Friday, February 10, 2012

Bad Dad
Using a Firearm Inappropriately to Punish Daughter

What does this tell us about the gun lunatic mentality? 

It tells us that they see guns as giving them the power to hurt.
It tells us that they see guns as giving them a power to punish, threaten, intimidate, harass and retaliate.

This is an inappropriate firearm discharge. This teaches a bad lesson about firearms, and it goes a long way towards explaining why firearms are so closely involved in domestic abuse cases.  This is the same exact problem with all the murder suicides, differing only in degree but not in kind or in philosophy. 

It is an excellent representation of the mindset that is the problem with the so-called legal gun owners.

This father should not have a gun.  I stop short of saying he shouldn't have a daughter either; he may otherwise be a better parent than this example of his parenting skills.  But at the very least he screwed up here, badly.

What lesson does this example teach his daughter? That if I get a gun, I can hurt you back, I can use it to cause you pain and distress, either hurting you directly or using it to hurt what you care about.

What it does NOT say is that this firearm is here to keep you safe.  It says, in fact, quite the opposite.  It says my firearm can make you my victim.  It says do what I say or I will harm you, directly or indirectly, with my firearm.

Bad Dad. 

I have no problems with a parent objecting to social media participation.  I have no problem with a parent restricting their child's computer use.  But I have a problem with the destruction of that child's property, particularly if the child paid for it. That sends the wrong message.  Destruction of property with a firearm sends the wrong message as well, regardless of the parental relationship.  This appears to be much closer to revenge than good parental discipline.

If this turns out to be a bogus video, then it still represents what is far to common a philosophy among gun owners, that it gives them power over other people, both their own persons, and their property, and that it allows them to intimidate and threaten others to get their way.

From Digital Life Today:

Dad punishes Facebook post with 8 bullets to daughter's laptop


  1. "Tell us what you think. Is this appropriate parenting, abuse ... or somewhere in between?"

    The answer is that it is none of our business.

    1. It certainly is because he put it on Youtube and millions of US have watched it.

      The guy's a shit father, like most of the overly severe ones, and he's a poor example of a gun owner.

  2. What if he used a hammer or a drill press? would it make any difference how he ruined the laptop? He could have plugged it in to a 220 volt or dunked it in the trough. Would you have freaked out over his use of water or electricity? Big deal. Now if your favorite dog was getting attacked by a raccoon, would you stand there and watch or would you wish you had a gun?

  3. Was his daughter under the laptop? If not, she was not injured. He states in the video that he paid for upgrades. He also says that his daughter earns no money of her own. It's likely that he bought the computer with his money.

    What we see here is an example of a parent imposing some discipline on his daughter. That's exactly what a parent is supposed to do. I don't know all the details of their relationship, but on the face of it, we have a father who told his daughter where the boundaries were. She crossed the line, and he grounded her in an appropriate manner. The fact that he shot the computer is not important. He could have used a hammer. He could have dropped the machine off a bridge. Big deal.

    1. You'd say anything to defend the gun owner. He's a piss-poor dad and a lousy example of responsible gun ownership. How far away do you think those cars where in the background?

      His ranting temper tantrum was ten times worse than hers, which I found to be pretty mild actually. He calls "shit" cussing. Give me a break.

      And what about the kids privacy. Do you have no problem with his invading that in the name of good parenting?

    2. Given the dangers on the Internet to minors, I'd call him a responsible father. And yes, "shit" is foul language. The fact that so many today see it as generally acceptable is an illustration of how impolite our society is.

  4. "This is the same exact problem with all the murder suicides, differing only in degree but not in kind or in philosophy."

    Quite a leap there, don't you think, equating laptop homicide with mass murder? Of course, any use of a firearm not specifically authorized by you be a misuse of the firearm. I guess I'm on the verge of going on a homicidal rampage because I used my shotgun with 00 buck to put ventilation holes in my burn barrel? Perhaps it would be more appealing to you had he used a baseball bat.

    1. It would be if that was what I did.

      When someone goes to the ultimate extreme and shoots another human being - or plural human beings - with whom they have a frustrated relationship, or where they are unable to dominate and control another human being by any other means, that is about violence and intimidation in a relationship. When a firearms is used, that is the means to dominate, and control another person with a violent weapon.

      Now if you want to put holes in your burn barrel, go ahead. That is quite different.

      But if you shoot the burn barrel, or kill a loved one's pet, or shoot a computer that is dear to them, in order to control or punish another person by causing them emotional distress, especially fear?

      Yeah, that is EXACTLY the same thing, differing only in the degree. And that power dynamic would be exactly the same with a baseball bat as a firearm, except that a firearm is more lethal, and therefore more intimidating.

      It sure as hell has NOTHING whatsoever to do with 'self defense' though does it, Billy Bob?

    2. This would also appear to be one more case of the gun lunatics being all up in support of gun rights.... and having no problems whatsoever with the 15 year old having a right to freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

      I'm just waiting to hear you all employ the words freedom and liberty and natural rights relating to HER rights.

      Or are you just going to admit that so long as no one messes with your gun rights and your rights to intimidate and abuse others with it - like this guy did, the women and children of the world should just shut up, not access social media, not speak up, speak out, complain, object, or protest?

    3. Dog Gone, you are aware, aren't you, that the rights of minors are different from those of adults? This child was being disrespectful to her parents and was apparently abusing the privilege that they provide her.

      Additionally, you've admitted to enjoying target practice in the past. Did you have a need to demonstrate your power against a sheet of paper?

    4. She has the right to get a job and buy her own laptop--when she turns 18 of course. She isn't entitled to one as a minor child.

    5. "It sure as hell has NOTHING whatsoever to do with 'self defense' though does it, Billy Bob?"

      The right to own a firearm is not limited to self defense, but of course, you know that.

      Billy Bob? I like that. Bill Bob Baldwin. I think I'll change my signature on my licence to B3.

    6. FWM, she has the right to go to work to earn her own money in most states at the age of 15, not 18. We don't know if she paid for this laptop herself, or if it was a gift from someone other than her parent, it really doesn't matter.

      No one here has said she was "entitled" to a lap top. Apparently you need to change the subject to a false argument because the real issue - someone using their personal firearm, NOT for recreation, NOT for self-defense, and sure as hell NOT for the general defense of their community, state or nation, used it instead to hurt another person, to scare another person, to intimidate another person, by destroying their property IN A VIOLENT WAY.

      That is abusive. That is domestic and emotional abuse. It is totally different than password protection, removing the computer for a period of time, or even donating it to a worthy cause as punishment for what was done. In this case, the punishment was excessive, but it was the form of the punishment that was the most deeply disturbing.

      It is on a par with the abusive spouses - usually husbands - who use the threat of killing their victim's beloved pet, or a child's pet, to prevent the abused person going to a shelter for abused women and children. The premise is, if you leave, if you don't do what I tell you to do, I will hurt you by damaging something you love, in the most violent way possible.

      A less overt version of that is common; ask one of your local vets about the problems they encounter with spouses in a divorce, where one party takes the pet of the other and euthanizes it out of spite, for revenge, to cause the other person pain and fear.

      It might be a pet, it might be a cherished object like a family heirloom, or it could be something like access to others through a computer.

      This kid will turn 18 soon enough. With this kind of parenting, she'll leave when she can. Having her own laptop might interfere with her access to facebook but she can find access to the internet easily enough through other computers. So in that regard, this was stupid as well as violent.

    7. Yes, Greg, I'm aware that the rights of a minor are different than those of an adult, but they DO have them. If you espouse natural law as the basis for rights, there have been some excellent challenges to the arbitrariness of the ages we use to define adult and minor. You may remember the 26th Amendment that changed the voting age from 21 to 18 as an example.

      Then in your usual stupidity, lack of clear thinking and grotesque inability to apply any analytical reasoning you wrote:Additionally, you've admitted to enjoying target practice in the past. Did you have a need to demonstrate your power against a sheet of paper?

      Seriously here Greg? Any time I shot a target, it was MY OWN DAMNED TARGET, not someone else's property. Nor was that shooting EVER in retaliation for someone griping on a facebook page, or in any other way was it intended to enforce my control on another person or to hurt them emotionally or to intimidate them, much less punish anyone.

      Or are you just going to try to deny that this was a way of controlling the man's daughter, and that he simply lacked any better target for target practice, so he just HAD to shoot her laptop, TO HONE HIS SHOOTIST SKILLS so he would be able to defend their happy home against invading zombies, or whatever other dehumanizing fantasy term you favor this week?

      Now, if I'd taken down a target with nice tight groupings of bullet holes in it, and SENT the target to someone accompanied by an 8 minute rant about controlling their free expression to be unhappy with me, THAT would be intimidation on a par with this example. MY hypothetical instance actually is a valid comparison; yours blows it on all salient points.

      Once again Greg, you have demonstrated you are utterly unable correctly to identify the fundamental elements of an argument or position, or you are grossly intellectually dishonest. In view of your consistent problems with these two aspects of critical thinking, it would appear both problems are involved, your dishonesty AND your stupidity.

      In case you weren't paying attention, or are too dumb to understand it, I've just pointed out, in detail, the problems with your argument with an explicit analysis, per usual.

      No wonder our education system is tanking.

    8. I understand you argument well enough. The sassy teenager without a gun is a more valuable member of society than a father with a gun who wants to enforce some rules in the household. Yes, destroying the computer was a strong message. Adolescents often miss subtlety and need things loud and clear.

      But are you seriously arguing for the right of a child to make the kind of comments about her parents that we heard in the video? She wasn't expressing a political position. She wasn't making an accusation of abuse. She was moaning about how hard her life is--allow me to take a moment to cry for her--and was speaking about her parents in language that you and your fellows typically use here. Ah, that's why you support her.

  5. Sure she has a right to freedom of expression or freedom of speech. But as others have pointed out in the past, there are, or can be consequences to those expressions. Guess she just learned a lesson in those consequences.

    The only thing hurt in this were her feelings. She will get over it. For all those who have gotten their panties in a wad over this, seems she understands more than you think...see the first two comments here-

    1. That is not a reasonable or fair consequence of expression. That is trampling on any rights she has.

      The only thing hurt in this was NOT her feelings. She was threatened by having something that she cared about very much destroyed in a violent way using a firearm for intimidation.

      Someone who has to conform because they are threatened by a firearm doesn't necessarily reflect their genuine feelings.

  6. This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. I hate you for writing something so extremely stupid.

  7. Dog Gone, your attitude here is that children need to be coddled--something like the state and the citizen, perhaps? It's clear from the video that the father paid for the laptop--presuming that what he said was true. I've seen far too many examples of youth whose parents set no boundaries to feel sorry for this surly teenager.

  8. People were telling her she was going to commit suicide, commit a gun-related crime, become a drug addict, drop out of school, get pregnant on purpose, and become a stripper because she's too emotionally damaged now to be a productive member of society. Apparently stripper was the job-choice of most of the commenters. Her response was "Dude… it's only a computer. I mean, yeah I'm mad but pfft."...

    Apparently the anti-rights crowd is more upset than the teenager.

  9. "FWM, she has the right to go to work to earn her own money in most states at the age of 15, not 18."

    No, she may legally work in most states at 15 but she has no "right" to do so should her parents forbid it. Somehow I think the dad in the video would permit her to get a job.

    Some of you are very emotionally upset that he used a gun to destroy his property-egads! The horror! Had he used a sledge hammer or simply thrown it away somehow you feel less threatened or upset. Give me a break. The only ones that are emotionally distraught over this is Doggone, Japete and maybe one or two other nameless crybabies. The rest of the free world seems to applaud this man's crackdown on an obviously spoiled child. She will probably learn from this and go on to be a well balanced, productive member of society. I doubt you'll see her shitting in some bushes and waving a sign in some park demanding that society provide her with something she didn't earn.

  10. Over on TTAG, almost every single commenter agreed that he was a lousy dad and a worse gun owner. Here the adversarial commenters defend the guy. Wow.