They treat us like 2nd class citizens.

Post Reply New Topic

I seem to be much different than most people around. As far as I'm concerned, the point is to correct the bad behavior. Whenever that can be done with education, then not only is punishment not required, it is hardly even desirable.

Depending on the kids, all that may have been required is for the father to sit them down and explain the basics of firearm safety. Maybe sign them up for a safety course on the issue.

Since I have no idea what steps have been taken to to correct the behavior, I'm not going to go off the handle and assume that no steps have been taken.

Last edited by eric76 on 08 Jan 2013, 4:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

It was a real shotgun. They might have been to far away to stand a strong chance of causing severe to life-threatening injuries since they spray of tiny pellets would have lost so much speed and energy (it's a relatively short-range weapon), but it is still dangerous to do.


If it could ever be proven that he aimed at someone they could be charged with felony assault with a firearm. Being juveniles, if convicted they would get their gun rights back at age 30, and they would be hard pressed to get a sheriff to sign off on a concealed carry license or the ATF to grant any type of federal license to them.

If I was their parents, shooting someone outside of self-defense would be the kind of extreme incident where I'd think kicking the shooter's ass is in order if I could get away with it. All of them wouldn't have any free time for at least a couple weeks, and any money they got would be saved up and given to that girl. the next time they laid hands on a gun, which would not be anytime soon, there would be a new safety orientation and new safety rules.

I did a little checking to see what other people's experience is:

If you just lecture them, it will go in one ear and out the other. How many times do you think the dad lectures them on gun safety? If they realize their guns will be taken away a while, they will grasp the idea they must take safety seriously. If they fail to grasp this basic concept, they could end up injuring themselves or someone else so the stakes are pretty high, don't you think?

Why didn't you say that you know the kids? When I was a kid, I knew some that a lecture would have been more than sufficient. Since I don't know the kids in question, I can't say whether or not a simple warning or lecture would be sufficient.

]

Just talking isn't enough with them, apparently.

Always be sure of your target and what lies beyond it. No ifs and/or buts there.

Birdshot is in one of those...fishy areas, as by nature you're shooting into the air and the shot will fall out of your view (unless small game on the ground); it won't do anything past 100 meters or so (200 to be safe), but it still will pepper someone at a few hundred meters when it comes back to earth. Still, shoot on your property where no one else is to be expected and there'll be no incidents.

Lessen learned for the shooters in this case; shoot into your property.

some numbers (shotgun):

birdshot = 100 meters or so for wounding range (BB and other larger shot will be further and with a lethal range in 100 meters or so)
buckshot = lethal out to about 500 meters
slug = 1 mile+ lethal

Just how do you jump to that conclusion?

Either you know them personally and from your personal experience with them you know that it isn't enough or you don't know squat about them and are merely generalizing.

If the latter, I take it then that you have no problems at all when people generalize about people on the ASD spectrum. So you know how one kid behaves when told not to do something then you know how all kids behave when told not to do something. By the same logic, then if you know one person with Autism you have insight into all persons with Autism.

Would you say that?

Because at their age, they should know better. No excuse for the pellets or whatever they were to even be on this woman's property. You typed there were trees between her yard and their shooting field. Doesn't it strike you as odd that pellets would be able to bridge this great distance? It sounds like negligence at the least.


I have been around gun crazy cousins and have heard plenty of lectures on gun safety from my Uncle. One of my cousins accidentally shot part of his hand off while going under a barbed wire fence. He did not have the safety on his hunting rifle. Just goes to show, lecturing doesn't always have much effect.

I would hope all adults would talk gun safety with their kids. If not, even more reason for the kids not to handle the guns.


I think I could have some insight into Autism based on one person's Autism just because it's Autism and to have it people share a certain set of characteristics.

They may not have realized that the shot would carry that far. Obviously, they didn't pose any real threat at the distance since there were no allegations of actual injury.



Then you are obviously of much greater wisdom and intelligence and perception (and maybe clairvoyance) than anyone else here.

Why can you not accept there was some negligence is all? These girls should not have ever experienced these pellets on their property. I stand by my conviction.

I agree with you to the extent that the event should not have happened.

I strongly disagree that there was absolutely a need to punish the kids instead of learning something about firearm safety.

I've seen nothing to support the notion that the kids were acting in any malicious manner. At the very worst there is a mild case of negligence.

If Florida has a law similar to Texas that prohibits one from shooting in such a way that the projectiles cross the property lines without already having permission from the property owner on the other side of the property line, then there would be a misdemeanor involved and they could have received a ticket.

Of course, the police have a good deal of latitude in determining whether or not to write a ticket for a misdemeanor.

I just can't believe you think that knowing the ages of the oldest kids involved. Shouldn't they know by now what is safe and what is not? Besides, they would get their guns back eventually anyway. It's not like they would spend a lifetime parted.

I never said they were being malicious, either. If they managed to get buckshot or whatever it was into the area these people and the horse were, it sounds like they were being negligent. They were not cognizant of what needed doing and they should have been.

The article said that what they were using was appropriate for ducks. Buckshot does not qualify for that.

I would bet that if you asked 100 experienced bird hunters how far the pellets from their shotgun would carry, you would have a very great difference of opinion. After all, it is not that important a topic because at any distance, even if it does carry that far it hardly poses a danger at all.

In this case, a little education should fix the problem. The kids now know that the shot will carry that far and so they should, at least, not shoot in that direction from where they were.

If they do so, the problem is solved.

Fair enough.

I've notice how often people with difficulties shall one say tend to be the target of one's pranks,jokes, bullyism etc.. I find it shameful..