Air Soft guns

Thanks for admitting it. It simply means that you're an extremist or a hypocrite (eat meat or not is the determining factor). I agree, it's a tired discussion on the same lines as politics or religion and no one ever ends up with a changed mind at the end of it.

 

Not eating meat makes a person an extremist? Huh...when did that happen?

 

It puts you on the edge of the bell curve, that's all. If you're a veg-something, then this is not news. As someone that doesn't eat carbs, I'm likely on the other side of the spectrum of eating almost nothing except meat. My wife doesn't eat most meat. We get by. Different strokes for different folks.

 

I see.

 

As someone who has a security clearance, I can tell you that if you were a kid who got in trouble, the govt really doesn't focus on childhood crap that got you in trouble with the law. Aside from that, most juvenile records are sealed anyway if you are under 18....I HIGHLY doubt that a kid would be charged with a crime for killing a squirrel or bird unless it was a Bald Eagle or some other protected species. At the most that would happen to a kid is probably a fine of some sort or community service. I doubt that a record would be developed. This is different if you were over 18....IMHO.

 

Let's speculate for fun. I was assuming a worst case scenario with something ricocheted and hit someone else. The kid ends up with assault with a deadly weapon or some other felony. It sure affects it then.

 

I would assume that it was an accident at that point...Ricocheting is not an indication to anyone that the kid was intentionally trying to kill someone. I would imagine that it would be treated as if it was an accident. If a kid was POINTING the gun at someone with the intent of harming/killing the person --fine. But I highly doubt it would result in a felony unless it was INTENTIONAL. Big difference here, I would think.

 

So in this scenario we are concerned about the long-term impact on the kid (and possibly his parents) who discharged the bb's with no mention of the potential long-term impact on the victim ? This thread started with a story about a 13 or 14 year old boy discharging bb's at two young girls. Fortunately in this scenario, there were only minor injuries. To this point, I believe you have only addressed the issue from the perspective of the shooter/parents of the shooter, which is pretty telling. If you are the parent of the two girls, how would you have handled this ? Suppose the injuries were more serious than "minor" ? Are you still worried about the kid's ability to get a security clearance in his adult years ?

 

So you are the arbiter of "common sense people" ? Common sense to me is that these things shouldn't be handed to a kid to play with in a neighborhood.

 

I agree, MadCat07. Kids aren't very mature enough to use those things and are unable to deal well with the consequences if they are busted shooting at something that they shouldn't have shot at. The fact of the matter is that these things are not to be played with in a residential area and some responsible parents are LIKELY to call the authorities because the law states that these things are illegal in the neighborhood and needs to be dealt with.

 

Mr. Linux- I take your comments with a grain of salt.

 

Exactly...luckily thise two girls weren't seriously injured. Who knows what those girl's parents would have done. I hesitate to assume what they would have done but if my own were harmed, I wouldn't sit idly by and excuse the kid's actions as being "juvenile". I WONDER what many of those folks who are supportive of the right to have these things in the hands of kids would have done if THEIR own kids were injured, whether it be minor or major, at the hand of another kid. Would they change their stance then? Hmmmmm....

 

Then tell me WHY did this kid shoot at two girls? Isn't that a mature action? Again, why did a law get passed banning shooting of bb (and some other kinds) guns in residential areas? The original poster of this thread was understandably upset when some kid shot at some birds with a bb gun taking down a bird. Some may shrug their shoulders at it and some may condemn the actions. I just don't think its a good idea to have such items in a residential area because there are too many chances that something wrong could happen in a residential area. There was another kid that was shooting at someone's house with a bb gun then turned onto the homeowner. This happened in Sterling, which happens to be a residential area. I just believe that these items should be used in wide open fields such as a farm or on a shooting range. I understand that this "issue" is a sensitive one and does get many a folk all riled up.

 

So the options are "live and let live" or "bubble existence" ? "Common sense people" would likely find some middle ground in there.

 

Do you ACTUALLY believe that calling the cops would be the FIRST thing that is done here? I actually would believe that attempting to talk to the parents first would be the prudent thing to do FIRST and if that failed (or if such a neighbor is the violent/yelling/screaming kind as another poster put it as some residents may feel too uncomfortable to approach the neighbor to try to diplomatically deal with the situation at hand), then I would imagine someone would call the cops to "mediate" this. Actually pressing charges should be the LAST resort, in my opinion. Now, mind you, this plan may not be followed by everyone...but I would think this would be the most sensible one.