They treat us like 2nd class citizens.

Post Reply New Topic

Check out the linked story about a 15 year old girl with Asperger's who was shot with duck pellets. The sheriff who investigated was basically, "Eh, boys will be boys."

15 year old teen with Asperger's

From reading the story, it does not appear to have been an intentional act at all.

People often don't realize how far that birdshot can go.

I was in a barn once while my younger brother and a friend of his were hunting pheasant not far away. Nearly every time they shot, I'd hear the birdshot hit the metal roof of the barn. I just stayed in the barn until they finished.

I told my younger brother about it later and he was surprised that the birdshot went that far. He agreed to be more careful about it in the future. It hasn't happened since.

Makes me wonder who these boys are going to shoot at when they have real guns.

Did you actually read the link?

Is there any rational reason to think that they intentionally shot at her or that they will ever intentionally shoot at anyone in the future?

Watched the video . . . It stated that their target was in the opposite direction to the horse farm, so they would have had to turn in the opposite direction from the target to aim at the trainer and rider. Not sure what their motivation is, but I wish people would teach their kids to have a little more respect for others.

I deleted my first post since It was based on a misreading of the article.

Yeah, I'd say that someone has a right to be upset here. "No one hurt", even through the article specifies that the young lady and the horse were hit, and the mis-spelling of AS don't sit too well.

Reading between the lines, even the reporter was annoyed at the sheriff's lack of a response, but not too upset.

Quite true. But in this case, that may have had nothing to do with it. What they really appear to need is some instruction on firearm safety.

The article said that their usual target was in the opposite direction but said nothing about their shooting on that particular day.

My guess would be that if they have a target practice area set up, it is more likely for rifles than for shotguns. I've never heard of people shooting at targets with a shotgun unless they were just checking to make sure that it is shooting true.

I don't know about Florida, but in Texas it is illegal to shoot in such a way that your the projectile(s) cross a property line into someone else's property without their permission. If that is the case in Florida, then the kids could probably be charged with that, but in most cases where there hasn't been a problem before I think that many local police and sheriff's departments try to avoid taking action when some education will work fine.

Generally the effective range of a shotgun is quite short. The shot in the shells loses much of its power quite quickly. At the distance I presume this case involved, it is likely that about the only way the girl would have been physically injured was if it had hit her in the eyes or entered an ear canal.

Who the hell just lets their kids have access to a gun without an adult present?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, I don't see anything by which I can prove malice.

It could be there-- "Geez, officer, I didn't have any idea that gun was pointed at the ret*d ranch"-- and I would be the last one to see, but I don't see anything openly malicious and without more information I'll leave it there.

If those were my kids, my 15-year-old would be in very, very, very hot water. All the kids I grew up with were more responsible with firearms than that by the age of 15. My 9-year-old never would have been there in the first place. I like to think that I never would have let that much testosterone and that little experience mix with firearms unsupervised in the first place...

...but those would be some red-assed kids who would at least be thinking that they'd never lay hands on a gun under my roof again.

Where I live, that's normal.

There was a gunrack in my bedroom when I was growing up with a variety of shotguns and rifles on it including a .30-06 rifle and a 16 guage shotgun. I was responsible enough that I never took them down and played with them.

I cannot believe my eyes! OMG what people can get away with. You know, this is lucky no one was seriously injured or killed during this. YES guns are that serious. It's so frustrating people on this thread are in denial about guns! This is why we have so many murders in this country. A gun is not a toy and if you cannot get that through your head, you shouldn't have a gun. And the punishment these kids got just shows some people are still not willing to take gun safety seriously in this country.

Oh, come on. It might help if you actually knew anything about firearms.

The horse and rider were some distance away. A rifle or handgun bullet can carry quite a punch at a good distance, but not shot from a shotgun.

There is no indication at all that the kids were shooting at the rider. They were apparently some distance away behind some trees where they couldn't even see the rider and known she was there.

Those kids definitely need some instruction on firearm safety, but there was nothing there that would be likely to kill anyone.

Eric, how do we know this? If they got hit with something, seems like an error was made and guns can make unforgiving ones at that. These kids need to realize how serious a gun is before they shoot one again.

I grew up around firearms and am well aware of the differences between a shotgun and a rifle.

To give you an idea about a shotgun, about the maximum range that I would normally consider taking a shot with one is maybe about 40 or 50 yards. At 100 yards, I wouldn't expect the shot to even penetrate the skin. In this case, the kids were in one field, the horse and rider in another field, and there were some trees between them. I don't know what the distance is, but it certainly sounds like it is at least something well past the killing range of a shotgun.

A rifle or handgun would be an entirely different matter. Rifles and handguns shoot bullets, not shot. Well, there are birdshot shells for rifles, but they aren't all that common. Bullets carry far further and keep their killing power for a long distance. For example, in a battle with the Commanches in the Texas Panhandle known as the Second Battle of Adobe Walls, a fellow named Billy Dixon shot and killed an Indian sitting on his horse on a bluff about a mile away. If Billy Dixon had been using a shotgun, it is extremely doubtful that he would have done anything buy annoy the Indian even if the Indian was 100 yards away.

If they had been close enough that a shotgun could have seriously harmed the girl unless for a very unlikely instance of a pellet hitting her in the eye, they would have pretty much had to be well within sight of the girl on the horse and would have had to shoot at her on purpose. There is not only no evidence that they were that close, the article explicitly states that they weren't within sight at all. The girl and her mother had no idea who had shot until the kids emerged from the trees later.

There is no doubt that the kids need some instruction on firearm safety. In particular, they need to know what is downrange of where they are shooting. And they need to learn to limit their shots to where the pellets from the shotgun do not cross property lines. That is a job for education.

Eric, the point is, they were negligent. Nothing, not pellets or anything else, should have hit the girl, the instructor or the horse and yet they are allowed to continue unpunished. They were not even grounded from the guns for a short while. This is what I mean by random people failing to treat firearms as serious weapons that can maim and kill instead of docile kids' toys meant for fun and games which clearly, they are not.

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.