Father puts .45 rounds into teenage girl's laptop

[ThomasT]

He invaded her privacy by getting into her FB account to read her PRIVATE messages. That's like breaking the lock on her diary. This guy has emotional problems. Children are entitled to talk privately to their friends.

I don't recall having any privacy while I was living with my parents.

Maybe you're right that the guy has emotional problems. Or, maybe his daughter is a bad seed and he's frustrated and doesn't really know how to deal with it.

All I can say is that, in my day, if someone wrote what his daughter did, then that person would be considered an ungrateful, disprespectful person, and would be treated accordingly.

 

[Pythagorean]

That's too bad, because as you see in the quote above, he makes the claim that using a gun is WORSE. I want to know WHY.

Yes, the gun makes it worse, but it's still bad to start with. The gun is a dedicated symbol of violence. It carries bad connotation with it. It adds the additional message that it's ok to use a deadly weapon in anger. As if reacting publicly in anger doesn't make one look foolish enough as it is.

 

[I like Serena]

I found the distinction between gun use and bad parenting pretty interesting, so I did a recount.

Current score is:

11 people accept the use of a gun in this context
10 people judge the use of a gun unacceptable
20 people show no clear opinion about the gun

15 people think the father did good as a parent
13 people think it's bad parenting
13 people show no clear opinion about his parenting skills.

And yes, we already have 41 different people that have vented their opinion!EDIT: What I also find interesting is seeing that every poster's opinion is clear is his/her first post.
Any discussion does not seem to change anyone's point of view, but only confirms it.

 

[Pythagorean]

I would also echo Integral's question about how many are actually teen parents themselves.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sociopaths, psychopaths -- or less extreme variations on those themes, but still what most of us would consider not good people. Ungrateful people, complainers, manipulators, etc.

You'll actually find that a large majority of criminal socio/psycho paths were abused or neglected as children. People with the brain-type that don't become criminals often find productive roles in society (as police or fire-fighters or journalists or stunt-men for instance).

 

[ThomasT]

You'll actually find that a large majority of criminal socio/psycho paths were abused or neglected as children. People with the brain-type that don't become criminals often find productive roles in society (as police or fire-fighters or journalists or stunt-men for instance).

Are you saying that many policemen, firemen, journalists and stuntmen are socio/psycho paths? Why stop there? What about teachers, scientists, politicians, sanitation workers, and chefs, etc., etc.

 

[ThomasT]

I found the distinction between gun use and bad parenting pretty interesting, so I did a recount.

Current score is:

11 people accept the use of a gun in this context
10 people judge the use of a gun unacceptable
20 people show no clear opinion about the gun

15 people think the father did good as a parent
13 people think it's bad parenting
13 people show no clear opinion about his parenting skills.

And yes, we already have 41 different people that have vented their opinion!


EDIT: What I also find interesting is seeing that every poster's opinion is clear is his/her first post.
Any discussion does not seem to change anyone's point of view, but only confirms it.

Quantification is always good. So, what's your opinion? Is the father out of line? Or the daughter? Or not enough data?

 

[Pythagorean]

Are you saying that many policemen, firemen, journalists and stuntmen are socio/psycho paths? Why stop there? What about teachers, scientists, politicians, sanitation workers, and chefs, etc., etc.

No, socio/psycho paths is a DSM diagnosed disorder, I was talking about the underlying neural similarities (a lack of fear response). And of course it's not all members of the occupation.

The neural feature is that they don't have the fear response associated with risky behavior that the large majority of the populous does have and they tend to be excited by risky behavior, so they tend to find occupations that include the risky behavior, but if they are raised right, they generally don't choose activities that are harmful to society.

Maybe I should have said war/crime journalist to emphasize the point of risky behavior.

 

[I like Serena]

Quantification is always good. So, what's your opinion? Is the father out of line? Or the daughter? Or not enough data?

Oh, I already gave my opinion in my first post and confirmed it in the ones after.

I believe the father did right in parenting, finally setting clear boundaries, following up on what he said and promised before, and using a tit-for-tat strategy.
I usually fervently oppose guns, but in this case he followed up on his word and used his gun in a safe manner which I deem acceptable.

Hey! This is the majority view (by now)!
I do hope my opinion did not skew my counting. ;)

 

[ThomasT]

No, socio/psycho paths is a DSM diagnosed disorder, I was talking about the underlying neural similarities (a lack of fear response). And of course it's not all members of the occupation.

The neural feature is that they don't have the fear response associated with risky behavior that the large majority of the populous does have and they tend to be excited by risky behavior, so they tend to find occupations that include the risky behavior, but if they are raised right, they generally don't choose activities that are harmful to society.

Maybe I should have said war/crime journalist to emphasize the point of risky behavior.

That's interesting stuff. Never thought about it much.

 

[ThomasT]

Oh, I already gave my opinion in my first post and confirmed it in the ones after.

I believe the father did right in parenting, finally setting clear boundaries, following up on what he said and promised before, and using a tit-for-tat strategy.
I'm usually a fervent opponent against guns, but in this case he followed up on his word and used his gun in a safe manner which I deem acceptable.

I do hope my opinion did not skew my counting.

Ok, I remember now. I don't think you skewed anything. I agree that consistency, wrt reasonable contingencies, would seem to be a good training strategy. Unfortunately, apparently, something went askew in this particular situation.

 

[Char. Limit]

Ok, I remember now. I don't think you skewed anything. I agree that consistency, wrt reasonable contingencies, would seem to be a good training strategy. Unfortunately, apparently, something went askew in this particular situation.

I'd say what went askew was the fact that the world found out...

 

[I like Serena]

I'd say what went askew was the fact that the world found out...

Yep. It appears that things on facebook do not always remain hidden. ;)

 

[Evo]

All I can say is that, in my day, if someone wrote what his daughter did, then that person would be considered an ungrateful, disprespectful person, and would be treated accordingly.

Even when they confide it in private to friends?

 

[Evo]

Yep. It appears that things on facebook do not always remain hidden. ;)

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

 

[I like Serena]

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

Please.
Regardless of whether the father is an "insecure, distrustful, control freak", he did not publish it to the world.
I presume her "friends" did.

 

[Hurkyl]

Whether he takes away privileges or not is irrelevant to the actual parenting issue.

In previous posts, you had made several statements to the effect that threats and punishment being bad parenting. These are withdrawn, then?


Now, if you're just complaining that you think the father was taking action irrationally, then try and say just that; don't make it look like you're against the very notion of discipline, or that you think destroying the laptop is an inherently inappropriate punishment regardless of circumstance.

But...

his method of revoking privilege

You do seem to explicitly state that that the props are important. That, regardless of the circumstances involved, shooting the laptop is inherently inappropriate. If that is true, then you need to discuss that point on its own without getting it all confused up in the other aspects.


Anyways one thing I want to point out:

The father was visibly shaken and his feeling were hurt by his daughter's words. And his choice of words further demonstrates this.

demonstrates ... it's okay to destroy people's possessions in anger.

Taking action in anger is a very different thing than being angry/upset while taking action.

Going through with the punishment was clearly very difficult and upsetting for him. But that doesn't mean it was done in anger. In fact, the main feature of the punishment is described as being selected beforehand during "amicable discussion".

 

[I like Serena]

Yes, when an insecure, distrustful, control freak breaks into your account.

Btw, he does not strike me as an insecure, distrustful, control freak.
He strikes me as a concerned parent that, yes, did break into her account, but I think that's better than a parent that doesn't know or care that his kid is into bad things.

 

[Evo]

Please.
Regardless of whether the father is an "insecure, distrustful, control freak", he did not publish it to the world.
I presume her "friends" did.

No, he broke into her FB account through her laptop and obtaining her password without her knowledge.

yes, did break into her account, but I think that's better than a parent that doesn't know or care that his kid is into bad things.

What *bad things* did she do? All I read is that she confided her frustrations privately to her friends.

 

[I like Serena]

No, he broke into her FB account through her laptop and obtaining her password without her knowledge.

That's not what I said or responded to in the post you quoted.
I did respond to that in my other post.

Edit: Btw, we do not know that he hacked into her account to get the information.
To see what he did, it would probably suffice if he was a friend of a friend of her, which is quite likely.
I can imagine that after what he saw, he hacked into her account.

What *bad things* did she do? All I read is that she confided her frustrations privately to her friends.

I didn't say she did *bad things*. I said he was a concerned parent that did monitor his kid as he should (on a medium that is semi-public).

 

[Oltz]

Even when they confide it in private to friends?

If you look back at post #56 I will assume most have not seen it as it was far back it contains a reply from teh father to a news outlet originally posted by Char.limit

I put the reprisal in exactly the same medium she did, in the exact same manner. Her post went out to about 452 people. Mine went out to about 550 people… originally.

He included the parents of many of the "friends" involved.

Evo how many people can you say somethign to and still consider it to be confide(ing) it in private to friends?

I do not think that number is over 20 let alone 400.

For the count I support the dads choice but would prefer he threw it out the window, but once he committed in the previous grounding to putting a bullet in it he needed to follow thru.

 

[Evo]

If you look back at post #56 I will assume most have not seen it as it was far back it contains a reply from teh father to a news outlet originally posted by Char.limit

He included the parents of many of the "friends" involved.

Evo how many people can you say somethign to and still consider it to be confide(ing) it in private to friends?

I do not think that number is over 20 let alone 400.

For the count I support the dads choice but would prefer he threw it out the window, but once he committed in the previous grounding to putting a bullet in it he needed to follow thru.

She didn't post it on youtube. I think the father is insecure, and vindictive. Great example for a child, IMO. I'm so glad that I had emotionally stable parents.

 

[Oltz]

Its not about posting it on you tube he used you tube to host the video and post it to FB her "private friends list" included more then 400 people.

I agree that it was not the best plan on his part but she as you have said repeatedly was not just venting to close friends in private.

Does that change your rather harsh stance on him at all?

Or are you sticking with the "she was posting in private to her friends" he had no right to even see it let alone punish her for it?

For all we know one of the parents of another child saw it on a news "feed" and called him about it before he "broke into" her FB account.

 

[Pythagorean]

@ Hurkyl

It's fairly standard child psychology that states that punishing bad behavior is ineffective compared to rewarding good behavior. Punishment is a short term resolution that is more convenient for parents; sometimes it's all a parent can do for their own sanity. I don't retract those statements, but they aren't the main issue; the one you specifically asked about: emotional inhibition.

You're still putting words in my mouth. The props still don't matter. It's the method (which can be reproduced with any number of props).

Are you honestly having trouble with this or are you attempting Socratic sagaciousness?

 

[I like Serena]

She didn't post it on youtube. I think the father is insecure, and vindictive. Great example for a child, IMO. I'm so glad that I had emotionally stable parents.

I just... disagree.

It's fairly standard child psychology that states that punishing bad behavior is ineffective compared to rewarding good behavior.

When a parent is totally fed up with the behavior of his child, I think it is good that he does not keep that to himself, but that he shows that.
That's not about punishing or rewarding, which is more of a policy.
It's about venting what you really think and feel.
IMO that's one of the best messages anyone can send - straight from the heart.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, discussion is good. Badass tough guy demonstration not so much.

 

[Pythagorean]

I should specify though, depending on how you mean "venting". The wiki on "catharsis" has some citations to why venting might be bad (basically it reinforces negative feelings by rewarding them, so it increases the chance you'll have negative reactions inte future)

 

[Pythagorean]

iPhone typing is high stress situation. I am trying not to shoot autocorrect...

 

[Integral]

...
You do seem to explicitly state that that the props are important. That, regardless of the circumstances involved, shooting the laptop is inherently inappropriate. If that is true, then you need to discuss that point on its own without getting it all confused up in the other aspects....

This is what the thread should be addressing, not whether discipline was in order, but if one should use a gun for disciplining misbehavior.

In my eyes the use of a gun in this fashion is a very thinly veiled threat. He used his weapon on an inanimate object for this "crime". For what "crime" will he use it on an animate object. If you make him mad enough will he shoot the offender?

As I said before if you have to discipline a teenager you are 10yrs to late. Proper parenting teaches discipline and respect by being disciplined and respectful. You cannot beat respect or discipline into a child's head or behind, if you treat them with respect they will respect you in return. If you behave in a disciplined manner your kids will learn discipline.

While there may be a few humans who cannot and will not learn such basic lessons I think that they are very few and far in between. Virtually every teenager I have worked with responds to respect with respect.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't retract those statements, but they aren't the main issue;

I didn't ask for a retraction, just if you were withdrawing them from the conversation.

You're still putting words in my mouth. The props still don't matter. It's the method (which can be reproduced with any number of props).

The method he used was "shoot the laptop on video."

One, of course, might mean to emphasize / deemphasize different aspects of the issue, or consider it in more or less generality. It's hard to know, especially since I feel like you've been almost deliberately vague and resisting attempts to clarify.

Are you honestly having trouble with this or are you attempting Socratic sagaciousness?

I honestly don't know. If I don't want to just ignore you, I'm forced to put words in your mouth. I prefer to let you know what words I think fit best, and give you a chance to replace them with words of your own.


(aside: to one of the more likely alternatives, I'm going to reply something about "snapping a credit card". If that doesn't actually make sense, then ignore it)

 

[Pythagorean]

He could have beat his chest and stomped around for all I care. It's still a bad demonstration for your kids... Integral has pretty much hit the same main point I did: lead by example: that's the bottom line. Demands are useless if you're already at war with your teen. If you're at war with your teen, you've already messed up.

 

[Hurkyl]

In my eyes the use of a gun in this fashion is a very thinly veiled threat. He used his weapon on an inanimate object for this "crime". For what "crime" will he use it on an animate object. If you make him mad enough will he shoot the offender?

No offense, but I think this is ridiculous. I strongly suspect this attitude is a product of villainizing guns and gun owners, rather than having any sort of sound basis in reality.

There is a huge difference between destroying an object and killing someone in a berserker rampage. I can't imagine there is any credible threat, except in the case where the person already has abusive tendencies or other edge cases.

And to be a veiled threat actually requires the person to take some action to make the implication.

As I said before if you have to discipline a teenager you are 10yrs to late...

Whether or not it's true, one cannot react to a situation by taking actions 10 years in the past; they have to take actions in the present.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's hard to know, especially since I feel like you've been almost deliberately vague and resisting attempts to clarify.

What are you still confused about? I'll be happy to clarify it. If you ask a wrong question, there's not much I can do. Most of your questions have been wrong so far; I thought you were doing it intentionally to make some point.

 

[lostcauses10x]

And what if all of this was just staged??

 

[Char. Limit]

And what if all of this was just staged??

Then the last 12 pages were a giant commentary on America.

 

[MarcoD]

Father -1

 

[Pythagorean]

And what if all of this was just staged??

It would still have the same repercussions on the outside world as long as they remain ignorant to the truth: some people will use it to justify their parenting behavior, others would use it to criticize what they see as bad parenting behavior.

 

[Integral]

No offense, but I think this is ridiculous. I strongly suspect this attitude is a product of villainizing guns and gun owners, rather than having any sort of sound basis in reality.

There is a huge difference between destroying an object and killing someone in a berserker rampage. I can't imagine there is any credible threat, except in the case where the person already has abusive tendencies or other edge cases.

And to be a veiled threat actually requires the person to take some action to make the implication.



Whether or not it's true, one cannot react to a situation by taking actions 10 years in the past; they have to take actions in the present.

Isn't shooting a laptop an action?


That is why I said that this shows a history of bad parenting. The best way to get past it is to stop being a bad parent. Instead this fellow has taken bad parenting to a whole new level. The connection between personalities and possessions is very deep in our culture. To shoot this girl’s possession is to shoot the girl, that is the message he is sending. This is not disciplining the girl it is sending a very deadly threat. Dishonor me and I WILL shoot you. This not the action of a parent it is the action of a dictator.

It is simply inappropriate to use any form of, or representation of, deadly force in a family setting.

The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. When you are shooting tin cans, or bottles, or targets or what ever it is practicing to kill.

BTW, I grew up hunting and shooting. I have killed. I cannot remember when I first squeezed a trigger, I was taught safe gun handling about the same time I learned to ride a bike. So don’t give me no crap about being anti gun.

I am all for guns handled and used in an approptiate manner. Again using a gun in a disiplinary action is simply inappropriate.

 

[Pythagorean]

the gun is just a multiplier. Let's say you have risk (r):

r = y + yb + r0, y>0,b>0 (b = 1,2,3,...,n)

where y = bad attitude, b = gun, r0 = background noise (chance of unintentional harm)

four generic cases (besides (y,b) = (0,0):

1) 0<y<<1, b>0
when y = 0, it doesn't matter what b is. there's no risk of getting shot.

2) y>1, b = 0
people you want to avoid; they're still dangerous even without a gun.

3) y>1, b > 0
same people as above, but now they have a device that allows them a longer range and more deadly consequences with much less physical effort.

4) y~1, b>0
what we have in the video.

There's several sides to the discipline, but no matter what side you take, whenever you respond to negative behavior, the rule is y << 1. Act, but don't react.

This is the fundamental important rule, but if you still want to optimize (i.e. generate the best emotionally stable background for your kid) then you can only reward good behavior and not punish bad behavior (which can often be turned into a reward by the child, making it a positive reinforcement to bad behavior). Sometimes you have to punish for their own immediate safety (or for yours or others) but it still doesn't have the long-term payoffs. Mostly though, you want to let nature punish them and continue to be the person they rely on for help when they fall on tough times, unless you think they should be on their own of course, that's your call; but they WILL make bad decisions. They will make sure you don't find out about them if you're a y~1. If that y~1 has a gun when he demonstrates his y~1'ness, he's going to raise the shock value. You may feel the urge to trivialize shock value, but think about how that might affect his daughter. It's not even worth the risk that you'll traumatize your daughter.

@ Hyrkyl: the point isn't to reduce b... that's where you're confused. The point is to reduce y. To educate parents about the right way to manage conflict. I don't care about gun laws, I care about social progress. That doesn't happen through making laws, but through spreading ideas.

 

[Adyssa]

I just saw this :S

My opinion in few words, is that this is poor parenting. The kid sounds like a brat, but the father is not reacting well and just reinforcing the resentment felt by the daughter.

Communication people! Sheesh!

 

[Constantinos]

lol this thread has gone so far!

Why do you try to analyze an incident you have no knowledge of how it came to be this way? All you have is a video, testimony from the father(probably biased), the daughter's message (definitely biased) and the fact that police and CPS found nothing wrong (and the fact that the daughter was eventually offered a job.)

Now, from this information only, how can one criticize years of parenting? What practical result could come out of trying such a thing? You could say the parenting was bad or good or whatever, but where do you base this? IN JUST ONE INCIDENT??!

 

[MarcoD]

Everybody knows that you use guns for hunting, sports, or maybe self defense. Otherwise you keep them locked up very far away. They are not toys and you never go around waving them without proper cause. As far as the raising kids go, I agree, nobody knows nothing.

 

[netgypsy]

Long term effects of this type of behavior

In general

The daughter will marry a man who responds to frustrating situations in this manner

A son will behave in this manner when he is frustrated because it is the norm for him.

The fact that the daughter would behave in this manner already shows a serious lack of respect. The fact that the father would not just confiscate the computer shows that he's totally over the top in a situation he can' handle.

Why not just shut down the internet in the house? Unplug the router and so on, take the car keys and the smart phone or cut off service to the smart phone. Then sit down when both are cooled off and figure out what's going on. And where's mom in this situation?

the daughter "dared" hare father and he took the dare. Really an adult response.

Yes kids can drive you crazy but as long as you are feeding and providing shelter and a care, YOU have the power.

 

[MarcoD]

Nonsense, you don't have power over kids, or rather, teenagers. If you're lucky, they are sensible, and you have a chance not to mess up. Otherwise, you're out of luck.

 

[Hobin]

I was going to post my opinion, but, given my personal experiences, it would be very hard for me to stay rational while doing so. In fact, even reading this thread and seeing so many people agree with this dad's 'parenting' is somewhat painful for me. Let's just say that I disagree with the dad.

 

[netgypsy]

Oh yes you have power over teens. Teens can be bribed. They don't do well with threats because they are at that age where it's "the principle of the thing" that matters. But BRIBERY - OH YES. And bribery combined with something like losing the computer or cell phone is REAL POWER. BUT it depends. Can't bribe a girl to stop seeing a boyfriend. You have to compromise. You can bribe the boyfriend. I remember a father whose daughter was determined to marry a guy they thought was a real loser. The dad went out and bought an expensive new car. He told the daughter that if she married him, this was their wedding gift and they would have no further financial support. If she didn't, the car was hers and he'd pay for her college education. IF the guy was decent at all you know he'd tell her, go to college. I'll wait. But regardless, the girl didn't marry him.

When a family member was a teen her mother told her if you will wait until you are 21 to drink and smoke I will buy a carton of any cigarettes you want and a bottle of any alcoholic beverage you want. She waited. It was a reasonable request.

Another was given a nice car and the promise of $2000 cash if he didn't drink for two years. He agreed and kept his side of the bargain as did the parent. (He's now middle aged and said that was probably the only thing that would have stopped him from drinking as he was 21 (college student) at the time so could drink legally BUT he had a drinking problem that caused a serious accident so he had negative experience from it also but the carrot helped a LOT. And it was his dad who made the bargain with him and his dad gave up his personal car and drove a real piece of crap with no air conditioning and no radio and no heater, so this made quite an impression.

You ALWAYS have power over kids. Parents are more difficult. Dads will listen to daughters. Moms are nearly impossible to get to do anything they don't decide to do on their own. Sons do better than daughters with moms but sons don't do well. When it comes to stopping dangerous behavior in a mom, good luck. Because they sacrifice so much when their kids are younger and their husbands are trying to succeed in a difficult situation that by the time this is over, they'll do what they want to do.

And yes there are always exceptions to the rule but the sensible, logical moms don't indulge in really harmful behaviors in the first place so the ones that remain - if I knew the answer to that one I'd be a millionaire.

But remember KIDS CAN BE BRIBED regardless of age, IF the request is reasonable.

 

[Hobin]

But remember KIDS CAN BE BRIBED regardless of age, IF the request is reasonable.

A less suggestive statement would be "*people* can be bribed regardless of age, if the request is reasonable." This doesn't apply only to kids.

 

[MarcoD]

You ALWAYS have power over kids. Parents are more difficult. Dads will listen to daughters. Moms are nearly impossible to get to do anything they don't decide to do on their own. Sons do better than daughters with moms but sons don't do well. When it comes to stopping dangerous behavior in a mom, good luck. Because they sacrifice so much when their kids are younger and their husbands are trying to succeed in a difficult situation that by the time this is over, they'll do what they want to do.

Uh? IMO: Man are you in for a number of surprises.

 

[deluks917]

YOU have the power.

I really think this is a bad way to look art things.

Oh yes you have power over teens. Teens can be bribed. They don't do well with threats because they are at that age where it's "the principle of the thing" that matters. But BRIBERY - OH YES. And bribery combined with something like losing the computer or cell phone is REAL POWER. BUT it depends. Can't bribe a girl to stop seeing a boyfriend. You have to compromise. You can bribe the boyfriend. I remember a father whose daughter was determined to marry a guy they thought was a real loser. The dad went out and bought an expensive new car. He told the daughter that if she married him, this was their wedding gift and they would have no further financial support. If she didn't, the car was hers and he'd pay for her college education. IF the guy was decent at all you know he'd tell her, go to college. I'll wait. But regardless, the girl didn't marry him.

When a family member was a teen her mother told her if you will wait until you are 21 to drink and smoke I will buy a carton of any cigarettes you want and a bottle of any alcoholic beverage you want. She waited. It was a reasonable request.

Another was given a nice car and the promise of $2000 cash if he didn't drink for two years. He agreed and kept his side of the bargain as did the parent. (He's now middle aged and said that was probably the only thing that would have stopped him from drinking as he was 21 (college student) at the time so could drink legally BUT he had a drinking problem that caused a serious accident so he had negative experience from it also but the carrot helped a LOT. And it was his dad who made the bargain with him and his dad gave up his personal car and drove a real piece of crap with no air conditioning and no radio and no heater, so this made quite an impression.

You ALWAYS have power over kids. Parents are more difficult. Dads will listen to daughters. Moms are nearly impossible to get to do anything they don't decide to do on their own. Sons do better than daughters with moms but sons don't do well. When it comes to stopping dangerous behavior in a mom, good luck. Because they sacrifice so much when their kids are younger and their husbands are trying to succeed in a difficult situation that by the time this is over, they'll do what they want to do.

And yes there are always exceptions to the rule but the sensible, logical moms don't indulge in really harmful behaviors in the first place so the ones that remain - if I knew the answer to that one I'd be a millionaire.

But remember KIDS CAN BE BRIBED regardless of age, IF the request is reasonable.

I really hope you are trolling the thread.

 

[nitsuj]

There is a huge difference between destroying an object and killing someone in a berserker rampage. I can't imagine there is any credible threat, except in the case where the person already has abusive tendencies or other edge cases.

Morally yes, but physically it's razor thin. It's most accurate to call the gun a threat.

If I have a dispute with you, and we meet to discuse it, would you not feel threatened if I had a gun with me and shot some inanimate object each time you said something I didn't like?