Bad Seed, they should be even LESS careless to leave a loaded gun where their child could get it and cause harm to himself or others with it.

We're talking about a four year old. Who obtained a gun. In their house.

Parents fault. Entirely.
Click to expand...

Maybe in that situation, but the child would have found a way to a weapon anyhow if it hadn't been so easy to access. And what does it matter the age? Serial Killers don't have age requirements.
 
slant said:
Maybe in that situation, but the child would have found a way to a weapon anyhow if it hadn't been so easy to access. And what does it matter the age? Serial Killers don't have age requirements.
Click to expand...

Developmentally speaking, this isn't accurate. The development of conscience is not established at age four. It has to be nurtured. By the parents or caregivers. At this age is is the parents/caregivings responsibility to teach and encourage right from wrong, empathy, sympathy, self-control, responsibility, consequences, etc. True conscience does not even begin to emerge until the age of 6-7, and then it is only in it's budding stages.

A four year old can not be expected to have a conscience, or the kind of sophisticated thought patterns, morals, or the clarity of understanding of urge vs. repurcussions associated with murder and serial killing.

If a four year old shoots someone, it's the parents fault. A four year old can not be expected to have the intellectual abilities, the physical maturity, or even the height to go out and procure a weapon on his own. The weapon was made available to the child - by the negligent parents - and the nurturing of right and wrong appears to be absent.

Parent's fault. 100%

The Age of Reason

Around the time of her 7th birthday, your child's conscience emerges to help guide her actions.

Few parents would argue with the observation that children age 6 and younger do not have great control over their feelings and impulses. Nor is your very young child likely to take genuine responsibility for her actions, or heed adults' urging to be considerate of others. When she does the right thing, she is more likely responding to your expectations and demands than exercising her own conscience.
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=7241
Click to expand...
The conscience tells children to do what's right even when no one is watching. Developing a conscience doesn't just happen. Kids will not acquire control over their impulses without teaching, interference and restriction from parents and other significant adults.

Parents begin the process of instilling a conscience in their children at about 18 months, but it doesn't fully take hold for years. In fact, for all the years your children live in your home, you work to build and refine their conscience. But it takes more than a conscience for children to do what's right. A conscience is only effective if it's coupled with parental controls.

It's not until about age eight that a child can slip into another's skin and fully empathize. Up until then, kids are just too egocentric. But parents can start teaching empathetic responses in toddlerhood.

http://familyfun.go.com/parenting/child/dev/feature/dony118faconsc/dony118faconsc3.html
Click to expand...
 
ZenCat said:
Developmentally speaking, this isn't accurate. The development of conscience is not established at age four. It has to be nurtured. By the parents or caregivers. At this age is is the parents/caregivings responsibility to teach and encourage right from wrong, empathy, sympathy, self-control, responsibility, consequences, etc. True conscience does not even begin to emerge until the age of 6-7, and then it is only in it's budding stages.

A four year old can not be expected to have a conscience, or the kind of sophisticated thought patterns, morals, or the clarity of understanding of urge vs. repurcussions associated with murder and serial killing.

If a four year old shoots someone, it's the parents fault. A four year old can not be expected to have the intellectual abilities, the physical maturity, or even the height to go out and procure a weapon on his own. The weapon was made available to the child - by the negligent parents - and the nurturing of right and wrong appears to be absent.

Parent's fault. 100%
Click to expand...
Touché.
 
There is no such thing as an evil child, they are what they are thought.
A child who is able to access gun by the endearing curiosity that comes with the age is the parents fault and then manages to trigger it off... Perhaps the danger implemented in movies or having seen parents using it has had an impact on the child, if observed. The gun should have been locked away!

Nevertheless my concern is what will happen to the child when conscience emerges.
 
ZenCat said:
Developmentally speaking, this isn't accurate. The development of conscience is not established at age four. It has to be nurtured. By the parents or caregivers. At this age is is the parents/caregivings responsibility to teach and encourage right from wrong, empathy, sympathy, self-control, responsibility, consequences, etc. True conscience does not even begin to emerge until the age of 6-7, and then it is only in it's budding stages.

A four year old can not be expected to have a conscience, or the kind of sophisticated thought patterns, morals, or the clarity of understanding of urge vs. repurcussions associated with murder and serial killing.

If a four year old shoots someone, it's the parents fault. A four year old can not be expected to have the intellectual abilities, the physical maturity, or even the height to go out and procure a weapon on his own. The weapon was made available to the child - by the negligent parents - and the nurturing of right and wrong appears to be absent.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! This is why, as a satanist who believes the definition of evil is "encroaching or interfering with on another's will", I'm able to justify ripping a child off the road if a car is coming. The child is unable to completely understand the cause and effect, of the physical, emotional and dharmic worlds. Therefore it is the responsibility to inhibit the actions and will of a developing human until they are of the age or ability to make logical, justifiable decisions for themselves.

Anything else is doing the child a disservice by allowing them to commit an action they might feel tremendously horrified over in years to come.
 
slant said:
Maybe in that situation, but the child would have found a way to a weapon anyhow if it hadn't been so easy to access. And what does it matter the age? Serial Killers don't have age requirements.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? A FOUR year old is very easy to keep things out of reach from.

Come on. This is the parents fault. If you have weapons and children , you should have secured those weapons in such a way that the children cannot access them.

Parents fault all the way and I hope they get prosecuted for their lack of common sense.
 
Pristinegirl said:
There is no such thing as an evil child, they are what they are thought.
A child who is able to access gun by the endearing curiosity that comes with the age is the parents fault and then manages to trigger it off... Perhaps the danger implemented in movies or having seen parents using it has had an impact on the child, if observed. The gun should have been locked away!

Nevertheless my concern is what will happen to the child when conscience emerges.
Click to expand...

I never said evil. I'm a strong believer in chemical imbalances and the impact it has a certain individuals. Who is to say this kid wouldn't have killed without acess to the weapon? The only reason the child isn't held liable is because of age.

What if it hadn't been four- what if it had been 10? You [generic you] see where I'm going here with this? Perhaps it doesn't apply for this case, but a lot of teenage or youthful killers are let of the hook. There are signs of a killer, and people fail to detect them.
 
I do believe age should be a factor here. It's not discriminating against the parents in this case, because the child really doesn't get it. There was no premeditation here; the child acted out of anger, and he acted in the way he *thought* was correct, based on how he viewed others around him.

Now, if the child thought about it, went back to that locker (or wherever the gun was stored, waited until the babysitter went home and *then* shot the sitter in his sleep? I'd wonder if it was a "bad seed" situation. But because it was an immediate reaction (read: temper tantrum) I have no doubt that this four-year-old was simply mad, and he was immitating what he saw in the home.

Which was NOT a good thing.

My guess is, he saw adults using weapons when they were upset, and felt that this was the best way to express his anger. He saw it, the situation occurred often enough in the home that he imitated it, and the gun was easily accessible so he could get it while he was still angry. This tells me the parents were completely in the wrong.

If it was premeditated and planned and thought out, then I'd wonder about the mental stability of the child and his environment. But this was clearly (IMO) a case of a temperamental child acting out something he'd seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top