anyone ever get kicked off a field too?

[shartley]

[TigerMan]

Originally posted by Brak
dont listen to these "mature" people. they just call themselves mature when the real thing is that they dont GOT NO BALLS!! SUCKAS!!!

I don't think it's that "we got no balls" but rather we choose to think with our brains rather than that part of the body in certain situations. Keep thinking with your "Balls" rather than your brain in those situations, you'll end up in jail one day in your life. Than you can shine your "machoness" to your fellow inmatess.

If somebody had put a barrel at my neck, sure like most people who've responded, I would've done something to prevent it. But I doubt if it were me that it would've escalated to that point. It's easy to be macho, and it's easy to get your you know what whipped in the process, but it's also easy to be the adult in the situation and not the "kid" and be the one who steps in to stop the situation before it grows. I seriously hope most of you think before you react in most situations, because if you don't sooner or later it will catch up to you.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by shartley

I've now effectively been told how stupid it was for me to mention that... and have considered it and chased down the definition I was thinking of
Hmm... and heres another quote on the subject

"Crimes - Felon in Possession of Firearm - Firearm - Definition

For the purpose of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm, a "firearm" is a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air, but does not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BBs not exceeding .177 caliber. "

MCL 750.222(b), MCL 750.224f(1)

From a Michigan appelate court. Just a thought for those of you that want to escalate a situation well holding that marker - by the way, almost anything over .50 caliper that is designed to launch a projectile falls under the ATFs definition of a destructive device - which would make a firearm offense seem minor (and people were prosecuted for some high end "potato" guns). My point is this - they are equipment, toys to us, but if we do not use them responsibly an overzeaulous district attorney is going to teach us the word plea bargain. I love this sport, I would fight any law that infringed on it, if it was used in a way that infringed on it - I would be one of the first to complain if this was used against a player, however I will not forget that it is the law.

[TheKid_15]

...

I prolly would have done the same thing Wicked_Wayz did. The guy who was out shot him, wicked said a few choice words and then the dude pointed the gun at his neck, then wicked shoved/hit him. I'm sorry, not matter how mature or immature I am, I would have shoved or decked him too, no one holds a barrel, even if it is from a paintball marker, to my throat and threatens me.

As for his friend and the "lighting him up", that was absolutely retarded. Get the dude the next game. I play in a tuesday night league(BQPL - 3 man) I bunkered a guy and he got pissed, he came out and next game and bonus balled me. So i said whatever he wants to play like that, I bunkered him the game after that too(and shot a few more balls than needed). Just go out and get him next game.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Lohman446
I've now effectively been told how stupid it was for me to mention that... and have considered it and chased down the definition I was thinking of
Hmm... and heres another quote on the subject

"Crimes - Felon in Possession of Firearm - Firearm - Definition

For the purpose of the offense of felon in possession of a firearm, a "firearm" is a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air, but does not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BBs not exceeding .177 caliber. "

MCL 750.222(b), MCL 750.224f(1)

You did read

Originally posted by Lohman446
From a Michigan appelate court. Just a thought for those of you that want to escalate a situation well holding that marker - by the way, almost anything over .50 caliper that is designed to launch a projectile falls under the ATFs definition of a destructive device - which would make a firearm offense seem minor (and people were prosecuted for some high end "potato" guns). My point is this - they are equipment, toys to us, but if we do not use them responsibly an overzeaulous district attorney is going to teach us the word plea bargain. I love this sport, I would fight any law that infringed on it, if it was used in a way that infringed on it - I would be one of the first to complain if this was used against a player, however I will not forget that it is the law.

[JesseB]

Originally posted by shartley

You did read

Shartley did you read it? .177 caliber is the size of a really small pellet. Apaintball is roughly .68 thats like 5 times the size man...

[Surreal]

"not exceeding" .. did you read?

[shartley]

Originally posted by JesseB


Shartley did you read it? .177 caliber is the size of a really small pellet. Apaintball is roughly .68 thats like 5 times the size man...

I think YOU may need to go back and read it again. A paintball is NOT a BB. Do you know what a BB is? It does not say a "projectile" not exceeding .177 Caliber, it clearly states a BB.



Come on folks, please read stuff.... It does not include paintball markers as firearms.

[shartley]

[rx2]

I don't think it is reasonable to call someone a coward for not fighting, but I also don't think that it is reasonable to characterize fighters as chest-puffing neanderthals. If you don't like to fight, fine. If you do, I can't hold it against you. Morals and right/wrong are pretty grey when you actually analyze the. Sure, you may have handled it differently, but that doesn't mean your way is the de facto correct way.

What I will say - I am not the first here to say it - is that it can be dangerous to engage in confrontation. So, right/wrong aside, fighting isn't always the best thing for your own well being, or for making your life as easy to live as possible. The other individual obviously is a bad judge of his actions, and doesn't logically consider consequences. Considering that, you must take into account the possibility that he may resort to even greater means in order to hurt you. Obviously, he felt he was not wrong in his actions. You contradicted his belief, and he became angrier. You have to ask yourself, then, at what point he would stop. It is impossible to say that he might not be so hot-headed as to wait for you after the game, as you are leaving, and try something more severe. My father was a police officer in a bad part of town, and I have heard of and have seen many minor confrontations resulting in a severe injury or death, because someone had a bruised ego, and a hot head.

So, while it may not be "wrong" to punish someone overtly and physically, it isn't always logical.

That being said, I do believe that no one should go unchecked. After all, if one observes complacency towards his own aggressiveness, he will be more apt to commit aggressive acts in the future, as he forsees no punishment. So, while it isn't always a good idea fight, it is sometimes quite logical to demand rerprisal or restitution. For your own safety, the best way to go is through an authority of some sort, such as the ref.

If the authorities at the field do not satisfy you, or rather do not handle the situation properly, then take action against the field. Speak to the owner, and refuse to play. Boycott the field.

Now, if someone commits repeated infractions, I say go ahead and deck him. Obviously other punishments weren't severe enough...

Enough rambling. It isn't bad or wrong to act as you did, just dangerous. You CAN get yourself killed, or put into a wheelchair. Besides, there are better ways of getting back at people than physical punishment, ways that hurt much more (rubs hands together and laughs sinisterly).

[JesseB]

hmm true...aight but then he posted the part about almost anything over .50 caliber that is quite reasonable. although they probably don't consider a paintball gun as a dangerous weapon as long as it is kept within the respective speed limits and actually shooting paintballs and not marbles or something else solid as a projectile.

With a breakable gelatin capsule at 290 fps it is hardly an AK-47. but with a hard object it could cause some serious damage so that may be taken in consideration also

[Lohman446]

I highly doubt the law has ever been tested, and would hope that it would never be. I would also expect that any competent attorney could argue a jury nullification defense that would keep you from being prosecuted (jury nullification is not technically arguing the law, but arguing that the law should not be applied to a defendant for whatever reason - normally an unjust law) Could you imagine "magazine" limits of ten shots as imposed by the Brady Bill. Factually, many many things that people do in life are in technical violation of the law, and I think the law should specifically exclude paintball markers from it. However, as the law sits now paintball markers are in technical violation - again I doubt anyone has tested this. However, for those who use them for undesigned uses (vandalism) - I could see it coming into play. Does it really really matter? Likely not - however, if someone threatened another person with one it would fall under assault laws - and if a district attorney decided it was a firearm I think you would have a hard time proving it was not. And as for threatening someone with on - the law permits the defender to escalate his defense dependent on the threat level - if someone is threatened with a firearm they have a right to respond in kind.

Are paintball guns regulated by the same rules as firearms - NO. Should they be - NO. In at least some states, could they be - technically yes - by the way, perhaps this is a good issue for the NPPL or an organization of paintball manufacturers to consider before it becomes an issue - can anyone say lobbyist?

[shartley]

Originally posted by JesseB
hmm true...aight but then he posted the part about almost anything over .50 caliber that is quite reasonable. although they probably don't consider a paintball gun as a dangerous weapon as long as it is kept within the respective speed limits and actually shooting paintballs and not marbles or something else solid as a projectile.

With a breakable gelatin capsule at 290 fps it is hardly an AK-47. but with a hard object it could cause some serious damage so that may be taken in consideration also

[Lohman446]

I would like to see the industry be proactive about it... ok, and normally the atf with destructive devices uses the words "readily modified" or some such - I was just looking. I do see that the ATF can issue letters releasing certain items from this definition (and was looking for one specific to paintball markers, which I assume is there) - but I do know that the ATF conducted tests and banned paintball silencers specifically... anyways, I would like to think this is not the law, and expect to see the letter specifically stating it does not apply to paintball markers from the ATF - but I would also like to see (which I doubt is there) something such as this in state laws such as Michigans (and Im fairly certain California and many if not most other states) just to avoid future issues. I think this is an issue that the paintball industry needs to be proactive on... btw, I would gladly have someone show me that it has already been done, because I think it is just common sense - but think about the law and common sense.

[JesseB]

this post=example why AO owns PBNation 4 pages and no flames or gibberish just civil discussion and debate....


ok back on topic I am not sure about the Australia thing but I thought they had paintball over there... hmm may have to look into that.

Sad to say that markers and other things are used in unsafe manners everyday. Most sporting firearms would not be considered as dangerous by your definition because they are not intended to be shot at people or to cause harm to people. Tactical firearms on the other hand are to be shot at people but only "evil" people and the people that missuse them at train them upon law enforcement, innocents, or military are in fact using the firearm out of its desired purpose which would not cause the firearm to be dangerous. On the other hand the person using these things to conduct malice should be deemed as dangerous.