Real gun trumps paintball guns.

[Mookie4ever]

Maybe not victims, but let's not kid ourselves here. They could have been killed. Do I agree they should feel the full force of the law after pulling such a moronic prank in such a dangerous area? Of course, but I don't think it's really too off center to call them victims when they could easily be dead right now. It's not like the real gun shooters were firing warning shots, they were trying to kill them.

That's like going out and playing in traffic and then wanting to go after the drivers for vehicular homicide.

Oh, and the article did say one of the teenagers did get "hit in the hand", so he might have actually learned a lesson if the bullet did any real damage and not just a scrape or something.

If the drivers were aiming at them then yes, it's vehicular homicide. That's pretty much the definition.

I'm not too much into guns as teaching tools. This vigilante self-policing thing should have ended with the wild west.

[Neato Torpedo]

This jerk threw a snowball at my house so I hit him with my baseball bat. I broke his arm and shattered his kneecap. Now he can't run around throwing snowballs at people's houses! Isn't that awesome?

[Madison]

You are joking right?

No he's not.

Of course I'm not joking, I don't play kiddie games where someone breaks the law, acts like a complete idiot, and then screams "victim!" when they are the ones that created the situation themselves for them to be hurt. You pull a gun on someone or something and fire or threaten to fire (even paintball guns in this case), then you created the atmosphere where you might get shot. Simple as that. Which is no different than going out and playing in the street.

Paintball guns can do serious damage to flesh, so good luck trying to argue that they are "fake", but here, you can argue this one if you like:

In the meantime, Colorado zombies were content to adhere to the no-Nerf policy, especially after learning that they could be charged with violations of the student-conduct policy or even arrested on charges of unlawful conduct.

"We told them that the violation of the weapons policy is a serious thing," said Mr. Hilliard. "If a third party happened upon this and called 911, we'd have to respond as if it were a real incident."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/university-expands-gun-ban-to-nerfs/?page=2

[AquaMan2342]

You are joking right?

No he's not.

Of course I'm not joking, I don't play kiddie games where someone breaks the law, acts like a complete idiot, and then screams "victim!" when they are the ones that created the situation themselves for them to be hurt. You pull a gun on someone or something and fire or threaten to fire (even paintball guns in this case), then you created the atmosphere where you might get shot. Simple as that. Which is no different than going out and playing in the street.

I'm not debating the kids should get in trouble or that they put themselves in the situation. I am not debating that they are complete idiots. I am just shocked that you actually believe the retaliation of the gunman with a real gun is justified. That's unbelievable. Are you saying justice would have been served if the gunman had shot and killed one or both of the offenders? I read the parts you conveniently left out and it says the gunman took the paintball gun from the kids before he even started shooting at them. It's not as if he felt threatened and was defending himself from what he might have thought was somebody trying to shoot and kill him.

[Madison]

I'm not debating the kids should get in trouble or that they put themselves in the situation. I am not debating that they are complete idiots. I am just shocked that you actually believe the retaliation of the gunman with a real gun is justified. That's unbelievable. Are you saying justice would have been served if the gunman had shot and killed one or both of the offenders? I read the parts you conveniently left out and it says the gunman took the paintball gun from the kids before he even started shooting at them. It's not as if he felt threatened and was defending himself from what he might have thought was somebody trying to shoot and kill him.

I'm saying I wouldn't have cared if the gunman had killed both of the kids. They created the situation (and it certainly wasn't a "minor" infraction or anything), so I have no sympathy in this case. A couple less idiots in the gene pool as far as I'm concerned.

Honestly, I posted it up because I found it amusing that not one, but two kids (at least one of which is 18 and "supposed" to be an adult) thought it was a good idea to shoot paintballs at cars and homes, and to top it off, they were dumb enough to do it in gang territory. Just thought it was way too funny not to share how dumb these two were. The right idea was going with the "marksmanship fail" comments, which were perfect for me to mention that I don't often see gang members in shooting ranges , but oh no, someone just had to protect these idiot kids that don't deserve protecting. Thanks Aqua.

[Neato Torpedo]

This jerk threw a snowball at my house so I hit him with my baseball bat. I broke his arm and shattered his kneecap. Now he can't run around throwing snowballs at people's houses! Isn't that awesome?

This is a true story, by the way. Madison, are you proud of me?

[Madison]

This jerk threw a snowball at my house so I hit him with my baseball bat. I broke his arm and shattered his kneecap. Now he can't run around throwing snowballs at people's houses! Isn't that awesome?

This is a true story, by the way. Madison, are you proud of me?

Yeah, and I've got a big green statue holding a torch I want to sell you. But to play along...

Broken arm probably would have done the trick, but making sure by taking out the knee doesn't bother me any.

[thedude]

The article calls the kids victims. It should probably say moron or delinquent.

I noticed that too. Nice slant. No wonder we have this ridiculous sense of entitlement all around us anymore.

Maybe not victims, but let's not kid ourselves here. They could have been killed. Do I agree they should feel the full force of the law after pulling such a moronic prank in such a dangerous area? Of course, but I don't think it's really too off center to call them victims when they could easily be dead right now. It's not like the real gun shooters were firing warning shots, they were trying to kill them.

I guess they are technically victims in that they had a crime commited against them, but they are also criminals. They were not actually killed and it was possible that they could have seriously injured or killed an innocent with thier reckless behavior. Though that might not have been the intent, it was a legit possibility. They did not deserve to be physically harmed You tell us where  for thier conduct.

Therefore the article could have also described these people as criminals, but it chose to use the word victim, which I found interesting. Not saying they deserved to harmed, just that they are not innocent, though the word victim often carries that conotation.

[Neato Torpedo]

This jerk threw a snowball at my house so I hit him with my baseball bat. I broke his arm and shattered his kneecap. Now he can't run around throwing snowballs at people's houses! Isn't that awesome?

This is a true story, by the way. Madison, are you proud of me?

Yeah, and I've got a big green statue holding a torch I want to sell you. But to play along...

Broken arm probably would have done the trick, but making sure by taking out the knee doesn't bother me any.

W-wait, I was just kidding! I didn't actually do that. Would you really approve?!

[bigh0rt]

A blind man could have seen where this thread was going from the original post.