Yes, I was thinking the same thing myself. And I think the mother shot the girl.

The pathologists would be able to work that shit out. They can tell how far the gun was from the child and what angle it was being held on.

True, it's all hearsay and conjecture. But I like to keep in mind that we're discussing the article itself, not necessarily what may or may not have actually happened. The press sensationalizes everything. When it comes to family tragedies, the stories often write themselves with a prejudice against the parents to give it a more dramatic feel; "Did Mommy Kill Her Little Girl?".

I'm just waiting to see how the media twists this one around. "Wii Kills Innocent Three Year Old! Nintendo Being Sued For Millions!"

Sure, and then they'll photoshop a very unflattering picture of Mommy into a pit of flames with Gays. Polarizing sensation.

"Is Mommy Gay For Her Little Boy?"

Well? Is she?

To those comments complaining about making judgements of the situation: It was posted in a forum, therefore saying 'I think this is interesting I would like to hear your views'. I agree with not jumping to conclusions, but submitting something for discussion will lead to judgements being made.

It's horrible.

But at the same time it's so terribly idiotic that the only thing I can think of at the moment was: Natural selection at it's finest.

At least these people won't pass on their fucked upness/stupidity/whathaveyou

Whoah. What the fuck? You're willing to say that the death of a three year old is natural selection at it's finest? Some of the world's greatest minds have come from worse families, and nastier circumstances. If the child had accidentally shot the mother, (who as an adult should have known fucking better) then that would have been one thing. But who the fuck could possibly be so callous and stupid as to proclaim "natural selection at it's finest" to this?

Someone callous and stupid who doesn't quite care about these things as much as they should?

Hey, stop complaining about complaining.

It has nothing to do with caring. It has more to do with having the higher brain functions necessary to come to reasonable conclusions.

Ah, wait, I see what I did there. I jumped into conversation without taking the time to find out the flavor. Now if I could just convey my awareness of the situation without sounding like a twat and withdraw from the conversation with some dignity...

In any case, I do posses the higher brain function necessary to come to reasonable conclusions. I just don't quite care enough to want to apply it here.

Yes. I can see now how the terrible death of a toddler could induce apathy.

Natural selection? So you're saying that if nature favored the child, she would have been smart enough at three years of age to tell a real, loaded gun from a fake one?

Perhaps we should administer a test on several three year olds. Give them all two guns; one a realistic toy, and the other is the real deal. The ones that don't end up shooting themselves or someone else are awarded a grant and a scholarship. Brilliant!

We need a good culling. Only people worth living survive cullings.

Culling heath?

So was the holocaust an exercise in natural selection also?

They obviously didn't want to live badly enough to fight back. This is logic.

Since when can the best people afford Wiis too? Oh, wait. They're spending their welfare checks on them.

Actually, I find that the worst people are the ones that have money.

Look at this. All three of us in agreement. And all it took was one extraordinarily asinine comment.

So scrab queen finally posts and this happens.

So, are you ever gonna, like.......get the fuck out?

Hahahahahahah

You're funny.

I posrepped it.

And you're completely and utterly without morals.

Hahahahahahah

Not as funny as your QUEEFS.

WTF is this shit?

Aw, thank you.

Also, I would like to point out to everybody that I am slightly disturbed by what I said.

Apology accepted.

mind the pit, folks. she was digging awful deep.