Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gunshots in Joplin, MO middle school -- shooter captured

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:17 AM
Original message
Gunshots in Joplin, MO middle school -- shooter captured
Breaking news on MSNBC.

I'll look for a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Here you go:
A Memorial Middle School student, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, pointed the gun this morning at two school administrators and begged them, not to make me do this.

A 15-year-old student walked into the east side of Memorial Middle School about 7:45 a.m. where he was spotted by Memorial Principle Steve Gilbreath and Assistant Superintendent Steve Doerr.

School officials say the student pointed the gun at the two men, asked them not to make me do this and then raised the gun and fired a shot into the ceiling of the school, breaking a water pipe.

After firing the shot, he said again, Please dont make me do this.


http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_282101951....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. another link
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/09/america/NA_GE...

Student fires gun in U.S. school; no injuries reported

The Associated Press

Published: October 9, 2006


JOPLIN, Missouri A student fired a gun inside a middle school Monday morning but did not hit anyone and no injuries were reported, police said.

The Memorial Middle School student, who was not identified, was in custody, said Joplin Police Lt. Geoff Jones.

"It was a very close call," said Joplin R-8 Superintendent Jim Simpson. He said other students were taken to the gymnasium and were being picked up by their parents.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. who was he say "please don't make me do this" to?
the voices in his head? it seems like a weird thing to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
60. Lots more details in this story
No one injured in middle school shooting
MARCUS KABEL
Associated Press
JOPLIN, Mo. - A 13-year-old student wearing a long, black trenchcoat and carrying an AK-47 and several clips of ammunition walked into his middle school Monday morning and told two administrators, "please don't make me do this," officials said.

The boy shot once into the school ceiling before two administrators talked him out of continuing what police said was a well-thought out plan. No one was injured, and the boy was taken into custody.

The seventh-grade student, who was not identified, pointed the gun at two students and Principal Steve Gilbreth and Assistant Superintendent Steve Doerr and asked them, "not to make me do this," said School Superintendent Jim Simpson.

The 13-year-old male student then raised the gun and fired a shot into the ceiling, breaking a water pipe. After firing the shot, he said again, "Please don't make me do this," Simpson said.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #60
111. A 13-year-old student wearing a long, black trenchcoat...
Scores zero points for originality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. Yeah, and now they'll ban black trenchcoats in schools
Like some of the communities were in a rush to do, following Columbine.

Yeah, that'll solve the problem. After all, guns don't kill people. Long black trenchcoats kill people. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. ANOTHER SCHOOL?
what is wrong with our society?

Wait, I know. The social disarray and destruction caused by bushista policies are driving normal people nuts, and nuts people over the edge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. What is wrong?
I don't know but guns sure aren't helping, now are they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
121. also those relaxed gun laws do not help either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. Today is a national holiday. Schools are not in session.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Sure they are. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. It depends on the school district.
Here in the Kansas City area all of the public schools are in session.

Most businesses are open today. This isn't a national holiday, but a federal one, meaning federal workers are off. Probably no mail delivery today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. Here in Missouri they are
All the St Louis area schools are open
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. Not true everywhere
We are in school today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
62. My son's school district is in session. The charter schools are not.
But then again, the school district gets off Veteran's Day but the Charter schools don't. I think it's to make up for alot of inservice days. They had 2-3 inservice days in September. Then my kids were off last Friday, this Monday, this coming Friday and next Monday. In November, the kids are off the whole week of Thanksgiving, plus another in-service day, plus election day, then the whole week of Xmas-New Years in December. Sure doesn't seem like the school calendar I remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #62
79. That's a lot different from our calendar
We get no days off until Thanksgiving. Then two weeks at Christmas and one week at Spring Break. Plus ML King Day, Presidents Day and Memorial Day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. NPR had a wonderful report this morning
about how stressed our children and high school students are. Our society is pushing these kids way too hard to succeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. oh come on...
kids are stressed with pressure, give me a break. Maybe the ones who have crazy parents like on wife swap where all 3 kids did 3 sports each. Other than that, most kids are lazy, and getting larger watching tv, playing online and playing the xbox 360.

They should go to school year round with two one week breaks and try to catch up with kids in China. I think that last stat was 43% of 10th graders could find California on a map...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
87. Sounds like an urban legend
More like "could find Iraq on a map." California...I doubt it. And kids are a lot more stressed out than they were when I was a kid. My daughter has had at least two hours of homework a night since first grade. I had homework, but I don't remember spending more than an hour except on special projects and before exams. This was every night and it was very, very stressful. Compared to her, I was a lazy bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. Wow, a 13 year old with an AK-47! How does this continue to happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Has * just totally stripped the gun laws from the books?
How are these kids learning to operate such things?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. If it was an AK type rifle, it was originally designed for soldiers to use
It doesn't take a whole lot of brainpower to figure out how to operate.

Media reports often misidentify firearms. We'll eventually find out what the kid really had. I'll bet the spray of water suprised the heck out of him.

As for laws, whoever left a firearm were a troubled kid could get it should be charged with child endangerment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. It's America's wacko gun culture that left that firearm in harm's way
Events like these are the results of policy failures based on the more guns=less crime lie that has been pushed by Dick Cheney/Tom DeLay/Norquist/Republicans and DINO's like Zell Miller. Deadly gun crime's up since the NRA set up shop in the White House. They typically for them try to keep the bad gun statistics a secret but these school shootings are an another example of reality exposing the lack of moral leadership by the neoCON Republicans

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Gun policy is by and large okay, though a bit overly restrictive in some
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 11:00 AM by Solo_in_MD
some areas (NYC, New Jersey...). However, I clearly remember Gray Davis and his use of the big lie to the California legislature when he was AG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yeah, America's gun policy only has the worst results of advanced nations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. NJ has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the nation
There was a double homocide/suicide yesterday in some NJ town, only the first or second gun murders occuring in NJ suburbs so far this year. That's pretty much the norm for NJ suburbs year-after-year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
120. Not that low...
your rate is pretty much indistinguishable from Florida's, even though Florida has twice the population:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html

New Jersey, homicide rate of 4.8/100K, up 6 percent this year
Florida, homicide rate of 5.0/100K, down 8.8 percent this year

Also looks like your rates, and the Gunshine State's, are trending in the wrong directions to support your hypothesis.

Considering only states with similar populations, your state is in the middle of the range, with some pro-gun states much lower (WA, 3.3/100K; MN, 2.2/100K) and some anti-gun states much higher (Maryland, 9.9/100K).

The states that truly have the lowest homicide rates in the nation are the pro-gun New England states that aren't too densely populated--gun-loving New Hampshire (1.4/100K), my wife's home state of Maine (1.4/100K) which is equally pro-gun, and Vermont (1.3/100K), where you don't even need a permit to carry a gun.

Which goes to show that the rate of lawful gun ownership, and silly restrictions on things like the shape of rifle stocks, actually don't have much correlation with crime rates in the United States.

It's tempting to point out the rate in the District of Columbia (35.4/100K), a gun-control utopia where the number of legal, functioning guns in civilian households is zero, but it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison because of the way the UIC's define an MSA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #120
122. Your logic -- and your cherry-picking of statistics -- leaves much
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 03:47 PM by brentspeak
to be desired.

"your rate is pretty much indistinguishable from Florida's, even though Florida has twice the population"

If Florida has twice the population as NJ, but its homicide rate is about the same, then all that means is there's twice the number of murders in Florida per year than there are in NJ.

"Also looks like your rates, and the Gunshine State's, are trending in the wrong directions to support your hypothesis."

NJ's murder and violent crime rates, like most states, are trending downwards (murders per 100,000 residents):

(1980-89) 6.6, 6.9, 7.3, 6.5, 5.3, 5.3, 5.4, 5.2, 4.6, 5.3, 5.1

(1990-99) 5.6, 5.2, 5.1, 5.3, 5.0, 5.1, 4.2, 4.2, 4.0, 3.5, 3.4,

(2000-05) 3.9, 4.0, 4.7, 4.5, 4.8


A one-year increase from 4.5 to 4.8 doesn't constitute much of a "wrong direction".

Florida's declining rates are explained mostly because from 1980-2005, the population of the state increased by 8 million people. NJ's only increased by 1.4 million.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

Florida population:
1980 9,567,112
2005 17,789,864

NJ population:
1980 7,342,164
2005 8,717,925

"with some pro-gun states much lower"

Of course the rural New England states are going to have low crime rates; they always have. Actually, the most dangerous states are almost all pro-gun states that are epicenters of NRA political activism : (all from disastercenter.com)

Tenn: 2005 (pop): 5,962,959; (# murders): 432; (murder rate/100K): 7.2 (up from 5.4 in 2004)

New Mexico: 2005 (pop): 1,928,384; (# murders): 143(!!); (murder rate/100K): 7.4(!!)

Alabama: 2005 (pop): 4,557,808; (# murders): 374; (way up) (murder rate/100K): 8.2



So...what does this all mean? Could it be that things like concealed carry and "almost anything goes" gun non-laws don't reduce crime one bit?

Looks like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #122
123. ahem . . .
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 10:12 PM by Romulus
The premier US gun control groups, the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March and the Violence Policy Center both rely on "rates" to determine "gun violence" rankings:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=state...

*The age-adjusted death rate is a weighted average of the age-specific death rate (deaths per 100,000 population in each age category), where the weights represent the fixed population proportions by age. The age-adjusted death rate is used to make comparisons of relative mortality risks across groups and over time.

Data compiled by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, 1998.


http://www.vpc.org/studies/wher2ap2.htm

Even though the number of deaths was higher among white males, the rate of firearms death was higher among African-American males. The higher firearms death rate among African-American males indicates that, in 1996, more African-American males per 100,000 African-American males in the population were killed with guns than white males per 100,000 white males in the population. This is because the population of African-American males is much lower than white males (16 million versus 108 million in 1996). African-American males were more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be shot and killed than were white males.

As this example illustrates, the number of firearm deaths is not as accurate a measure of risk as the rate of firearms death. Comparing rates (e.g. males versus females, youths aged 15 years to 19 years old versus the overall population) is the most accurate way to describe the impact of gun violence on various groups of people.


And gun-control-paradise New York City had a 2003 homicide rate of 7.4/100k (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html ), and a 2004 rate of 7/100K (http://newyork.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm ), with a population of roughly 8 million.

I agree with you, though in one regard: the number of crimes per-square-mile tells me more about a place than the "Rates." NYC has something like 25000 people per square mile, which equals to about 1.75 murders per square mile (maybe more if you factor in all the off-limits installations like Floyd Bennett Field and the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and take into consideration that most murders are in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx). I would not feel safe in any neighborhood that has more than one murder a year.

From (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime /) and (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html ):
FL: 53,927 square miles with 883 murders in 2005 = 0.016 murders/sq mi

NJ: 7417 square miles with 417 murders in 2005 = 0.056 murders/sq mi

NYC: 301 square miles with 539 murders in 2005 = 1.79 murders/sq mi

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. Nice try...
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 09:30 AM by benEzra
"your rate is pretty much indistinguishable from Florida's, even though Florida has twice the population"

If Florida has twice the population as NJ, but its homicide rate is about the same, then all that means is there's twice the number of murders in Florida per year than there are in NJ.

Hmmm...per Statistics 101, the reason we compare rates is to allow us to compare the prevalance of homicide between two sets that aren't the same size.

Yes, Florida has twice the murders of New Jersey, but since it also has twice the population, the prevalence of homicide is essentially the same.

New Jersey has 22.8 times as many murders as New Hampshire, too...which means little, since even if NJ's rate were as low as NH's, NJ would still have 7 times as many murders because NJ has 7 times the population.

Comparing rates to rates is the only meaningful comparison.

"Also looks like your rates, and the Gunshine State's, are trending in the wrong directions to support your hypothesis."

NJ's murder and violent crime rates, like most states, are trending downwards (murders per 100,000 residents):

(1980-89) 6.6, 6.9, 7.3, 6.5, 5.3, 5.3, 5.4, 5.2, 4.6, 5.3, 5.1

(1990-99) 5.6, 5.2, 5.1, 5.3, 5.0, 5.1, 4.2, 4.2, 4.0, 3.5, 3.4,

(2000-05) 3.9, 4.0, 4.7, 4.5, 4.8

A one-year increase from 4.5 to 4.8 doesn't constitute much of a "wrong direction".

True. I was mostly looking at the magnitude of Florida's decline, which is the wrong direction per a simplistic "lawful gun ownership causes crime" hypothesis.

Florida's declining rates are explained mostly because from 1980-2005, the population of the state increased by 8 million people. NJ's only increased by 1.4 million.

Go back to Statistics 101, and look up what a rate is. The numbers year to year are adjusted to be population-neutral.

The only way your explanation could be true would be that Florida has figured out how to only add people who don't commit homicides (thereby lowering its rate), and NJ only adds people who commit more homicides than average.

"with some pro-gun states much lower"

Of course the rural New England states are going to have low crime rates; they always have. Actually, the most dangerous states are almost all pro-gun states that are epicenters of NRA political activism : (all from disastercenter.com)

Tenn: 2005 (pop): 5,962,959; (# murders): 432; (murder rate/100K): 7.2 (up from 5.4 in 2004)

New Mexico: 2005 (pop): 1,928,384; (# murders): 143(!!); (murder rate/100K): 7.4(!!)

Alabama: 2005 (pop): 4,557,808; (# murders): 374; (way up) (murder rate/100K): 8.2

All of which are safer than gun-control-utopia Maryland (9.9/100K, up 5.2%), a state you didn't mention.

The southern states, in particular, have issues with abject poverty, lack of educational and economic opportunity, and institutional racism that the pro-gun New England, North Central, and Pacific Northwest states don't have. Which goes to show that education, economic opportunity, and a culture of tolerance are more important than banning rifle handgrips that stick out.

BTW, AL's laws aren't all all that pro-gun compared to New Hampshire, Washington, or Maine, and things can be quite a hassle if you don't have a carry permit--and unlike most states, I believe AL still has discretionary issue (like California) rather than statuatory, a legacy of the Jim Crow era. I used to travel to Mobile periodically, and AL gun laws struck me as rather middle-of-the-road, like NC's.

So...what does this all mean? Could it be that things like concealed carry and "almost anything goes" gun non-laws don't reduce crime one bit?

It means that gun ownership and use restrictions aimed at the law-abiding--whether tolerant, as in TN, or restrictive, as in MD--are pretty much irrelevant to the crime rate.

Don't forget that NJ has draconian restrictions on the law-abiding, whereas Florida focuses its attention more on criminal misuse than restricting lawful ownership, and both states end up with similar homicide rates.

DC, NH, ME, and AL demonstrate that social factors rule homicide rates, and gun laws (beyond basic stuff like background checks and laws against misuse) are pretty much irrelevant to the picture.

You tend to credit NJ's anti-gun-owner laws, rather than its income levels, social policies, educational profile, and demographics, for its homicide rate. It is illogical and inconsistent to not use the same metric for Florida's similar homicide rate, if you believe that metric is valid at all. Personally, I think it's not all that relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. Why are these guns even available?
Who needs such a weapon? What purpose do they serve? Do hunters use them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. Why are these guns even available?
I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't be available.

Who needs such a weapon?

Since when are "needs" open to definition and/or subject to legislation?

What purpose do they serve?

I have several (a few of which I've built myself). I take them to the range 2-3 times a month. I've shot up my share of paper targets and then some. I also have a few bolt action rifles that I practice
with. There's a saying "only accurate guns are interesting" (which I can somewhat agree with), but there's also a lot to be said for diversifying ones interest. I used to participate in 3-gun matches
(requires a handgun, semi-auto rifle and shotgun), but I haven't been to a match lately.

Do hunters use them?

What does hunting have to do with anything?

For the record, some do use them for hunting (state/local laws and mag capacity restrictions applicable).

http://www.ak47.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. Actually some hunters do use a Kalashnikov variant
But the round it shoots is generally considered underpowered for typical game animals like deer and elk.

They're available because people want them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Sorry I just don't understand I guess
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. At least you understand that you don't understand
Insight is a wonderful thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Believe me I have tried
I guess I am just a peacenick through and through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. I'm a peacenik too
Strongly anti-war and anti-violence, but unfortunately sometimes violence and use of force are justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #25
116. Why not?
Why are these guns even available? Who needs such a weapon? What purpose do they serve? Do hunters use them?

Why not? Less lethal than the average hunting rifle, and doesn't fire any faster than any other civilian self-loader; it just looks cooler.

A civilian AK lookalike isn't the ideal hunting weapon because it is rather underpowered for deer (a .30-06 deer rifle is about twice as powerful), but one can be used for deer hunting if the range is kept short enough; under 125 yards is a good rule of thumb.

Here's my civvie AK lookalike in hunting configuration, with a 4x scope and a 5-round magazine:




Most of us who own them, own them for recreational target shooting and defensive purposes rather than for hunting, though (only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter).

One thing that can be said in their favor is that like all rifles, they are rarely misused; all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Gun Laws aren't the issuse, we have more that enough of them
AK's are dirt simple to use and maintain. Just about anyone could figure it out. The real issue is how did he get access to it.

It all likelyhood it is not really an AK-47 but a semiauto variant made expressly for the USA. Made cheap and sold cheap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. Well the laws are really working, now aren't they?
Why make more laws? We don't have a problem with kids and guns, now do we? These are all just isolated incidents.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
72. More laws are not the answer to gun crime or other things like environment
issues. Enforcement of what we have on the books would be more than enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
101. Yep!
A few more gun control laws will solve the criminal violence problem just like a few more months of staying the course will establish a friendly secular democratic government in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContraBass Black Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
13. Do gunshots not ring out in a school every week in America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. Only if there is a rifle team...which my school had
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. Seems like it
When will we learn? How many more kids have to die?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
17. Guns.... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Scapegoat... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. yuh.... you just keep promoting guns
with the Hello Kitty logo there.

What age group does Hello Kitty target anyway...

Pretty sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. I'm waffling between "humor-challenged" and "nice personal attack"
So I'll say both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. You Can Say Whatever You Want
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 12:49 PM by stepnw1f
I'm right about the promotion of guns on DU. Everytime there is ample evidence of guns causing death, the gun nuts absolve guns completely. It's dishonest bullshit..... we don't NEED more guns. We need more regulation on gun ownership. The convenience of a gun hobbiest should never trump the saftey of society... NEVER!

And before you even try to say I am anti-gun, I'm not.... I just believe in responsibility and the saftey of our society. Gun nuts obviously don't give a damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Only people who really want guns and meet the legal qualifications
Should have guns.

I'm not promoting them, stepnw1f. I'm promoting choice on guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Promoting Choice on Guns?
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 12:51 PM by stepnw1f
Why?

You can buy them in pink now for kids.... there is plenty of choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
89. deleted
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 05:04 PM by kgfnally
My post deserves a seperate thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. I can't recall defending the gun industry here
What are you referring to?

Oh, and I'm supportive of legislation requiring all gun owners to be members of their state's militia, and subject to any and all regulations of that militia. This is because the Second does NOT guarantee the right to own a gun to ALL Americans- ONLY to those who are members of their state's militia....

Well, that's a relief. For a moment I was afraid you were going to say I am not eligible to own firearms.

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State....


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=m...

If you're not a member of your state's militia, you are in unconstitutional posession of a firearm. Period.

Have you read the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The default under our system of laws is for everything to be allowed unless it has been specifically prohibited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. The Ninth is routinely ignored
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 05:33 PM by kgfnally
Not that that SHOULD be the case. It shouldn't. But it IS routinely ignored.

I'm addressing this in another thread, one I haven't seen here before, related to the actual text of the Second. I DO believe we all have the right to own a firearm, but I ALSO believe, based on the text of the Second, that that right lies within certain boudaries. My impression is that those boundaries- to clarify, those Constitutional boundaries- are denoted within the Second itself.

The Ninth may allow rights not enumerated, but the rights in the Second are enumerated, and in fact limited, to militia members. I'll edit this post with a link to my thread once it's up.

edit: added link. I intend that to try to be a thoughful discussion. Please respect this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. I have only rarely invoked the Second Amendment on DU Forums
Please feel free to search through my numerous posts on the subject of the right of civilians to keep and bear arms. I generally steer clear of Second Amendment discussions because people on both sides of it use circular reasoning and disregard facts presented by their opponents.

The Ninth may allow rights not enumerated, but the rights in the Second are enumerated, and in fact limited, to militia members.

Did it escape your attention that just most able-bodied citizens, at least here in California, are in fact militia members? (The federal definition of composition and classes of the Militia is very similar BTW.)

And just because the Second Amendment enumerates a right of militia members doesn't mean that people who are not militia members do not enjoy a similar right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Please start one!
If you want to start one accusing me of defending the gun industry, I'd be happy to participate.

I collect curios and relics, most of which were made in other countries during or before World War II. What that has to do with the present-day gun industry, I can only guess what connection you are imagining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #44
104. To quote an old advisary...
"<snicker>" B-)

Actually though... there wasn't anything in that particular post worth addressing or responding to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
57. I agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
54. Do you have kids?
Would you want their schoolmates bringing AK 47s to school and shooting them in class?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #54
98. Strawman argument.
Under no circumstance would I, or do I, condone firearms violence of any sort (other than in self defense)... be it on school grounds or elsewhere.

For the record, I don't have any children and that particular question is totally irrelevant to this incident.

However, just to be clear about it, I wouldn't have any problems with "schoolmates" in possession of
an AK-47 (or any firearm for that matter), if it were for the purpose of receiving firearms safety instruction and marksmanship training as a school activity and conducted under close and responsible adult supervision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #98
118. Sorry but I don't see that as a strawman at all
For one thing, I was asking a question, not presenting an argument.

I think that people tend to view many things differently once they have kids. I have taught for nearly 3 decades and I raised 2 kids as well. I tend to view most issues with a critical eye and a question - "Is this good for kids?". Concealed carry is not good for kids so I opposed it. I now cringe every time I hear these school shooting stories. We have built a gun culture in our society and that saddens me.

I honestly can see no reason for any kid to learn how to fire an AK 47, since they have no useful purpose. I did want my own kids to take gun safety classes and they did. So I am not totally opposed to teaching gun safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #118
126. A civilian rifle is a civilian rifle...
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 09:42 AM by benEzra
I honestly can see no reason for any kid to learn how to fire an AK 47, since they have no useful purpose. I did want my own kids to take gun safety classes and they did. So I am not totally opposed to teaching gun safety.

A civilian self-loading rifle is a civilian self-loading rifle...whether or not it's an AK lookalike. Learning to operate a Ruger is learning to operate an AK lookalike, and vice versa. We're not talking about automatic weapons here.

A self-loading deer rifle and a civvie AK lookalike function the same, just like a 5-series BMW with manual transmission and a Honda Civic with manual transmission function the same, and have the same "useful purposes."

My "AK" is useful for hunting (if I were a hunter), recreational target shooting, defensive purposes if needed, and is rather collectible. What other purposes for a lawfully owned rifle are there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. You use an AK 47 to hunt?
What do you do with your prey? Make hamburgers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. Real AK-47's are not readily available in the United States...
Edited on Wed Oct-11-06 12:21 PM by benEzra
You use an AK 47 to hunt?
What do you do with your prey? Make hamburgers?

Real AK-47's are not readily available in the United States. I am talking about civilian AK-47 lookalikes, as is everyone on this thread, whether they know it or not. Here's mine, in a hunting configuration, with a 4x scope and 5-round magazine:


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php...

This is a NON-automatic civilian rifle that fires once, and only once, when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. It is not very powerful as rifles go, and doesn't fire any faster than any other civilian self-loading rifle, either.

Specifically, it is about half as powerful as a typical deer rifle (using the ubiquitous .30-06 as the benchmark), so it is adequate for deer hunting, but it doesn't have enough power to humanely kill a deer beyond 125 yards or so, unlike a .270 Winchester or a .30-06. Ballistically, it is similar to an 1890's vintage .30-30 Winchester, and is even less powerful than a .243.

Like most gun owners, though, I do not hunt, so the fact that it's slightly underpowered for deer isn't a huge drawback for me. That's actually a plus, since the lighter caliber means the rifle doesn't kick nearly as hard as a full-power deer rifle. It also looks much cooler. :)

Here are some energy figures, if you're interested:

.AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)............1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle...............2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hope springs eternal Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
75. There are no innocent bystanders...
...with knives.


This is meant as a counter to the whole "they'll just use knives" argument
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #75
105. Who'll speak out and stand up for the machete owners?
This hasn't passed the legislature yet, but it's a perfect example of the "slippery slope" effect in action...


"AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF A MACHETE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.

Subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the word inches, in line 67, the following word:- , machete.

SECTION 2. Said subsection (b) of said section 10 of said chapter 269, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-

For purposes of this section, machete means a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on ones person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation. In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, there shall be a permissible inference that such carrying of a machete is not for the purposes of cutting vegetation. Such presumption may be rebutted.

Any individual who requires a machete for the purposes of cutting vegetation shall register the machete with the local police department on an annual basis and, upon payment of an appropriate annual registration fee as determined by the local granting authority, shall be issued a permit authorizing him to possess the machete solely for the purposes of cutting vegetation."

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lady Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
29. I know all about it. I live here in Joplin, Missouri
Alot of parents/students have brought there kids here to Southern with then tan to go ahead and have them in classes in Memorial Middle School today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
31. Student fires gun in Mo. middle school
JOPLIN, Mo. - A 13-year-old student fired an AK-47 into the ceiling at his middle school Monday morning after confronting a pair of students and administrators, telling them, "please don't make me do this," officials said.

No one was injured, and the boy was taken into custody.

The student was wearing a mask and pointed the assault rifle at Principal Steve Gilbreth and Assistant Superintendent Steve Doerr, Superintendent Jim Simpson said.

Simpson said the teen told them "not to make me do this," then fired a shot into the ceiling, breaking a water pipe, and said again: "Please don't make me do this."


more . . . http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061009/ap_on_re_us/missour...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyndCulture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. How did he sneak in an AK 47?
jesus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. No metal detector I guess
I want to know where he got an AK 47. Why in the world does anyone need a gun like this? Why would it be anywhere near a kid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zreosumgame Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. sounds like he went to a gun show
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
73. Interesting speculation...
Though it would in no way have aided him obtaining it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silvermachine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #73
117. Well, one would have an easier time...
...at the flea markets in Va. and W. Va. to be sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. I'm still leaning toward "it wasn't an AK-47 at all"
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 12:27 PM by slackmaster
I was being charitable when I said the media "often" gets it wrong. Firearms initially reported as AK-47s usually turn out to be something much less controversial.

Why would it be anywhere near a kid?

The fact that it's a relatively expensive weapon (at least a legal semi-automatic civilian variant) makes me doubt that the person who owns it would have been so careless as to make it easy for the kid to get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
61. Read this article
There are a lot more details and it also says it was an AK 47. Also says it was a well organized plan.

But yes, I want to know where this kid got this weapon.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. It also says "clips of ammunition"
Which means the author probably doesn't know jack shit about firearms.

Smart money is still on "Not actually a Kalashnikov variant".

But yes, I want to know where this kid got this weapon.

That is a lot more important than the exact type of weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #63
97. Oh, Please

Ascertaining the exact type of weapon used in an incident like this---and whining if the media fail to get said description exactly right---is the invariable reaction by gun activists such as yourself, over and over and over again. You don't say much about the incident itself, because, truth be told, you guys are OK with things like this happening; you see it as a fair tradeoff for having easy access to as many guns as possible. That kind of attitude doesn't play very well, out here in the real world....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. I'm OK with nobody getting hurt and the shooter getting caught
I'm not OK that a fellow gun owner was careless enough to leave a dangerous weapon where a disturbed child could get it.

...you guys are OK with things like this happening; you see it as a fair tradeoff for having easy access to as many guns as possible.

Straw Man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lady Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
82. Automatic and semi-auto's are all over this area.
He could have broke into a house to get it. Shop lifted it. Anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. Automatics
start at 10,000 and range upwards.

Most people who keep class 3 nfa guns keep them in a safe.

This was a semi automatic rifle. Parents, or whomever, should be charged with not securing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #45
93. It comes down to... TOO MANY STUPID PEOPLE OWN GUNS IN AMERICA!
That's the only reason I can think of to explain all these kids bringing guns to school and the murder/suicide/gun accidents rates in the US.

Which would be the easier problem to fix? Stupid people or gun access?

Eugenics anyone?

I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #93
102. Not sure what you mean by fixing "gun access" here
Should I not have access to my private, personal property?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #102
110. If it's a gun and you're stupid?
No.

(this is not saying you are stupid. Unfortunately, there are too many stupid people out there and too many of them love guns)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #110
119. I'd love to prevent stupid people from having guns
Or driving, or having babies, or working for the government. I'm not at all sure how one could do that and maintain some sense of fairness or justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lady Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #34
81. Never any need for that kind of security before.
No gang violence to spark that kind of security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. It's his Second Amendment right!
You commie gun-grabbers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yep sounds like he's ready
to join that well-regulated militia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. See, aren't Monday holidays a good idea? If the kid wasn't there...
:sarcasm:

Seriously, this country is resembling one long X-Files episode more and more each day. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. Now you've gone and done it!
Some clever :sarcasm: thinking person will post the lyrics to the Boomtown Rats "I Don't Like Mondays".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Ooops, I don't even know that one...
Yikes! Sorry all.... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. aren't schools closed today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
58. Not in MO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. The problem is pervasive and sadistic BULLYING...not guns.
The common thread to all of these student school shootings is a history of pervasive and sadistic bullying by students on the shooting perpetrator. The victims of bullying feel powerless and resort to extreme measures to correct the problem and/or provide some outlet for their pent-up hostility.

I'm not excusing the actions of these student shooters, but I can see where they are coming from and understand the level of physical and psychological abuse that is still called, "bullying."

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
E-Z-B Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Wasn't this a weapon banned by Clinton, reapproved by Dubya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
48. That is a common misconception
Sales of semiautomatic AK-47 variants was not stopped by the 1994 "Assault Weapons" "Ban".

All that was needed to make most of them legal to sell after the ban took effect was to remove one or two features, e.g. bayonet lug and threaded muzzle.

The "ban" resulted in more interest in the "banned" weapons, more manufacturers, and increased sales. The AWB sold millions of rifles that didn't quite meet the criteria specified to be an AW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
74. No, and that Clinton Bannded guns and the W undid it is also false
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #40
115. No.
Wasn't this a weapon banned by Clinton, reapproved by Dubya?

No.

All actual AK-47's are restricted by the Title 2/Class III National Firearms Act of 1934, and possession of one without specific government approval, in the guise of a BATFE Form 4, is a 10-year Federal felony. If you go through the six-to-eight-month clearance process to get a Form 4, a civilian-transferable AK-47 costs about $15,000 and can only be obtained from a specially licensed Class III dealer. If you own one, the BATFE gets to inspect your home once per year if they choose to do so.

There are numerous non-automatic civilian rifles that look, but do not function, like AK-47's. I own one, a 2002-model Romanian SAR-1, which I purchased in 2003, during the Feinstein ban:


Romanian SAR-1, non-automatic civilian AK lookalike (caliber .30 Russian Short)

This rifle looks like an NFA Title 2/Class III restricted AK-47, but it is not one, and functions just like any other civilian self-loading rifle; unlike an AK-47, it is completely incapable of automatic fire, and cannot readily be converted to do so. There is no functional difference whatsoever between the above rifle and this one:


Ruger Mini Thirty, short-range deer rifle

Same caliber, same range of magazine capacities, same rate of fire, same mode of operation.

FWIW, the 1994 Feinstein ban, which you are thinking of, did not restrict civilian AK lookalikes in any way. It merely mandated that no civilian rifle manufactured after 1994 could be marketed under the scary name "AK-47" (which could be considered misleading advertising anyway), and any civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip had to have pin-on muzzle accessories instead of screw-on accessories (or no muzzle accessories at all) and could not have the capability to mount a bayonet.

Here's my SAR-1 again, dressed up a little differently. Circled areas show where a pre-1994 rifle would have differed, and how:


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php...

Note the smooth muzzle and shorty gas block. Guns manufactured prior to 1994 were exempted from the ban, and were allowed to have threaded muzzles and gas block extensions. The Feinstein ban also raised the price on replacement magazines for most civilian pistols (by up to 500%!), but did not otherwise restrict their availability. The ban expired in 2004, so that newly manufactured civvie AK lookalikes can now have threaded muzzles and gas block extensions once again.

The most enduring legacies of the Feinstein ban were that it (1) greatly accelerated the adoption of rifles with protruding handgrips by many gun owners, including me; (2) helped create a market for smaller and more concealable pistols downsized to fit 10-round magazines, which remained inexpensive during the ban; and (3) helped cost Dems the House, the Senate, and two presidencies 1994-2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #31
71. If the teachers had guns, they could have just killed him, right? Then he
would be dead, and the teacher would have nightmares for the rest of his life.

Wouldn't that be a great outcome, all you people who say theachers should be armed?

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #71
84. If the teachers had killed this kid
that would be one less AK 47 in school.

We could keep score!

Kids with AK 47s - 0
Teachers who shot them - 1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bronxiteforever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
46. That does it! We need to arm all middle schoolers-you see they
can defend themselves from attacks this way. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
47. Guns are not new to America.
Guns have been around for hundreds of years. School shootings are a recent phenomenon. Are guns the root cause of school shootings?
What has happened over the past couple of decades that might explain why a child would take a gun to school and start shooting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
59. Concealed carry legislation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. Concealed-carry permits are for handguns, not rifles
And no state issues them to minors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. But they have made guns more acceptable
and it is now more likely for kids to get their hands on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. I don't buy that theory
You should take a defensive handgun class some time, then report back what effect the class had on your feelings about use of firearms. I doubt that it would make you more willing to accept them, perhaps just the opposite.

The ONLY thing that is responsible for kids gaining unauthorized access to firearms is negligence on the part of the owners who don't properly secure their weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. More guns means more irresponsible gun owners
We are seeing more kids bring guns to school since the CCW laws were passed here. There have been several incidents in my district this year. I realize this isn't a scientific survey though.

I really have never wanted to take a gun class but thanks for the suggestion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #76
80. That's quite astonishing!
Considering that the change in Kansas law that will make it possible for someone other than a licensed private detective to get a license to carry a concealed weapon doesn't take effect until January 1, 2007.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. I don't teach in KS
Nice try though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Colorado and Missouri went shall-issue in 2003
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 03:51 PM by slackmaster
Oklahoma in 1995, and Nebraska in 2006.

BTW I appreciate your Inspector Clouseau reply. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. In what way would that cause children to attempt mass murder?
Children are not eligible for concealed carry. If the law did not allow concealed carry would it be impossible for people to do it?
I fail to see the connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. It has made more people get guns
More guns, and more likely for kids to get ahold of them. Unfortunately, an IQ test is not required before the permits are issued. They should only go to those smart enough to keep their guns away from kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Ak-47's are rifles, not suitable for concealed carry. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. How did this kid get his hands on this weapon?
Can you buy these at gun shows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #77
95. Yes you can.
Of course you can't if you're a 13 yearold kid. The majority of gun sales at a gun show are conducted by licensed gun dealers who have to follow the same rules for sales as Wal-mart does.
We don't know where the kid obtained the weapon. If I were a betting man I would guess it was his parents gun. The parents should be held accountable for this kids actions. If it wasn't their weapon they should of known he had it.

BTW- Gun shows are the WORST place to buy a firearm. The guns tend to be overpriced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. I have to challenge your factoid
Nothing personal proud2blib and I don't mean to be argumentative, but I haven't seen any evidence that liberalized, objectified concealed-carry laws have resulted in more guns sold.

Unfortunately, an IQ test is not required before the permits are issued. They should only go to those smart enough to keep their guns away from kids.

At least here in California some of the questions on the test you have to take to qualify for a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) concern children, safety, and the state's Child Access Prevention (CAP) law. Anyone who buys a handgun must have a current HSC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #70
78. I am glad to hear that about California
I am not up on what the licensing involves here. I just know that we have had more kids with guns in our schools since the law was passed. So there are too many people allowing kids to get ahold of their guns. But all it takes is one, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #47
103. Quite honestly...
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 06:59 PM by D__S
I remain unconvinced that there is a gun problem in this country at all.

I grew up in the 60's/early-70's. With the exception of the 1968 GCA, gun control laws were virtually non-existent. Easily obtaining a firearm back then would never have been a problem. But guess what?
No classmate that I knew of carried a handgun to school. No classmate ever resorted to using a firearm to settle a problem. I can't even recall of any disputes involving knives or other dangerous weapons
(and I attended city schools). We played the usual boyhood army games ("Combat" was one of my favorite shows... there was always an argument of who had to be the Germans). There was no "political correctness" run amok WRT allowing "children" to play with toy guns and act out their role playing.
We pummled the living shit out of each other at times, but after it was broken up there was seldom any
fatal retribution.

So, fast-forward about 20-30 years... gun laws are more prevalent (both at the federal and state level), but now instead of kids pointing toy cap guns at one another, we have kids toting cheap-ass handguns in their backpacks and putting a bullet into another kid over the slightest insult or put-down.

Something has changed in that time, and it's not the availability of firearms.

IMHO... I think kids (and a lot of society), has become immune to violence in general, and worse... glorifying it and practically making it respectable.

Look at who some of the supposed fucking heroes for kids are nowadays... college and pro-athletes with felony records. And when they get busted as a player instead of get deep-sixed from athletics and/or going to jail, the team issues a press release and they're back in the line-up.

And what's there to admire about or aspire to become a "gangsta" and profit from it by becoming the next "Snoop-Dog or "50 cent"?

While I would never be supportive of censorship, I really think what are kids are exposed to in terms of movies, music, TV and video games have a great deal to do with the "de-sensitizing" process. I mean, when you can walk into just about any mall in America and there's at least one store or kiosk with Tony Montana posters, t-shirts, memorabilia (there's even a fucking "Scarface" video game out now), something ain't right with the way we raise our kids and what they're taught.

As I stated in another post, I have no children; however I am well aware that it's not easy raising kids or being a parent. But, blaming guns, gun owners, the NRA, etc is... all they have to do is point their finger and say "hey, they're the ones responsible for this mess". It's soooo much easier that way instead of fixing their own problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Anti-Neo Con Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
86. When are these young, hardened criminals going to get their just desserts?
This kid needs to be tried as an adult and be given the longest prison sentence available for the crime. It will send a message that just because you are young that you can't go out and terrorize society without consequences.

Oh yeah, and I also support the death penalty for juveniles. Too bad the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #86
96. The kids parents should pay a price for this incident.
They were not doing their job and are liable for their child's actions until the age of majority is reached. Maybe if parents started paying the price for poor parenting there would be less school violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
100. Schools are "Gun free zones" aren't they?
How could this happen at a school if its against the law to have a gun in a school? We need another law to stop this type of thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speaker Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #100
106. The mind behind the trigger.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #100
107. Just because people break laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 08:51 PM by billbuckhead
A lot of people break the speed limit but they sure drive a lot slower than if there was no speed limit. Tough guns laws discourage gun use just like tough traffic laws make the streets safer. America's gun scene is obviously out of control and this degeneration of our culture has been lead by a generation of the worst leadership in American history, all waving guns like Zell Miller, Duke Cunningham, Gorver Norquist, Machinegun Cheney, Tom DeLay, John Bolton, ad nauseum. It's no wonder this crowd doen't like laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #107
108. No safer place than a "gun free school zone".....
..for a killer.

Your analogy is funny. Speeding in an automobile has been proven to cause auto accidents which result in injuries and death. Carrying a firearm is not dangerous and does not result in injuries and death. In fact, armed people discourage mass murders in much the same way a trooper with a radar gun discourages speeders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #108
124. A far safer place would be Japan where there are almost no guns
Obviously with no guns around there are no gun deaths. Can't beat that logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-11-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #124
129. No can't beat that at all
Thanks for your voice of sanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #100
114. I agree. More laws are needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
109. The alleged gunman apparently had the combo to his parents' safe.
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 10:33 PM by pinniped
Nice folks.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archiv...

Jones said the gun belonged to the boy's parents, who kept the weapon in a safe at home. The parents told police their son apparently knew the combination to the gun safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #109
112. The parents should be held liable.
Why on earth would you allow an obviously troubled kid to have access to your gun safe? This boy wasn't your run of the mill "well adjusted" child. It must have been obvious to the parents. All I can say is thank god they had a piece of crap "assault rifle" like the Mak-90 that had jamming problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC