Nick87
Well-known member
With the kind of stupidity of shooting a buddy with a vest on I think we should be thankful they didn't hurt anybody else.
Police: Teen dies after boys shoot at each other while wearing body armor
- Thread starter WyoDoug
- Start date
Jigginjakescharters
New member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2022
- Messages
- 20
Guess I’m not buying that body armorThis is pure stupidity. You practice firearms safety at all time and do not ever shoot at anything you do not intend to kill.
Police: Teen dies after boys shoot at each other while wearing body armor
A Florida teenager is dead and two others have been arrested after police said the boys took turns shooting at each other while wearing body armor.www.wyomingnewsnow.tv
Gellar
Well-known member
In the original link provided it says nothing about how the firearms were obtained. I think we are in agreement that if a 2 year old gets a firearm it’s probably because of careless actions by adults somewhere. A 16 and 17 year old are old enough to know how to get in the gun safe. A 16 and 17 year old are old enough to take responsibility for there actions.
Right now in Iowa a 16 and 17 year old are on trial for using a baseball bat to murder their Spanish teacher. Should the baseball coach be tried too because they had access to a bat? No, the kids have to take responsibility for their actions.
Right now in Iowa a 16 and 17 year old are on trial for using a baseball bat to murder their Spanish teacher. Should the baseball coach be tried too because they had access to a bat? No, the kids have to take responsibility for their actions.
Nick87
Well-known member
Never did like Spanish class either.
I wish I could understand the logic behind wanting unlimited, unregulated and undocumented access to any gun imaginable along with the unwillingness to take responsibility for said guns.
Rights come with responsibilities.
As for what a 16 and 17 year oldcare capable of understandings, of course they are, but their brains are immature and their ability to evaluate risk isn't fully developed.
Our legal system gives people until 18 to mess up with less consequences.
It protects society and children by limiting access to certain things until certain ages.
Just like the adults who supply minors with alcohol, those that supply children with guns should have some culpability in the outcome.
Rights come with responsibilities.
As for what a 16 and 17 year oldcare capable of understandings, of course they are, but their brains are immature and their ability to evaluate risk isn't fully developed.
Our legal system gives people until 18 to mess up with less consequences.
It protects society and children by limiting access to certain things until certain ages.
Just like the adults who supply minors with alcohol, those that supply children with guns should have some culpability in the outcome.
MarvB
Well-known member
[QUOTE="Dirthog67, post: 3376547, memo
As for what a 16 and 17 year oldcare capable of understandings, of course they are, but their brains are immature and their ability to evaluate risk isn't fully developed.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm… dunno about this in full, agree about the immaturity of age but it also depends on “what risk” is being evaluated. I raised three through those ages unscathed for the most part and coached countless others over two decades, I never wanted one to sift sell responsibility for ones actions, even my own.
When we say risk in regards to an event or circumstance that one has never contemplated or encountered I get it, shit happens. But risk involving weapons as they were doing you dont have to have “been there, done that” to quickly figure out that was just plain f’n stupid. I’ve never sky dived before but can figure out that landing wrong might jack my knees or back, prob worse without a chute
. To say that these guys get an immaturity pass because they couldn’t contemplate what “might” happen is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
As for what a 16 and 17 year oldcare capable of understandings, of course they are, but their brains are immature and their ability to evaluate risk isn't fully developed.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm… dunno about this in full, agree about the immaturity of age but it also depends on “what risk” is being evaluated. I raised three through those ages unscathed for the most part and coached countless others over two decades, I never wanted one to sift sell responsibility for ones actions, even my own.
When we say risk in regards to an event or circumstance that one has never contemplated or encountered I get it, shit happens. But risk involving weapons as they were doing you dont have to have “been there, done that” to quickly figure out that was just plain f’n stupid. I’ve never sky dived before but can figure out that landing wrong might jack my knees or back, prob worse without a chute
. To say that these guys get an immaturity pass because they couldn’t contemplate what “might” happen is a bit of a stretch IMHO.Gellar
Well-known member
When we see evidence that there are negligent adults who supplied these kids with the firearms than I will be the first to agree with you that the parents need to be held accountable. But until that happens you cannot say that this is the fault of the parent leaving a firearm unlocked. Kids 16 or 17 years old know how to get what they want and they are going to get it if they want it bad enough.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
They shot at the vest earlier and nothing "went through".
www.wesh.com
Police: Belleview teens were shooting each other while wearing armored vest when boy killed
Two teenagers have been arrested after a 16-year-old was shot and killed in Belleview Sunday.
www.wesh.com
The evidence is that the kids had guns. Someone was negligent or they broke into a gun safe and they dont sound smart enough to do that.
They shot at the vest earlier and nothing "went through".
Police: Belleview teens were shooting each other while wearing armored vest when boy killed
Two teenagers have been arrested after a 16-year-old was shot and killed in Belleview Sunday.
I can see kids thinking "testing" the vest made it safe.
WyoDoug
Well-known member
Yup. You are still culpable if it was an accident. I know of someone who's kid killed one of his friends playing with guns. The parents got charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to secure the firearm. There is another case in national news where a kid did a mass killing at a school. The parents were tried and convicted on the firearm they gave the kid as a gift.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Don't tear up. You should actually be happy to know there are real benefits here to the human race. The scientific phenomena known as the theory of evolution is still in place!
Not all heroes wear capes
Good!
Its a whole different thing to murder someone by beating them to death than by pulling the trigger on a gun.
A gun is impersonal. Easy. Quick.
Beating someone to death takes a lot of emotion. Time, energy. Its brutal. Its messy.
Its not even the same thing and comparing it is ridiculous.
MarvB
Well-known member
Well there ya go! What on earth could go wrong at that point
Hell I sleep with my eyes closed, never a problem so I “should” be able to drive that way right? Sorry to be harsh but sometimes it’s natural selection at work.
Gellar
Well-known member
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You have some valid points, I have some valid points. I actually have to go get some work done today.
Walkathon
Well-known member
If you are 17 years old, and don't see the potential danger in shooting each other while wearing a bullet proof vest, then I don't know what another 12 months are going to do for you as far as brain development. These weren't little kids. They are young adults.
Nick87
Well-known member
FIFY
Similar threads
