Police: Autistic teen With AK-47 Opened Fire

Post Reply New Topic

Could some of them have had RPGs and P90 submachine guns? My corner store certainly has those.

There are a good number of excellent police personel who are quite capable of doing their jobs. In a lot of places, those forces are stretched thin, or dangerously underfunded, or horribly mismanaged. There are also public policies and laws that are poorly thought out, which only add to the crowding in our jails, and the amount of resentment and crime on the streets. Moreover, the political climate is one of fear and fascism - so there are a lot of people who have guns and agendas who work off the books for the administration, but are above the law.

I'm personally willing to resist through peaceful, civil disobedience, even if it means I end up dying somewhere in a dirty jail cell without legal representation. But that's a choice I make for myself. I won't tell my friends and neighbors that they should die like sheep without some form of self defense. They have that choice to make too. Perhaps when the United States steps back from the brink of insanity a bit, I'll be willing to accept some gun control. :/

A time when people vanish in the middle of the night for ridiculous reasons, is NOT a good time to disarm the People.

Who is vanishing in the middle of the night?

Having guns stashed everywhere in your home is going to reduce the insanity? Guns don't care who they shoot. It's likely that your AK 47s and bazookas will fall into the wrong hands at the wrong time. If I want to kill myself and I know Dad keeps a handgun in the closet, I can just take it out of the shoebox and blow my brains out.

And what if Dad becomes unbalanced during a domestic dispute, grabs his gun, and shoots his wife in the face?

It's always the threats-from-within that you never see coming.

When will the Guns N Ammo crowd learn this lesson?

Please forgive the unavoidable implyed ad hominems here, but am I the only one who can make no sense of this gibberish above? I or a few others write long, in depth explanations of our opposition to gun control, and all the anti crowd can muster is some non-sensible sloganeering slapped together with some buzzwords? I'm not just talking about the quoted post, most of the "anti" posts in this thread are one or two sentence "guns are bad", or the slightly more original "gun culture is bad".

I'll continue to argue my position, despite the lack of any worthy adversaries, in order that other AS gun people can see that they are not the only ones. In addition, I'm combating the stereotype of the gun owner as a rural redneck, myself being a lifelong urban Seattleite. However, it would be a little more fun if I didn't feel like I'm on Larry King, knocking softballs over the wall all night.

We’re up to four pages in this thread and the anti’s have brought nothing of value to the table.
All we’ve seen from them is differently worded ways of saying “Gunz r bad”.
They make it so easy for us.

You disregard what we bring to the table because you don't to hear it.

I think the anti side has said all that needs to be said.

I wouldn't be so proud of a victory here. When one side expresses victory over another, it's a sign that neither compromise nor understanding have taken place; it's a failure on both sides.

Myself, I grew up having a lot of contempt for pro-gun people. Much of this is because the loudest pro-gun people present ignorant, irrational arguments. (The loudest anti-gun people are also quite ignorant; the loudest people in any crowd are usually the biggest idiots.) In line with what Dox47 said, my impression of pro-gun people involved rednecks with gun racks threatening ethnic minorities and homosexuals.

Eventually, I discovered there are some very valid points to be made on either side. I met very rational pro-gun people who were far from the stereotypes. Yes, killing a person is always BAD. Yes, very few people ever run into situations where a gun is really necessary and helpful against assault. And yes, there are careless and unlucky gun owners who have managed to injure themselves or others. But getting rid of guns will not give us a happy land where criminals find respectable jobs, food jumps onto our plates, and we can trust our government 100%.

Until someone can think of a rational plan - or at least a civil compromise - I'm going to respect my neighbor's right to own a registered firearm. I myself don't believe guns are the answer, but I think my neighbors should make the choice for themselves and their families.

Heck, I say let the pot heads out of jail to make some room, and then come down hard on anyone convicted of carrying an unregistered firearm. It's not the registered ones that are causing the problems.

slowmutant wrote;

I read every word of every post on this thread twice before I said what I said.
The anti side hasn’t said much of anything that would add credit to their arguments let alone “all that needs to be said”. There’s been more emotion and personal opinion from them than anything. Bring something substantial to the table.


tharn wrote;


I’ve seen no valid arguments brought to this thread by those opposed or opposed in part to gun ownership.
I honestly don’t see where this is an area where compromise is an option. With what would we compromise?



The news media and Hollywood have a tendency to paint the gun owning public as nasty tempered white trash that are none too bright. There are gun owners just like that but they do not represent the majority. In my experience, those who know their stuff about guns and are adept at their use are anything but what the media and Hollywood portrays. As a range officer at a local gun club I see this all the time. We don’t get very many yahoo’s at all there and many of them end up getting thrown out for safety violations and even their belligerent attitudes.



I agree (are you surprised?). The only thing I want to point out here has to do with what you said about very few people running into situations where a gun is necessary and helpful. This is pretty much true although I’ve had an experience or two where I was glad I was armed. To make a comparison, I’ve been in a few car accidents but none where I would have been seriously injured even without seatbelts and/or air bags. I sure as hell still wear them, though, because it’s better to be prepared. Same applies for other safety/emergency equipment including a defensive firearm. There is more to personal protection with a gun than just having a gun. You have to be able to recognize the threat, know when deadly force is justifiable, and be willing and able to use that deadly force in a controlled manner. There is a lot to it and it’s not a subject or action to be taken lightly by any means.



I’ve heard the “guns are not the answer” statement a lot and to that I ask what is the answer? I’ve never gotten much of an answer to that. It has to be a practical answer or it’s a waste of time to even offer it.
Until then, and I’m not even gonna hold my breath, when I need to protect myself my .40 caliber Glock will suffice as an answer.



I agree about the pot heads. I don’t have an issue with people growing or smoking weed. Hell I would if it weren’t illegal and my employer didn’t have random drug testing.

The “unregistered firearm” thing is a different matter. In most cases in my country (United States) gun registration is not required nor is there any way to do it even if you wanted to. That being the case, NONE of mine are registered and they are not causing any problems except me spending too much money on them.
In practice I don’t see where registration gains anything. Guns themselves are still not the problem. Implying that they are is like saying utensils are the cause of obesity. That may seem to oversimplify the issue but I haven’t heard the other side come up with anything better to counter it.

Damn, I was going to come on and rip some people up, but Raptor beat me to the punch! I'd just like to add, I wasn't so much declaring victory as lamenting the lack of worthy debating partners in this thread. I haven't seen a single logical, well thought out argument yet from the anti-gun crowd on this thread. This is not a case of "not wanting to hear" something, I just disregard illogical, irrational and emotional arguments. If the anti crowd would like to step up to the plate with an actual argument, I'd be happy to take a crack at it. In the mean time, I can only encourage the current crowd to keep up their fuzzy logic, as it only strengthens my position.

Also, once again, Raptor is correct, guns do not have to be registered in most states. Only nanny-states like Massachusetts or the PRK require registration, and I'm not even totally sure about the later, as I don't live there. As a Washington State resident, I had to be fingerprinted and undergo a federal background check by the FBI in order to receive my concealed pistol license, but I do not have to register my individual guns. Personally, I would not compromise on this issue, because the anti-gun forces have made their intentions to completely disarm everyone completely clear. It would be like asking the Israelis to compromise on existing, just a little, in order to be reasonable. When your opponent has clearly stated their intentions to destroy you, or in this case, your way of life, compromise is not an option. As a hedge against the antis ever coming to power in this country, I'll resist registration in any way I can, including holding my nose and voting for W twice (take that, hippies!) This year, McCain it is, though I actually like him more than I liked W. If Democrats want my vote, they need to acknowledge my freedom to keep and bear arms (and stop wasting my money on pet causes).

I'd really like to see a federal CPL issued at some point, as it would be really convenient not to have to check the laws every time I cross a state line. As CPL holders are extremely law abiding, it would only increase the safety of civilians everywhere to have more gun carriers among them.

I think both sides are guilty of making emotional, irrational arguments.

I'm just glad I live in Canada.

Is he severely Autistic or High Functioning? If he's even moderately Autistic, he probably doesn't understand the danger of a gun, but if he's high functioning, there's no reason for him not to go to jail (I know not to use a gun and I'm High Functioning)
Maybe he should just go to Juvie though...so he can learn from right and wrong.

Down here, a minister with a fully automatic AK-47 isn't that unheard of, either. I agree with your assessment, as I grew up in Maine, where almost everybody has at least one or two guns that stay hidden in the back of a closet. I also had a foster parent who was an ex cop, and he had guns all over the place. Guns don't frighten me, and most gun owners don't either. --What frightens me is situations like the above mentioned kid with the AK-47, as well as all the 'badass' and criminal types who have them.

That being said, I hope they take the kid's condition into account at his trial.

His condition will not lessen his crime. At least, it shouldn't.

If possible, I'd like to see him Tried as a Juvenile instead of being tried as an adult. If they Try him as a Juvenile, he at least has the possibility of getting help. If they Try him as an adult, he has virtually no chance of getting help.

That's an interesting ethical question, it also calls into question the effectiveness of prison as a rehabilitation device. I tend to think of prisons as finishing schools for crooks, at least from my experience with cons. As to this kid, I don't know enough about his level of functioning to make the judgment. However, I doubt that the prison system would do him, or society, any good. He does need to be punished, but he obviously needs help as well, help he wouldn't get in prison.

his father should not have a weapon like that around.