• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

13 Year-Old Takes AK-47 To Class (1 Viewer)

Duke

Royal Pain
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
108
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/national/main2074281.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2074281

"(AP) Police say a 13-year-old boy fascinated by the Columbine bloodbath and wearing a black trenchcoat and mask carried an assault rifle into his school Monday, pointed it at students and fired a shot into a ceiling before the weapon jammed. No one was hurt."

Is it just me, or do other people see a pattern developing?

Does anyone remember being 13? Someone trying to do a school shooting at 13....


Duke
 
Duke said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/national/main2074281.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2074281

"(AP) Police say a 13-year-old boy fascinated by the Columbine bloodbath and wearing a black trenchcoat and mask carried an assault rifle into his school Monday, pointed it at students and fired a shot into a ceiling before the weapon jammed. No one was hurt."

Is it just me, or do other people see a pattern developing?

Does anyone remember being 13? Someone trying to do a school shooting at 13....


Duke

How does a 13 year old have access to a AK47? Oh that's right he's gun nut of a father has a few in his study.

Time to wake up people. Hunting rifles are one thing, handguns are another, but AK47's is just insanity.
 
GarzaUK said:
How does a 13 year old have access to a AK47? Oh that's right he's gun nut of a father has a few in his study.

Time to wake up people. Hunting rifles are one thing, handguns are another, but AK47's is just insanity.

Agreed. But the NRA likes to use the slippery slope argument. "Take away my AK 47, then, the next thing you know, I won't be able to hunt for bear with my shotgun...."
 
hipsterdufus said:
Agreed. But the NRA likes to use the slippery slope argument. "Take away my AK 47, then, the next thing you know, I won't be able to hunt for bear with my shotgun...."

I just think it is stupid to own guns in the house. Why can't you just keep your guns in a locker in a gun club or shooting range?

1. No family members can get access to them in the house, because they are not there.
2. No-one can go outside in public for a shooting spree, because you can't take them out of the gun club, hunting club, shooting range.

Will it stop shootings completely, no, nothing works 100% in my experience. Will shootings happen less, absolutely.
 
Duke said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/09/national/main2074281.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2074281

"(AP) Police say a 13-year-old boy fascinated by the Columbine bloodbath and wearing a black trenchcoat and mask carried an assault rifle into his school Monday, pointed it at students and fired a shot into a ceiling before the weapon jammed. No one was hurt."

Is it just me, or do other people see a pattern developing?

Does anyone remember being 13? Someone trying to do a school shooting at 13....
Duke

Anyone see the inaccuracy here in the story?
The anti-gun bias that produced it?

It wasn't an AK-47 and it wasn't an assault rifle.

These terms were used to bolster anti-gun sentiment in people that don't know any better.
 
GarzaUK said:
I just think it is stupid to own guns in the house.
Wow. That's convincing.
I think its stupid to be able to burn the flag.
So what?

Why can't you just keep your guns in a locker in a gun club or shooting range?
We have a right to own guns so that we may have access to the means to defend ourselves. How can we do that if the guns we have a right to own to that end are locked up in a clubhouse somewhere?

There are ~300,000,000 guns in the US.
If the number of guns in the US and access to those guns were the problem, there woudl be a LOT more people killed with them.
 
I remember being 13 and being in Junior High School and I remember feeling comfort with other students when we would fantasize about "going out in style". We never wanted to fulfill any of these actions because between us, we weren't killers. School Systems had a way with me and a few of my friends growing up, saying that we're lost causes, can never adapt and will never achieve in life. Luckily, I was stubborn and dedicated my life to proving them wrong. We were good kids. Geeks, never got involved with questionable people or drugs, but just because we were quirky, had our own problems, didn't want to face another day of Teachers and Students who had nothing but hopelessness and resent for us. We weren't given any hope, not any that was significant enough anyways. I was absolutely shocked when I found out what one of my teachers said about me to my former class after I had been transfered to alternative education. He said that he would be 75 dollars Richer today if he had accepted a bet from another teacher about my educational fate, since I had been transferd to alternative education.

Sometimes you can feel very trapped in life and also very hopeless about it too when you face the kind of things we did. You don't want to goto school because you don't want to hear about how crappy your life is going to turn out, and you don't want to be ill-treated by students that do not tolerate you for the individual you are. Yet, if you didn't go, you were threatened with jailtime by district attorneys. As if the academic and life prophecies of what happends to Alternative Ed students by various Faculty Staff wasn't bad enough, going to Juvi would also inevitably make you into an even lower kind of failure at life. Such things can drive someone with a developing mind bonkers. I've found myself in Psychwards and Residential Treatment facilities in times when I should have been in High School.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit irrational or melodramatic, but, this is how I remember being 13 in a context that fits this topic.

A Message To Administrative Staff:
The well being of your students is much more important than making them fearful of failure. Encourage your students to come to your school by making school into a place of hope for those who need it, as well as a place of discipline and knowledge. Make your students feel as though they are going towards future, not painful reality.

There are places of Alternative Education for a reason. They have a different cirriculum that is meant for the troubled youth. Don't make Alternative Education out to seem like training grounds for professional failures. They are totally the opposite, I got much more from those teachers than I ever did from any other place. The students were also much more accepting than the ones I went to school with previously.

Funny how an under priveledged under funded school of miscreant students and teachers who are even more underpayed than the others put Education and the Students Well Being before anything else.

So what if you loose a few dollars because you loose a student to Alternative Education. This isn't about money and making your school have more reasons to earn funding. Your LCD Flat Screens and Score Boards mean nothing.

GarzaUK said:
I just think it is stupid to own guns in the house. Why can't you just keep your guns in a locker in a gun club or shooting range?

Because when there is a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina or a Riot like Rodney King in LA, the Cops aren't going to protect you. Have a nice time getting to the gun club or shooting range safely and then finding your weapons if they haven't already been confiscated by either the authorities or someone else.
 
GarzaUK said:
How does a 13 year old have access to a AK47? Oh that's right he's gun nut of a father has a few in his study.

Time to wake up people. Hunting rifles are one thing, handguns are another, but AK47's is just insanity.

LOL-the media and the left have no clue what a real AK-47 is. It was not an AK 47 but a semi auto rifle that looks like one. Clue to gun haters-an average deer rifle fires a much more powerful round than a faux AK-47 which cannot be owned in the USA unless

1) you are a Title II dealer or a Class III permit (tax stamp) holder
2) the weapon was registered with ATF BEFORE 1969 (for non dealers)
3) the kid broke several laws
 
GarzaUK said:
I just think it is stupid to own guns in the house. Why can't you just keep your guns in a locker in a gun club or shooting range?

1. No family members can get access to them in the house, because they are not there.
2. No-one can go outside in public for a shooting spree, because you can't take them out of the gun club, hunting club, shooting range.

Will it stop shootings completely, no, nothing works 100% in my experience. Will shootings happen less, absolutely.


Sorry but we in the USA reject the statist hoplophobia that infects most of Europe and how is a gun in the shooting range going to help me shoot some liberal thief when he breaks into my house? I think its stupid to project hoplophobic insecurities upon others who are trained in proper weapons use because you are not
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL-the media and the left have no clue what a real AK-47 is. It was not an AK 47 but a semi auto rifle that looks like one. Clue to gun haters-an average deer rifle fires a much more powerful round than a faux AK-47 which cannot be owned in the USA unless

1) you are a Title II dealer or a Class III permit (tax stamp) holder
2) the weapon was registered with ATF BEFORE 1969 (for non dealers)
3) the kid broke several laws

Are you agreeing that ownership of semi-automatic assault type weapon should be restricted (ie enforce the laws and make them tougher)? Or should they be easier to obtain.

The kid broke several laws, what laws where they? I mean, aside from the fact you can't bring a loaded weapon to school. It is illegal to shoot someone but that isn't the issue, is it? What laws were broken by his family possession a semi-automatic assault rifle. I thought they were legal. If laws were broken, why aren't they being enforced?
 
Wow the United States must be a dangerous place to live if you all need guns to protect yourselves! :shock:
 
Iriemon said:
Are you agreeing that ownership of semi-automatic assault type weapon should be restricted (ie enforce the laws and make them tougher)? Or should they be easier to obtain.

The kid broke several laws, what laws where they? I mean, aside from the fact you can't bring a loaded weapon to school. It is illegal to shoot someone but that isn't the issue, is it? What laws were broken by his family possession a semi-automatic assault rifle. I thought they were legal. If laws were broken, why aren't they being enforced?

Of course not-there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault type rifle that can be defined legitimately. Kalifornia definitions have banned the most popular pistol used in an Olympic event-a weapon that has absolutely NO history of criminal misuse. semi auto firearms should be treated the same as pump action rifles or revolvers and there is NO EVIDENCE that the weapons you whine about have less legitimate use. They don't have more criminal misuse but even if they did I still oppose additional restrictions because

1) every harmful act you can DO with a gun is a felony and

2)the rights of the lawabiding (such as possessing or using in a non harmful way) to own weapons should not be dependent on what criminals do
 
GarzaUK said:
Wow the United States must be a dangerous place to live if you all need guns to protect yourselves! :shock:

Scotland is more dangerous than America. avoid the drug trade and America is very safe
 
TurtleDude said:
Scotland is more dangerous than America. avoid the drug trade and America is very safe

Scotland really? Although I know Scottish people are quite violent (fistfights) you would have to give me source or proof before I would be prepared to believe you turtledude.

If America is save, why do you need "protection"?
Is your Police Department that bad in protecting the people?

Out of curiousity have you ever needed to use your gun in protection?
 
TurtleDude said:
Sorry but we in the USA reject the statist hoplophobia that infects most of Europe and how is a gun in the shooting range going to help me shoot some liberal thief when he breaks into my house? I think its stupid to project hoplophobic insecurities upon others who are trained in proper weapons use because you are not

Liberal thieves? :lamo

Ya, those *******ed liberal theives, if they ain't stealin' your ****, they're trying to convince you of the benefits of universal health care or the fate of political prisoners in China. ******* liberal thieves.
 
TurtleDude said:
Of course not-there is no such thing as a semi automatic assault type rifle that can be defined legitimately. Kalifornia definitions have banned the most popular pistol used in an Olympic event-a weapon that has absolutely NO history of criminal misuse. semi auto firearms should be treated the same as pump action rifles or revolvers and there is NO EVIDENCE that the weapons you whine about have less legitimate use. They don't have more criminal misuse but even if they did I still oppose additional restrictions because

1) every harmful act you can DO with a gun is a felony and

You could make the same argument in favor of private ownership of any kind of weapon. Harmful acts you can DO with a nuke is a felony too, but that doesn't mean we should let people own them.

2)the rights of the lawabiding (such as possessing or using in a non harmful way) to own weapons should not be dependent on what criminals do

Same point. And the problem is that every criminal at one time was law abiding. The kid who brought the assault rifle into school was not a criminal either.

We cannot tell in advance which law abiding citizen it is that will go bezerk and go out and start shooting up a high school. Because of this fact, IMO it makes sense to make it illegal for anyone to possess weapons of mass destruction. I don't know your position, but I don't many would disagree with this.

So the issue is, how destructive of a weapon should be banned? IMO, fully automatic and guns that are capable of conversion to full auto should be banned outright.

Semi automatic is a closer call. At least ownership of these dangerous weapons should be registered, IMO.
 
GarzaUK said:
Scotland really? Although I know Scottish people are quite violent (fistfights) you would have to give me source or proof before I would be prepared to believe you turtledude.

If America is save, why do you need "protection"?
Is your Police Department that bad in protecting the people?

Out of curiousity have you ever needed to use your gun in protection?


me, I shot a mugger in NYS 21 years ago.
I apprehended a person attempting to break into my apartment a year before by holding him at gunpoint.

police tend to deal with a crime after it happens.

I realize you have a problem with freedom. that is your problem, not mine
I also realize and know that gun control isn't designed to stop criminal misuse of firearms. Its normally based on controlling people for political or racist reasons
 
How do you sneak a rifle past your parents?
 
mixedmedia said:
Liberal thieves? :lamo

Ya, those *******ed liberal theives, if they ain't stealin' your ****, they're trying to convince you of the benefits of universal health care or the fate of political prisoners in China. ******* liberal thieves.


Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan was the "William Howard Taft" Lecturer at U of Cincinnati Law school in 2002. She was working for the DNC in an effort to reenfranchise convicted felons. She claimed that Bush would have lost Florida by thousands of votes if convicts could vote because her studies indicate that felons strongly favor the dems.

"liberals" and criminals have several common views. Both think they are entitled to the wealth of others without helping others earn the wealth. Both tend to blame others for their lot in society and both eschew hard work in favor of instant gratification. Both have large numbers of members who want to prevent honest people from owning guns
 
Iriemon said:
You could make the same argument in favor of private ownership of any kind of weapon. Harmful acts you can DO with a nuke is a felony too, but that doesn't mean we should let people own them.

why do people make silly arguments about nukes? nukes are not individual defensive weapons. THe founding fathers understood the difference between arms borne by individual citizens or militiamen and stuff like artillery and bombs.



Iriemon said:
Same point. And the problem is that every criminal at one time was law abiding. The kid who brought the assault rifle into school was not a criminal either.

we punish bad acts-we do not engage in prior restraint. Every rapist was once a virgin as well

Iriemon said:
We cannot tell in advance which law abiding citizen it is that will go bezerk and go out and start shooting up a high school. Because of this fact, IMO it makes sense to make it illegal for anyone to possess weapons of mass destruction. I don't know your position, but I don't many would disagree with this.

calling a semi auto rifle a weapon of mass destruction is both a sign of intellectual dishonesty and supreme ignorance. IF police officers are issued weapons for use in purely civilian self defensive operations, the governmental entity that has armed them has already decreed that the weapon is not a weapon of mass destruction. We only speak of civilian ownership of the same firearms

Iriemon said:
So the issue is, how destructive of a weapon should be banned? IMO, fully automatic and guns that are capable of conversion to full auto should be banned outright.

Semi automatic is a closer call. At least ownership of these dangerous weapons should be registered, IMO.

it is already illegal to convert a weapon to full auto unless you are a title II manufacturer and no weapon made after 1986 that is full auto can be sold to civilians other than those who are Title II dealers. Your claim that semi autos are somehow more dangerous is again the sign of ignorance and registration does nothing but facilititate future confiscation.
 
TurtleDude said:
me, I shot a mugger in NYS 21 years ago.
I apprehended a person attempting to break into my apartment a year before by holding him at gunpoint.

police tend to deal with a crime after it happens.

I realize you have a problem with freedom. that is your problem, not mine
I also realize and know that gun control isn't designed to stop criminal misuse of firearms. Its normally based on controlling people for political or racist reasons

You didn't answer my question, "If America is so safe, why do you need protection?"

Since you have no proof that Scotland is less safe than America, I'm going to give it a by ball. Besides I think England has higher gun crime than Scotland.

I don't have a problem with freedom of choice, however when that freedom of choice harms innocent people, then yeah I have a problem with it.

So any how I give you the Gun Death rates of the UK since 1994. 1994 was when we banned Handguns I think.

Number of deaths from firearms injury -

United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003 Number

1994 341
1995 358
1996 254
1997 201
1998 203
1999 210
2000 204
2001 167
2002 169
2003 163

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm

Now TurtleDude you will notice a trendy dip in deaths as our gun laws became more difficult to purchase and own a gun. In fact more that halfed.

:doh Opps.
 
Last edited:
GarzaUK said:
You didn't answer my question, "If America is so safe, why do you need protection?"

Since you have no proof that Scotland is less safe than America, I'm going to give it a by ball. Besides I think England has higher gun crime than Scotland.

I don't have a problem with freedom of choice, however when that freedom of choice harms innocent people, then yeah I have a problem with it.

So any how I give you the Gun Death rates of the UK since 1994. 1994 was when we banned Handguns I think.

Number of deaths from firearms injury -

United Kingdom, 1994 to 2003 Number

1994 341
1995 358
1996 254
1997 201
1998 203
1999 210
2000 204
2001 167
2002 169
2003 163

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF07.htm

Now TurtleDude you will notice a trendy dip in deaths as our gun laws became more difficult to purchase and own a gun. In fact more that halfed.

:doh Opps.

There is no evidence in America that gun bans have made the public safer. I am not willing to trade freedom for even statistically proveable increases in public safety-after all, if we got rid of the right to counsel or the presumption of innocence we could probably knock crime rates down a bit too.

owning a firearm does not hurt anyone-misusing it is already a serious felony in the states.
 
Had a wee look about on the internet. Scotland more dangerous than the US my arse!!

Homicides by Gun in Scotland

1989 7
1990 3
1991 7
1992 6
1993 8
1994 9
1995 11
1996 25
1997 8
1998 5
1999 7
2000 5
2001 3
2002 5
2003 3
2004 2
2005 8

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF04.htm
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan was the "William Howard Taft" Lecturer at U of Cincinnati Law school in 2002. She was working for the DNC in an effort to reenfranchise convicted felons. She claimed that Bush would have lost Florida by thousands of votes if convicts could vote because her studies indicate that felons strongly favor the dems.

"liberals" and criminals have several common views. Both think they are entitled to the wealth of others without helping others earn the wealth. Both tend to blame others for their lot in society and both eschew hard work in favor of instant gratification. Both have large numbers of members who want to prevent honest people from owning guns

Uh, yeah, counselor you have so convinced me that thieves are liberals. :roll:

You are aware that a large number of Americans are politically disenfranchised and do not follow politics at all? I purport that a lot of people who turn to crime come from this large group. People who hold political views and care about US policy generally tend to be law-abiding people who care, who have a stake in maintaining order. I purport that you are just being purposely oafish when you say that.
 
TurtleDude said:
There is no evidence in America that gun bans have made the public safer. I am not willing to trade freedom for even statistically proveable increases in public safety-after all, if we got rid of the right to counsel or the presumption of innocence we could probably knock crime rates down a bit too.

owning a firearm does not hurt anyone-misusing it is already a serious felony in the states.

Owning a firearm does not hurt anyone, BUT it gives someone the OPTION to hurt someone or themselves for that matter. Thats what I'm getting at. Getting rid of guns IN THE HOMES, will save lives.

The right to life VS the right to a gun. Life should always come out on top. Always. After all if you havent got the right to live, what have you got?

If you need protection, stun guns are just as effective and are non lethal.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom