Castanet

Silverstarqueen wrote:The police can stop by any time they like. I'd love to give them a tour. I have nothing to hide.
How about you?

I do not have "pleasant conversations" with police - I answer questions when asked. I do not invite them into my house (unless they're family/friends over for dinner that is), but rather they're welcome when answering a call or if they present a search warrant. The law exists on both sides, and I work within the confines of said law. Nothing to hide, but nothing to show either.

YMMV.

You've yet to answer the questions you've been asked. While you might not identify as crazy, you're certainly a pro at moving goalposts.

You've yet to answer the questions you've been asked. While you might not identify as crazy, you're certainly a pro at moving goalposts.

Been more than a "few" days now since you've posted this Drew , and alas , no response yet..

I can take a stab at the "identity" thing If you wish .....

KiloHotel wrote:Knives kill people, not the person using the knife...
Bats kill people, not the person swinging the bat..
Cars kill people, not the person operating them..
Engineering errors kill people, not the engineers who made the errors...

So, guess I'm good to go start driving my car into groups of people with that logic then. With the anti-white, anti-man narrative it's almost risky to say that because only single white men are terrorists these days right?

Does that mean its okay for me to go shoot up a school? Cause its the gun killing kids, not me right?

You people who really think this way are absolutely brain dead, the mental gymnastics are incredible. Wish I was that flexible.

We've been through this back on page 20 something dude..

KiloHotel wrote:Knives kill people, not the person using the knife...
Bats kill people, not the person swinging the bat..
Cars kill people, not the person operating them..
Engineering errors kill people, not the engineers who made the errors...

So, guess I'm good to go start driving my car into groups of people with that logic then. With the anti-white, anti-man narrative it's almost risky to say that because only single white men are terrorists these days right?

Does that mean its okay for me to go shoot up a school? Cause its the gun killing kids, not me right?

You people who really think this way are absolutely brain dead, the mental gymnastics are incredible. Wish I was that flexible.

Have you met SSQ yet? Don't crash into her goalposts when you go screaming by with yours.

Explain to me again that pellet guns are not dangerous, and why unsupervised minors should be allowed to have them. This boy was shot more than a dozen times, in spite of blocking many shots with his sled. Suspects remain at large and of course still have their weapons. If and when they do catch them, should be lifetime ban on firearmsm, might deter others from trying the same sort of attack.

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/02/04 ... ellet-gun/

Silverstarqueen wrote:Explain to me again that pellet guns are not dangerous, and why unsupervised minors should be allowed to have them.

Who said pellet guns can't be dangerous? I don't believe one person has ever said that. Hundreds of people end up in hospital with eye injuries never mind animals getting hit so why are you looking for someone to explain something that has never been said?

KiloHotel wrote:

Silverstarqueen wrote:Explain to me again that pellet guns are not dangerous, and why unsupervised minors should be allowed to have them.

Quick, ban them. Wrap the kids up in bubble wrap, lock them in the cage and hide the key until the public education system takes care of them for the day. No kid should ever have any form of responsibility or fun ever, too dangerous. Need to hover around them like a helicopter and monitor at all times. That'll teach em to be responsible, independent adults.

You don't need to ban them. ANd you don't need to wrap kids in Bubble wrap, or lock them in a cage when not at school.
Kids don't learn responsibility by being allowed out with pellet guns to shoot at other kids.

Having raised three boys to be responsible independent young men I would say, yes, they need supervision with weapons that can harm, until they are responsible. Something these boys parents never did. IF we need a law to make parents do that, and hold them responsible if they don't, then so be it. The kids will be too young to charge under the law with much of anything very serious, so very little will be done with them as far as correction, meaning their behavior won't change unless they are taught some responsibility. A lifetime ban for them on owning weapons, which is what i suggested, (not your stupid bubble wrap) might teach them and others a lesson.
And those two do need serious correction and supervision. They are not going to learn by just 'letting boys be boys".

And I hope to God you are not raising three sons with this attitude:

KiloHotel wrote:Knives kill people, not the person using the knife...
Bats kill people, not the person swinging the bat..
Cars kill people, not the person operating them..
Engineering errors kill people, not the engineers who made the errors...

So, guess I'm good to go start driving my car into groups of people with that logic then. With the anti-white, anti-man narrative it's almost risky to say that because only single white men are terrorists these days right?

Does that mean its okay for me to go shoot up a school? Cause its the gun killing kids, not me right?

You people who really think this way are absolutely brain dead, the mental gymnastics are incredible. Wish I was that flexible.

Incidentally I don't think anyone has blamed white in particular over gun issues. As far as men: The vast majority (at least 90% of people are shot by a male with a gun. So maybe men should stop and think about what kind of culture they are teaching young males.

Silverstarqueen wrote: Something these boys parents never did.

Now you're blaming the parents without having a clue how old

these two young men

are or what the parents HAVE taught them about pellet guns and safety.

Fancy wrote:

Silverstarqueen wrote: Something these boys parents never did.

Now you're blaming the parents without having a clue how old

these two young men

are or what the parents HAVE taught them about pellet guns and safety.

Regardless of their exact age, according to the report they were "boys", someone raised them (safe to say it was their parents), and those parents should be responsible for where their weapons are, and what they are doing with them.

With all the blended families these days, it's never safe to say "safe to say".

Silverstarqueen wrote:The kids will be too young to charge under the law with much of anything very serious, so very little will be done with them as far as correction, meaning

I don't know how you can say that either since teenagers HAVE been arrested and charged with offences (i.e. discharge air pistol with intent).

We will see, then won't we how serious of a penalty is imposed.
Unfortunately I've seen cases of a teen killing another with a weapon (not accidental) and no jail time imposed. So a lot can happen between a boy being shot with pellets, and any serious penalty. Perhaps you can give us an example of teens who shot someone with pellets and received a serious penalty for it, I can't find one.

If there's damage to property, there's always the Parental Liability Act.

I would not compare deliberately shooting a boy many times with a pellet gun to "damage to property".

Silverstarqueen wrote:I would not compare deliberately shooting a boy many times with a pellet gun to "damage to property".

I wouldn't either and I didn't. I specifically said "damage to property" and made no comparison.

Silverstarqueen wrote:Regardless of their exact age, according to the report they were "boys",

The quote I used was from the link YOU posted.

Investigators think two young men may have fired the pellet gun before taking off.