• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

GarzaUK said:
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

What % of the guns in Scotland do these numbers represent?

And if more guns = more gun deaths, why does the number of guns in the US go up, while the number of deaths drops/stays even?
 
GarzaUK said:
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

homicides are but one part of the picture. Do you know the rate of white gun violence in America compared to the UK?
 
GarzaUK said:
Owning a firearm does not hurt anyone, BUT it gives someone the OPTION to hurt someone or themselves for that matter.
Of course it does. Thats why we have them.

Thats what I'm getting at. Getting rid of guns IN THE HOMES, will save lives.
According to what? Your best guess?
Show this to be true.

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?
Guess what?
Thats why we have the right to arms -- so that we will have the means necessary to protect our right to life.
If you need protection, stun guns are just as effective and are non lethal.
Spoken from ignorance. When deadly force is necessary, nothing else will do.
 
Last edited:
GarzaUK said:
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.


1) you are ignorant as to the defensive utility of stun guns. You have a stun gun and I have a knife you will lose every time. same if I have a club or a set of nunchaku you will be seriously hurt before you can deploy your stun gun since it is a contact weapon and is rather short.



2) having a penis gives you the option to rape someone. Getting rid of penis's will get rid of rapes. same logic.

3) passing laws banning guns affects mostly those who don't commit crimes. That has been proven in the USA. In DC you cannot have a handgun of any type in your home and you cannot have a longarm ready for use yet DC is one of the leading murder centers in the USA.

You clearly are a person who is willing to restrict freedom for a false sense of security. Sheep think living in a pen makes them safe from wolves. Wolves only kill a few sheep while the farmer who controls the pen can slaughter the entire lot
 
Without attacking the Constitution/our Constitutional Rights, how about addressing a few more basic questions, like:

1) Where the heck were the parents? I don't know about 'gun-nut-of-a-father', but how about ABSENT father/mother/parents? this kid just waltzes out of the house with an AK47? Lock these morons up for being bad parents if it can be proven they were negligent! If nothing else fine them/punish them as well - maybe it will teach parents to become more involved!

2) Where was ANYONE else? You can't walk down the street with an AK47, not even hiding it under a trench coat! the fact that this kid made it to and into the school proves not a whole lot of people were paying attention here.

3) Studies have come out to show that a lot of these new video games out for kids might be causing some of this. you might argue that only SOME kids may be affected by this, not all. I would come back and say that some 18, 19, and 20 year olds can drink responsibly but because others have acted totally irresponsibly and broken laws/killed people via drunken driving EVERYONE under the age of 21 must suffer/can not drink. Make these new violent-content games where you kill people/cops/etc (like that columbine game :shock: ) for 21+! Just like predators are targeting our kids on-line, these game companies are targeting our kids with violent games that they are obviously mimicking in real life!
-- Want top argue with me that these games aren't affecting our kids, then start by telling me how kids dressed up like the columbine killers, and mimicking all these video games are shooting up schools. Talk about a lot of the psychologists who have said the graphic violence on these games are making these kids 'immune'/numb to it.

4) Why don't we address how we have become so politically correct that we can no longer discipline kids in school, how a kid can pull a knife on a teacher yet the teacher is not allowed to even defend himself.
-- Case in point, there was a story not long ago about an ex-marine taking a teaching job. kid pulled a knife, tried to slash him, and the marine knocked the kid over a desk, un-conscious. he walked to the office, reported the incident, and went home. the school fired the teacher, and the kid was suspended for a week!? :confused:

We are not allowed to touch kids, not allowed to shout at kids, not allowed to discipline kids. My wife is a substitute teacher and was teaching 3RD GRADERS last week. this big, fat obnoxious 3rd grade girl disobeyed her, sat on desks, threw erasers, talked and distrupted class, and disrespected my wife verbally. The school instructed my wife that her only re-course was to keep her in at recess and if she continued her behavior that they would talk to her later. The little girl was finally brought to the Office, taklked to, 7 sent back to class where she continued to disrupt the class. My wife was not even allowed to send a note home to the parents!

When I went to school, we were afraid to talk back to a teacher, and the thought of raising a hand to them never crossed our mind because we were well aware that they could cut our behinds! A little fear is a good thing! today we allow them to go wild because we don't want to offend them or make them feel bad, yet we are surprised that there are drugs in outr schools, fights, violence, and even kids bringing in weapons - killing people!

Welcome to anarchy created by a lack of discipline! How about before we demand that every American citizen give up their weapons and strip away our constitutional rights we try to do the most obvious SANE thing 1st: Drop this political correctness BS, take back our schools, put discipline back in the schools, and hold parents accountable!

If teachers need to have a taser in the classroom to zap the 1st thug who pulls a knife - GREAT! I bet they would only have to do it once or twice! If you want to temporarily put 'School Marshals' in the classroom to do it, eventually lowering the number of guards/'marshals' to just a few on the school grounds once control has been attained more and more, GREAT! Charge the kids with assault!

How about something even more simple: 2nd or 3rd warning, send the kid to the office, call their parents to come pick them up. This will inconvenience most parents, forcing them to address their child's problem. If the parents won't come, have the cops go pick them up and escort them to the school OR lock the kids up at a cell/area at school until the parents coem pick up their kids. Fine the parents for the teachers' salaries for the period (1 hour) of time their child disrupted.

It is the easiest thing in the world to say that it is all the fact that there are guns out there! Question: Several people want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. How many legal weapons did the columbine perpetrators have? How many illegal guns did they have? My point here is that if you strip guns from everyone, the only people who will have guns will be criminals!

these kids doing the che shootings - they are criminals! Think they wouldn't get guns if they really wanted to do these shootings even if they were outlawed?! Outlawing guns is the 'too easy' answer to this problem and will NOT solve what is going on without addresing some of the questions above 1st!
 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html

The experience of these countries shows that widespread gun possession is compatible with low crime rates. On the other hand, nations like Japan and England also have low crime rates but low gun ownership. There is no simple relationship between firearm availability and crime
 
I don't think people realize (or are just arrogant in their views) the difference between defending yourself and overkill.

You don't need a military sniper rifle, assualt rifle, or automatic handgun for protection. I don't care who you are, but one bullet to the head or chest, either from a semi-automatic handgun or a shotgun, will make you drop to the ground.

I'm not against someone having a hunting rifle, shotgun, or semi-automatic handgun, but once you start collecting sniper rifles and automatic weapons you've gone too far. No American should be able to own those in their homes, and using the "protecting ourselves" defense is a bunch of bull.
 
Goobieman said:
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.

The initial reports called in an AK-47, but in fact it was an AK-47 replica. Still an assault rifle, I'm afraid.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/09/missouri.school.ap/index.html

A seventh-grader with an assault rifle.:cry:


Duke
 
Kasmos said:
You don't need a military sniper rifle, assualt rifle, or automatic handgun for protection. I don't care who you are, but one bullet to the head or chest, either from a semi-automatic handgun or a shotgun, will make you drop to the ground.
Hmmm.
I'm told that "assault weapons" are designed to "easily and efficiently" kill people.
Sounds to me like thats exactly what I "need" for self defense.

Now who the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?
Do I get to tell you what YOU need?

And tell me:
What, specifically, is the difference between a "hunting rifle" and a "sniper rifle"?
 
Kasmos said:
I don't think people realize (or are just arrogant in their views) the difference between defending yourself and overkill.

You don't need a military sniper rifle, assualt rifle, or automatic handgun for protection. I don't care who you are, but one bullet to the head or chest, either from a semi-automatic handgun or a shotgun, will make you drop to the ground.

I'm not against someone having a hunting rifle, shotgun, or semi-automatic handgun, but once you start collecting sniper rifles and automatic weapons you've gone too far. No American should be able to own those in their homes, and using the "protecting ourselves" defense is a bunch of bull.

do you know what a "sniper rifle" is? the most accomplished military sniper in US history Carlos Hathcock (USMC) had 93 confirmed kills in vietnam and a couple hundred more unconfirmed. HE mostly used a winchester 30-06 bolt action rifle with a 16 power Unertl scope-the same rifle he won the national target championship with. the 30-06 and the similar 308 are the two most popular hunting rounds for deer and elk. The two most popular rifles are the Winchester 70 and the very similar Remington 700 with telescopic sights.
Now tell us

how do you ban "sniper rifles" without banning "hunting or varmint or target rifles"?

VPC and other gun banning groups call any centerfire rifle with a scope "sniper rifles"

Ignorance fuels most of those who want more gun control
 
Hmmm.
I'm told that "assault weapons" are designed to "easily and efficiently" kill people.
Sounds to me like thats exactly what I "need" for self defense.

Now who the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?
Do I get to tell you what YOU need?

"assault weapons" were designed to be used during times of war and military campaigns, not defending yourself from an intruder in your house.

I'm not sitting here trying to tell you what you "need", more rather what should be "necessary" to fulfill your "need for protection".

And when I say sniper rifle I mean anything with a scope. I have been hunting myself, and never once used a rifle that had a scope on (unless you are referring to the metal reticle).....
 
The 2nd Amendment, which I'm sure all of you know is the right to bear arms, states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You have to understand WHEN this amendment was made, when our country was in a constant state and need to defend ourselves. We didn't have a 'well organized' military, or the security that we have in our country against an outside threat.

No country is going to dare to cross the oceans around us and invade our country, like the huge possibility was back then, or start (hopefully) a civil war in the states. Times have changed, and so have our weapons.

I guess since some of you feel you MUST HAVE automatic weapons for protection, we might as well allow every American citizen to own a RPG launcher. God forbid we get attacked by a fully armored psychopath.

Amendments were made as they became necessary, and I believe in our time another is needed to restrict what the 2nd amendment implies.
 
Kasmos said:
"assault weapons" were designed to be used during times of war and military campaigns, not defending yourself from an intruder in your house.
"Assault weapons" are a term of fiction created by the anti-gun crowd to scare people. No "assault weapon" has ever been issued to any military or used in any military campaign.

I'm not sitting here trying to tell you what you "need", more rather what should be "necessary" to fulfill your "need for protection".
And how do you know what's "necessary"?
How does telling me what's "necessary" differ from telling me ehat I "need"?

And when I say sniper rifle I mean anything with a scope. I have been hunting myself, and never once used a rifle that had a scope on (unless you are referring to the metal reticle).....
Really. So you DO want to ban hunting rifles.

What do you hunt, where, and with what rifle?
 
Kasmos said:
The 2nd Amendment, which I'm sure all of you know is the right to bear arms, states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You have to understand WHEN this amendment was made, when our country was in a constant state and need to defend ourselves. We didn't have a 'well organized' military, or the security that we have in our country against an outside threat.

No country is going to dare to cross the oceans around us and invade our country, like the huge possibility was back then, or start (hopefully) a civil war in the states. Times have changed, and so have our weapons.
What's your point?
By your argument, how does "freedom of the press" protect CNN?

I guess since some of you feel you MUST HAVE automatic weapons for protection, we might as well allow every American citizen to own a RPG launcher. God forbid we get attacked by a fully armored psychopath.
Non sequitur. That one argues that an M16 or M60 is protected by the 2nd doesnt in any way necessarily create an argument that an RPG is as well.

But as long as you concede the point that an M60 is indeed protected by the 2nd, I dont really care where else you take your argument.

Amendments were made as they became necessary, and I believe in our time another is needed to restrict what the 2nd amendment implies.
Until said amendment is passed, dont presume to tell anyone what hey are 'allowed" to have.
 
Again, the only focus here seems to be on GUNS and Gun Ownership. These 2 are only part of the problem, and not even the most important ones, IMO!

We have created a 'zoo' and are now surprised at the animals we find there (in schools/our society) and/or the animalistic behavior we are seeing there?! :roll:

Taking away guns and expecting that to solve our problems is like the politicians saying creating a 'guest worker program' (Amnesty) will fix the illegal immigration problem. It isn't the people obeying the laws who need to be punished, and we need to address the origin of the problem. with illegal immigration, its closing the borders and enforcing existing laws! With the school violence propblem, its putting discipline/punishment back into schools, holdig kids and parents responsible, and other things contributing these kids bringing these guns to school!
 
Goobieman said:
When are you people going to understand that "semi-auto replicas" of assault rifles are NOT assault rifles?

All you have to say is, "I'm a more reliable source of information on guns that all of the national news agencies!"

MAC-90s can be auto or semi-auto, like the AK.


Duke
 
GarzaUK said:
Is your Police Department that bad in protecting the people?

This statement alone speaks volumes about your ingorance on this particular subject.

The chances of police being around when you need them to protect your life is slim to none.
 
Duke said:
All you have to say is, "I'm a more reliable source of information on guns that all of the national news agencies!"
This is true. I am.
I am interested in getting it right, and they are not.

MAC-90s can be auto or semi-auto, like the AK.
No.
If it is semi-auto only, its not an AK.
 
Goobieman said:
"Assault weapons" are a term of fiction created by the anti-gun crowd to scare people. No "assault weapon" has ever been issued to any military or used in any military campaign.

Bull.

Assault rifle is a term describing a type of automatic weapon generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition. They are categorized between the larger and heavier light machine gun, which is intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and the smaller submachine gun, which fires a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as, the WWII-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifles

"Term of fiction" my ***.

Learn you facts, Goobie.


Duke
 
zymurgy said:
This statement alone speaks volumes about your ingorance on this particular subject.

The chances of police being around when you need them to protect your life is slim to none.

Never mind the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to protect you.
 
Duke said:

Been over this.
Wikipedia isnt an authoritative source on this matter.

Assault rifle is a term describing a type of automatic weapon generally defined as a selective fire rifle or carbine, chambering intermediate-powered ammunition.
THIS is correct.

But:
Assault rifles are all automatic weapons.
"Assault weapons", being semi-auto only, are not automatic weapons.

Learn your facts, and get a better source.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

AUTOMATIC
A firearm designed to feed cartridges, fire them, eject their empty cases and repeat this cycle as long as the trigger is depressed and cartridges remain in the feed system. Examples: machine guns, submachine guns, selective-fire rifles, including true assault rifles.

MACHINE GUN
A firearm of military significance, often crew-served, that on trigger depression automatically feeds and fires cartridges of rifle size or greater. Civilian ownership in the U.S. has been heavily curtailed and federally regulated since 1934.

SELECTIVE-FIRE
A firearm's ability to be fired fully automatically, semi-automatically or, in some cases, in burst-fire mode at the option of the firer.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC
A firearm designed to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FireArmsGlossary/

Now, name for me one, just one, "assault weapon" that has been issued to any military.

Just one.
 
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.

so let me get this straight. Your claim is that gun ownership results in less safety, yet your stats don't deal with the question of safety in general, only in harm inflicted by guns?

Could it be that criminals feel more comfortable robbing and raping at knife point when they live in a society where they know that law abiding citizens will be unarmed?
 
Goobieman said:
Been over this.
Wikipedia isnt an authoritative source on this matter.


THIS is correct.

But:
Assault rifles are all automatic weapons.
"Assault weapons", being semi-auto only, are not automatic weapons.

Learn your facts, and get a better source.

ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

AUTOMATIC
A firearm designed to feed cartridges, fire them, eject their empty cases and repeat this cycle as long as the trigger is depressed and cartridges remain in the feed system. Examples: machine guns, submachine guns, selective-fire rifles, including true assault rifles.

MACHINE GUN
A firearm of military significance, often crew-served, that on trigger depression automatically feeds and fires cartridges of rifle size or greater. Civilian ownership in the U.S. has been heavily curtailed and federally regulated since 1934.

SELECTIVE-FIRE
A firearm's ability to be fired fully automatically, semi-automatically or, in some cases, in burst-fire mode at the option of the firer.

SEMI-AUTOMATIC
A firearm designed to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FireArmsGlossary/

Now, name for me one, just one, "assault weapon" that has been issued to any military.

Just one.

You're funny. You get your own fake definitions that serve your purpose!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...lt+rifle&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.answers.com/topic/assault-rifle

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=assault rifle

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/assault rifle


Duke
 
Back
Top Bottom