Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

US girl aged 10 killed by falling bullet on New Year's.... Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/201...t-on-new-years

    A 10-year-old girl in the US has died after being struck by a stray bullet fired in the air during New Year's celebrations.

    Aaliyah Boyer was watching midnight fireworks outside a home in Elkton, Maryland, south of Philadelphia, when she was struck in the head by a falling bullet.

    Adults initially believed Aaliyah had passed out and hit her head, but the bullet wound was discovered when she arrived at hospital.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's just unfortunate
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A sixteen year old boy jumped off a ferry for a dare where I live on new year and still hasn't been found. Although, with all due respect to the boy, the ten year old girl probably did nothing whatsoever towards her own misfortune, poor thing.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I suspect that was a result of somebody firing bullets into the air like the Rich Texan from The Simpsons. I think some people tend to forget that what goes up must come down.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm fairly sure it's a crime in most - if not all - states (possibly a Federal offence) to fire bullets without a target (so up in the air, blind firing, shooting aimlessly). Hopefully ballistics will be able to find the murderer. It's a shame that people use their rights in such a careless fashion... But I guess rights don't guarantee "intelligent use" of them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Back when the US Constitution was drafted, and its composers saw fit to add an amendment that provides a persistent militaristic check on the government's power, the most advanced, powerful weapon of the time was a musket with a bayonet. Keep in mind such a weapon not only required at least 20 seconds in between shots for trained militiamen, but also was owned by an extremely small percentage of the population, even on frontier areas that experienced frequent conflict with Native American tribes. There is a myth that America has always had a gun culture when, in actuality, gun ownership increased with gun industry. There were no gun manufacturers in colonial America. All American firearms, with a few exceptions, came from Europe for use in European armies.

    Nowadays, there are fewer bookstores and schools than gun stores. This figure surely would have shocked any frontier American and even the most ardent defender of the right to bear arms. The fact that I can walk around the block, legally purchase a military-grade assault rifle, and own it in a major American metropolis is surely enough to cause all but the most delusional "gun advocate" to reconsider his position. There is simply no need for this sort of firepower in a modern, industrialized Western country.

    I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether and establishing provisions for gun ownership, such as recreational hunting given our profoundly vast natural wilderness and corresponding wildlife, or hobbyists who collect firearms, rather than relying on the testament of some admittedly wise politicians from hundreds of years ago to justify a society that increasingly glorifies a sadistic gun culture.

    Another day, another innocent victim who simply would not have died if it weren't for the utterly obscene amount of firearms we have in this country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    durr guns don't kill people, people kill people :dunce:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether and establishing provisions for gun ownership, such as recreational hunting given our profoundly vast natural wilderness and corresponding wildlife, or hobbyists who collect firearms, rather than relying on the testament of some admittedly wise politicians from hundreds of years ago to justify a society that increasingly glorifies a sadistic gun culture.
    While I am all in favour of massively re-evaluating the 2nd Amendment... And requiring training for all firearms holders... And having sensible restrictions, and all that jazz...

    This incident, to me, feels more like the realm of a drink driving collision. Just purely preventable with common sense.


    With most of the other shootings this year, and in recent years, mental illness and the accessibility to high-powered weapons (and crap loads of ammo) was one of the leading causes of why the shootings were able to happen.

    Here though? Even with a musket, it could probably still happen. Just a freak accident, but is probably not a cause to completely change the law or constitution around.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Yeah, I suspect that was a result of somebody firing bullets into the air like the Rich Texan from The Simpsons. I think some people tend to forget that what goes up must come down.
    Happens every year. Last year a young girl was killed leaving a church on Christmas day by a falling bullet. It's crazy the ignorance of people thinking they can just fire into the air and the bullets will magically disappear
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    Back when the US Constitution was drafted, and its composers saw fit to add an amendment that provides a persistent militaristic check on the government's power, the most advanced, powerful weapon of the time was a musket with a bayonet.
    In terms of small arms yes.

    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    There is a myth that America has always had a gun culture when, in actuality, gun ownership increased with gun industry. There were no gun manufacturers in colonial America. All American firearms, with a few exceptions, came from Europe for use in European armies.
    Do you have proof to back up the idea that gun ownership was rare back then?

    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    Nowadays, there are fewer bookstores and schools than gun stores. This figure surely would have shocked any frontier American and even the most ardent defender of the right to bear arms. The fact that I can walk around the block, legally purchase a military-grade assault rifle
    A semi-automatic only rifle is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a machine gun or fully automatic capability. such as a M16 or an AK-47. Semi-automatics only fire one round each time the trigger is squeezed. No different than pump action or bolt action or lever action firearm. Define military grade. Keep something in mind there are more than 300 million firearms in the US, there are 100 million rifles, there are on average less than 325 rifle deaths each year in the US. That comes to one death per 307,692 rifles, that is pretty rare in fact it is so rare that the average person wouldn't notice any improvement to their safety if you got rid of rifles.

    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    There is simply no need for this sort of firepower in a modern, industrialized Western country.
    If there ever comes a time in which the citizens have to rise up with lethal force against their government that type of firepower is absolutely necessary. What firepower would you recommend instead.

    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    I'm in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment altogether and establishing provisions for gun ownership, such as recreational hunting given our profoundly vast natural wilderness and corresponding wildlife, or hobbyists who collect firearms, rather than relying on the testament of some admittedly wise politicians from hundreds of years ago to justify a society that increasingly glorifies a sadistic gun culture.
    You do realize the average hunting gun is more powerful/lethal than these rifles. More powerful than AK-47 rifles and not only but that but greater range as well. So if someone is a collector of firearms they can collect AR-15's?

    (Original post by I Kant Spall)
    Another day, another innocent victim who simply would not have died if it weren't for the utterly obscene amount of firearms we have in this country.
    The truth of the matter is if someone wants you dead you are not going to live. They will get you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    durr guns don't kill people, people kill people :dunce:
    Same case with nuclear weapons. I should totally be allowed a hydrogen bomb in my back garden. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Something2)
    If there ever comes a time in which the citizens have to rise up with lethal force against their government that type of firepower is absolutely necessary. What firepower would you recommend instead.
    Even with that kind of firepower, they'd still have tanks, satellite tracking systems, better guns, armour, aircraft and so on and thus they'd probably win.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Even with that kind of firepower, they'd still have tanks, satellite tracking systems, better guns, armour, aircraft and so on and thus they'd probably win.
    Really? Tell that to the people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tell that to the people in Syria and if you want tell that to the people in Iraq and Libya.

    Quantity of force is a quality all of its own. Take for example the Naval Station Great Lakes outside of Chicago. If half of Chicago was to storm that base do you honestly think they wouldn't capture that facility? How about just 10% of Chicago or 5%. How about Camp Ripley in Minnesota, lets say 1% of the metro population in the twin cities their decided to attack Camp Ripley. They probably could capture it. Lets say 5% of the population of NYC decided to attack Washington D.C. The could probably capture it.

    Aircraft can't stay in the air forever nor can you rearm while in the Air. Tanks need gas and you gotta come out of the tank sometime. AR-15s and M4s and M-16s are the essentially the same gun the only difference is the latter two have fully automatic capability and the military trains them not to use it unless your doing suppresive or covering fire. You can get access to body armor in the US, it is not illegal.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What gives one human the right to decide what another can/can't have?

    Prohibition = Slavery!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    What gives one human the right to decide what another can/can't have?

    Prohibition = Slavery!
    So I should be allowed a hydrogen bomb in my back garden then?

    Incidentally, surely by that logic prohibition of slavery would be slavery as one human being is deciding that others can't own slaves?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    While her family were at hospital with her, a burglar broke into their Pennsylvania home and stole their Christmas presents.
    They also believe strangers are trying to gather money for a fake fund for the girl over Facebook.
    :eek:

    Faith in humanity = lost
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    So I should be allowed a hydrogen bomb in my back garden then?

    Incidentally, surely by that logic prohibition of slavery would be slavery as one human being is deciding that others can't own slaves?
    Yes.

    Well the idea behind natural rights is that you own yourself, so slavery would be anti-liberty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    Well the idea behind natural rights is that you own yourself, so slavery would be anti-liberty.
    But you're still telling somebody they can't own certain things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    But you're still telling somebody they can't own certain things.
    You don't have to ban slavery, just not legally recognise the ownership of another human.
    • Offline

      2
      Freakanomics told me more kids die in America from drowning in swimming pools than from guns.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.