US boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

[Malthus]

Our justice system is no better at dealing with children than it is at dealing with crazy people. In both cases we do the best we can, but haven't a real clue at how to balance rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence. I'm not saying I could do better mind ... 

[lustindarkness]

How horrible. Father that left unlocked shotgun should hang.

[Grey Fox]

[Josephus]

There's also a side question of whether 11 year olds should be criminally charged or not (I tend to think so, but in Canada you can't be charged until you're 12), but that's a different matter.

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

[Admiral Yi]

[Yi] These kinds of deaths shouldn't count in our discussion of gun control. [/Yi]

You're usually a relatively honest person.

[DGuller]

[Yi] These kinds of deaths shouldn't count in our discussion of gun control. [/Yi]

You're usually a relatively honest person.

But not always a nice person.    To be fair, I thought it was an accident at first, not a murder.

[Barrister]

I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

[DGuller]

I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

He's not beating him to death, is he?

[Razgovory]

The ability to conceive of and understand the consequences of an impulse action like firing a gun are not high in an 11 year old.

Most 11 year olds I have had the pleasure of coaching have had a very good understanding of cause and effect.

I didn't quite get the concept till I was 28.

[crazy canuck]

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

By grade 6 if a kid doesn't know that a gun kills or seriously injures then his parents haven't let him play enough video games.   

[MadImmortalMan]

Assuming I remember those numbers correctly, why are Americans 17.5 times more murderous than the French?

Culture, for once.  Movies and television glorify people taking care of their problems, with the law more often than not against them.  the old Far West mentality where you shoot your neighbors to take their cattle and their sons shoot you back for killing their parents.  Europeans and Canadians are more likely to have a certain respect of the law than Americans.

Population.  The USA, that's a bloc of 300 000 000 people living in the same country with diverse conditions of living from one State to another.  France is a relatively monolithic bloc.  You would get a better portrait by analysing Europe as a whole, but then you need to factor in the various wars.  They tend to make the psychos come out and they're either killed or arrested at the end of hostilities.  Also, Europe is not a single country, it's multiple countries with multiple legislations and multiple culture, that again skewes the results.

Mental illness.  As discussed before.  Lack of accessibility to healthcare services.  People don't die due to lack of healthcare, but minor problems tend to go unnoticed, and like many other societies, there's a big taboo on this.  Many people would chat openly about their disease if it's a cancer.  Much less will chat about their episode of depression or schyzophrenia.  Combine this with other factors, it's a recipe for disasted.

Accessbility to guns.  It's not just having a gun. It's having multiple guns for multiple uses.  And no training because it's a God (almost) given right to own a gun.  As I said in the other thread, I don't mind having a handgun for personal protection under certain circumstances.  I don't mind people hunting with their rifles.  But giving access to just about any assault weapon to anyone desiring one is just wrong.  If everyone was mentally healthy and properly trained, yes, maybe.  But just about anyone with no qualification and screening, you got what you got.  Canada may be too strict on gun laws, especially Quebec, but I would not want the US system.

Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

[crazy canuck]

Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

That is an interesting take on it.  My view is that Americans are more fearful and have a greater desire to protect themselves from perceived risks.  I think back to the story we lampooned a few years back about the American who felt naked and threatened when he didn't have his gun when travelling in Canada.  If Americans have a higher appetite for risk then gun ownership should go down not up (at least using the normal NRA reasoning).

[DGuller]

I think a big part of it is also inability to conceive of a world without guns.  That infamous saying that "if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns" makes perfectly sense to them, but only because they choose to be unaware of what happens in the real world.  And in the real world, at least in countries with functional governments, when guns are outlawed, the cost/benefit calculus of having a gun changes dramatically for outlaws as well.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'd say one aspect of a riskier mindset in general is an acknowledgement that one may be faced with a situation in which he or she will need to use violence to achieve one's ends. Acquiring a weapon of any sort is a tacit acceptance of that principle in advance or even absence of an event of actual need.

[crazy canuck]

I'd say one aspect of a riskier mindset in general is an acknowledgement that one may be faced with a situation in which he or she will need to use violence to achieve one's ends. Acquiring a weapon of any sort is a tacit acceptance of that principle in advance or even absence of an event of actual need.

I think this is a cultural view rather than one mediated by risk.  In my view resorting to violence is the easy, less risky way out.  I think the word you are looking for is aggressive.  I would certainly agree with you that Americans tend to have a much more aggressive outlook in relation to a wide range of issues including business, legal disputes and politics.