WA teen who mistook hiker for bear gets 30 days

Yurt said:
why don't you don't go back and reread my post.....i never claimed to know the facts....do it....go back and read what i said

if you have other facts, present them. i'm all ears pikeman....

30 days....for a life...amazing
Click to expand...

There's a massive difference between taking a life intentionally and taking a life in an accident.
 
uscitizen said:
And why is the crime less for someone 14 vs 18 ? If they are old enough to use a gun are they old enough for responsibility for their actions?
Click to expand...

Because a 14 year olds brain is less developed than an 18 year olds (and actually an 18 year old brain isn't even fully developed yet). The argument is, therefore, that they can't be held to the same level of responsibility, ethically. Whether or not they can wield a gun is a poor test, that may seem intuitive at first but really is not meaningful with respect to their mental state. A toddler can wield a gun.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Because a 14 year olds brain is less developed than an 18 year olds (and actually an 18 year old brain isn't even fully developed yet). The argument is, therefore, that they can't be held to the same level of responsibility, ethically. Whether or not they can wield a gun is a poor test, that may seem intuitive at first but really is not meaningful with respect to their mental state. A toddler can wield a gun.
Click to expand...

by your logic they should not be allowed to have a gun until they are fully responsible for the results of their use of the gun?

A good answer btw, but not complete.
 
uscitizen said:
And some want to let people carry guns in the national parks for protection against bears and such. I wan't protection from stupid people, bears I can deal with better they are not armed.

There goes a last safe place to hike and camp.
Click to expand...

you better hope someone has a gun if you are attacked by a bear in a national park, or you will be either dead or seriously disfigured..you'd be wise to stay on a bike path..
 
meme said:
you better hope someone has a gun if you are attacked by a bear in a national park, or you will be either dead or seriously disfigured..you'd be wise to stay on a bike path..
Click to expand...

You have a much better chance of being struck by lightening.

We need a law allowing us to carry lightening rods in national parks!

I actually know a guy here that has been struck by lightening twice. But no bear attacks. And yes we do have some bears around here. one was killed on the road less than 2 miles from my home last winter.
 
Demwit said:
by your logic they should not be allowed to have a gun until they are fully responsible for the results of their use of the gun.
Click to expand...

Well there are many things they can do with the guns that don't really involve "taking responsibility". The thing is, if a young person does anything, he's going to do it more foolishly than an adult. But I don't think that means we should keep them locked in a box, even if the punishment is going to be lesser for them. Since they do most bad things out of their temporary foolishness, I don't think heavy punishment would be truly effective at deterring these behaviors anyway.

So, you can balance it as a society, although it's never going to be clear cut. That's why we don't let fifteen year olds drive cars. As for guns, I think it would be more sensible to simply require a hunters ed course before they can use a gun.
 
meme said:
probably very few of either..
Click to expand...

bear_cavalry.jpg
 
It is a unfortunate Accident that sometimes happens in hunting..If you are a avid hunter, you know this is always a chance you take..

I feel for both families..
 
Watermark said:
Well there are many things they can do with the guns that don't really involve "taking responsibility". The thing is, if a young person does anything, he's going to do it more foolishly than an adult. But I don't think that means we should keep them locked in a box, even if the punishment is going to be lesser for them. Since they do most bad things out of their temporary foolishness, I don't think heavy punishment would be truly effective at deterring these behaviors anyway.

So, you can balance it as a society, although it's never going to be clear cut. That's why we don't let fifteen year olds drive cars. As for guns, I think it would be more sensible to simply require a hunters ed course before they can use a gun.
Click to expand...

Many states require the hunter ed classes. KY does, I help teach some.

Why not let them drink booze at 14? Drive a car? Make binding contracts? Get married? legally consent to sex?
All for the reason you stated. So why let them operate deadly weapons? Or should the accompanying adult be responsible for their actions in this case?

And no one quote the constitution to me either. Children do not enjoy full constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
Whomever said:
Many states require the hunter ed classes. KY does, I help teach some.

Why not let them drink booze at 14? Drive a car? Make binding contracts? Get married? legally consent to sex?
All for the reason you stated. So why let them operate deadly weapons? Or should the accompanying adult be responsible for their actions in this case?
Click to expand...

In Alaska they hunt and fish up for subsistence..There is a very large Native population up there...Children are taught to use guns and hunt along with the parent..there is only a short period for hunting certain animals, so the more they can get, the more food they have for the long winters... so you would take away a families way of surviving because of a very few accidents??
 
meme said:
In Alaska they hunt and fish up for subsistence..There is a very large Native population up there...Children are taught to use guns and hunt along with the parent..there is only a short period for hunting certain animals, so the more they can get, the more food they have for the long winters... so you would take away a families way of surviving because of a very few accidents??
Click to expand...

I thought they lived off of the alaska pipeline oil money?
Almost none of them now live entirely off of the land.
I could except them anyway.

You example is an extreme case as is usual for the Right wing establishment.
Now talk about the kids that hunt in the lower 48 states.
 
Whomever said:
I thought they lived off of the alaska pipeline oil money?
Almost none of them now live entirely off of the land.
I could except them anyway.

You example is an extreme case as is usual for the Right wing establishment.
Now talk about the kids that hunt in the lower 48 states.
Click to expand...

shows how much you know..the permanent fund that is given out is NOT enough to live off..after the profits from the pipeline is invested, once a year some is given out to the people who live and run the state... too bad where you all live they don't think you guys are worth shit to do it for you...

do you ever think for yourself, or you just soak up all the stupid shit you hear from the closed minded folks you hang around with..
Most people outside of Anchorage hunt and fish for food...and a lot of people hunt for food in the lower 48 also...you are a idiot..
 
Last edited:
Whomever said:
I thought they lived off of the alaska pipeline oil money?
Almost none of them now live entirely off of the land.
I could except them anyway.

You example is an extreme case as is usual for the Right wing establishment.
Now talk about the kids that hunt in the lower 48 states.
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, that annual $1,500 - $2,000 check each person gets is what all the people in Alaska live off of. It's why Sarah Palin had to borrow money for clothes because she didn't have too many outfits available after feeding a family of 6 on $2k a year.
 
Whomever said:
Many states require the hunter ed classes. KY does, I help teach some.

Why not let them drink booze at 14? Drive a car? Make binding contracts? Get married? legally consent to sex?
All for the reason you stated. So why let them operate deadly weapons? Or should the accompanying adult be responsible for their actions in this case?

And no one quote the constitution to me either. Children do not enjoy full constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

LOL. I fully support letting them drink at 14. Some things just aren't as much a danger as others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top