MA - Man "Accidentally" Fires AK-47, Hits School

mark056 said:
Well, I don't know how to gently put this to you, because you are a nice guy, but if you do not understand the social contract theory, then you do not understand the intent of the founding fathers, or very much about how these principles were incorporated into our Constitution and more importantly the Declaration of Independence.

I do not have the time or the space to elaborate, but you have to remember that Locke and Rosseau both who were influential thinkers, greatly influenced our founding fathers.

You would do well to explore the intellectual history of the American Revolution and how our Republic came to be. I am sure that there are others on this board who can wax more eloquently on the subject as it has been brought up many times.

Mark L.
Click to expand...

How do you presume I have not explored the intellectual history of the American Revolution? Is it because I disagree with you? You need not "be gentle" with my sensitivities - especially when it comes to something as serious as removing the rights of a fellow American because he made a mistake in his basement....
 
First, the idea of the social contract theory of government is not my idea and interpretation. Before you go off the deep end and get hot under the collar, step back, take a deep breath, regroup and do some research. Start with a simple Google search, I think your questions will be answered satisfactorily.

I will not engage in discourse with those who are angry. I feel very badly for you that you do not totally understand American history (understandably so since it is hardly taught properly these days) and that those of us who have honored and cherished our 2A unalienable rights, some how "just don't get it anymore." It is a shame that you think that "gun culture" has lost its way.

This is no reason for further discourse from me, until you do your research and calm down, my friend.

Wishing you all the best (as always),

Mark L.
 
mark056 said:
First, the idea of the social contract theory of government is not my idea and interpretation. Before you go off the deep end and get hot under the collar, step back, take a deep breath, regroup and do some research. Start with a simple Google search, I think your questions will be answered satisfactorily.

I will not engage in discourse with those who are angry. I feel very badly for you that you do not totally understand American history (understandably so since it is hardly taught properly these days) and that those of us who have honored and cherished our 2A unalienable rights, some how "just don't get it anymore." It is a shame that you think that "gun culture" has lost its way.

This is no reason for further discourse from me, until you do your research and calm down, my friend.

Wishing you all the best (as always),

Mark L.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry in the slightest and I'd be glad to have you point out anything in my posts that indicates that I am. I also have a good working knowledge of the "social contract theory", (no need to highlight theory) and how it not only correlates to the American Revolution, but to the Constitution and societal principals pre and post - so kindly spare me the "Google is your friend" rhetoric. What it does not speak to is removing the rights of a United States citizen, due to an accident in his basement. Your correlation to this act of stripping away his 2nd Amendment rights - coupled with any theory of social contract does not hold water and certainly does not befit his actions. Please explain to me how it does. How an act which resulted in zero harm, (other than to brick and mortar - possibly his ear drums), should then result in the loss of his God given rights under the 2nd Amendment, based on a theory of social contract...
 
Did a little research on "social contract" as applying to the 2nd Amendment. I don't like it and does not apply. I turn screwdrivers all day so my comprehension aint that sharp. Hopefully I didn't fail to responsibly exercise my first ammendment right resulting in some form of censure thats needs to be implemented.
 
Last edited:
Well since his firearm was an "assault rifle" it therefore must have been full-auto. I can totally understand 2 rounds touching off before he was able to release the trigger. This is all assuming whoever wrote the article knows what they're talking about wrt firearms of course. [rolleyes]
 
So.....If someone were to crash into the school front doors after hours (no one hurt) with their vehicle, do you think they should lose their privilege to drive for life? In reality do you think it actually would happen (lose lic for life)?

Not a betting man, but I would bet that a sober driver accidentally losing control and crashing into school would be driving again at some point. Might require more driver ed, retesting, etc. But they would be driving.

But here we have a guy that looks like he will never have 2A rights ever again.

Something is severely broken.
 
Last edited:
Let the guy patch the building. The public humiliation of everyone knowing and being partially deaf is I'm sure enough punishment for an instance where nobody was hurt. Any punishment more than that is moonbat overreaction territory. If you don't agree, consider the following:

You hit a parked car while at the store while pulling into a spot. There's a dent in your car and the car you hit. No other damage than a dent. Should you:

A) Have the police called, get a warning and accident report, pay for the damages (insurance or otherwise) and continue your day.
B) Have the police called and get a ticket for reckless driving and a summons for destruction of private property
C) Have the police called, your license suspended and you car towed away
D) Have the police called, your license suspended for life, the car you were driving confiscated along with any other vehicles you have at home, go to jail for a few years and when you get you still can never own or use a car or any other transportation that uses wheels ever again and spend the rest of your life only allowed to walk.

If you didn't answer A do us a favor and never vote again, ever.
 
MassMark said:
I'm not angry in the slightest and I'd be glad to have you point out anything in my posts that indicates that I am. I also have a good working knowledge of the "social contract theory", (no need to highlight theory) and how it not only correlates to the American Revolution, but to the Constitution and societal principals pre and post - so kindly spare me the "Google is your friend" rhetoric. What it does not speak to is removing the rights of a United States citizen, due to an accident in his basement. Your correlation to this act of stripping away his 2nd Amendment rights - coupled with any theory of social contract does not hold water and certainly does not befit his actions. Please explain to me how it does. How an act which resulted in zero harm, (other than to brick and mortar - possibly his ear drums), should then result in the loss of his God given rights under the 2nd Amendment, based on a theory of social contract...
Click to expand...

Did I ever in any of MY posts say that he should be stripped of his 2A Rights? I don't think so. But I do think that what he did is a big deal. Any accidental discharge or negligent discharge is a big deal IMO, and I think I can fairly say that also in the minds of many who were brought up with guns with a certain mind set and in a specific environment that we do not seem to have so much here in Mass anymore (maybe Western Mass). The guy should be censured because he failed to live up to his responsibility. Rights come with responsibilities. One of the most serious issues today, is that people across all demographic strata want their rights respected, but they seem unwilling to also live up to the responsibilities inherent that come with these rights. Yes, the man was a stand-up guy (although assuming the guy was licensed, and figuring the angle of trajectory etc. it wouldn't be hard for the police to track him down) and forthcoming, but he violated some of the most cardinal rules of gun handling.

So, if you think that the man has learned his lesson, then he should retain his right. Do you think that he should be retrained on proper gun handling? It is possible that he might not know the proper manual of arms for his AK? Does not knowing the manual of arms for a weapon in and of itself a form of negligence? A purely speculative question.

Without trying to kick a dead horse, you have to realize that for many of us, improper gun handling constitutes a violation tantamount to breaking all ten of the Ten Commandments at once or is right up there with original sin. And again, unless you have actually killed someone or something with a firearm, I am not totally sure how that impacts.

What I think you are saying is: put it in perspective, no harm, no foul, nobody got hurt, I really get that...but, clearly this man needs to demonstrate to me (a member of society), and to the rest of society that he can exercise his rights in a responsible and not unfettered manner. Should he forever banned from owning a firearm? Perhaps not, should he be required to demonstrate that he can exercise his 2A right responsibly, most definitely...and the the principal question is: how can he do this? To my way of thinking, his right to bear arms should not be revoked forever, but he should be banned for a specific time from exercising his right.

Another question: what happens if he has another AD or ND? Then what?

Mark L.
 
At the risk of making myself unpopular...again...

This kind of thing does NOT help us when we are still steepedin a battle to retain our rights. I'd like to know more about the "accident" before I can render an adequate decision as to whether or not his license should be permanently revoked - that said, unless you're a LEO or otherwise well connected, this is SOP for cases like this - especially if bullets strike a school building - politicians who do NOT share our philosophy drool over cases like this so asto get their punches in.
 
Patriot0717 said:
Did a little research on "social contract" as applying to the 2nd Amendment. I don't like it and does not apply. I turn screwdrivers all day so my comprehension aint that sharp. Hopefully I didn't fail to responsibly exercise my first ammendment right resulting in some form of censure thats needs to be implemented. my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I couldn't really comment on whether you responsibly exercise your first ammedment right because I do not know what that is. Of course you can exercise your first amendment right all you want (just don't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre) [wink]

Mark L.
 
No one said he should not live up to the responsibilities of his actions or inactions, but I take exception when it's suggested that he be "punished". I think fixing the school is enough - I think it even fills a sense of "social contract". I also think once we start putting conditions on rights, (collectively we already have - so I'll add: further), we continue down not a slippery, but a slimy slope. If it were to happen again, I would still maintain that his rights are absolute, but if I were his neighbor and I had rounds zipping by my rose bushes, I'd have a chat with him to help reinforce his concepts of gun safety. I would leave the police, the state and the fed out of it...That's my social contract - neighbors looking out for neighbors...
 
AtticTroll said:
I really hope your screen name isn't in honor of Dagny Taggart,
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it isn't.

The guy did discharge into a school and needs to answer for that, but permanently removing a right...
Click to expand...
I don't think he should lose it permanently if at all, but I do think he needs some repercussions to drill the gravity of his mistake into his head. Out of curiosity, if a turban-wearing arab accidentally fired 2 shots into a private jewish school down the street from his house, would you still say it was a simple mistake and we should all move on?

So I can never make a mistake in life or I lose my freedoms? One speeding ticket? DL GONE. Late for work? NO JOB EVER AGAIN. I have NO desire to live in your world, sir.
Click to expand...
Once again, I never said permanently. Since you brought up driving, let's talk about DUI. A few months ago a drunk driver killed someone (maybe multiple, can't find story right now). The kicker? The person had 3+ DUI convictions previously. So in your world, you can DUI all you want until you kill someone.
 
MassMark said:
No one said he should not live up to the responsibilities of his actions or inactions, but I take exception when it's suggested that he be "punished". I think fixing the school is enough
Click to expand...
MassMark, I honestly believe that this would be punishment enough for you. I think for most people on this board, they take gun safety seriously, and simply being outed in public would be enough shame to make sure it didn't happen again. That being said, I don't have any idea who the shooter is, and whether or not shaming him is enough to correct his ways.
 
taggart said:
Once again, I never said permanently. Since you brought up driving, let's talk about DUI. A few months ago a drunk driver killed someone (maybe multiple, can't find story right now). The kicker? The person had 3+ DUI convictions previously. So in your world, you can DUI all you want until you kill someone.
Click to expand...

I would say yes. Until he killed someone he hadn't done anything wrong.

Anytime you're driving you could have a mechanical failure and kill someone (like a tie rod or ball joint letting go). Just because there is a CHANCE of something bad happening does not mean it should be illegal. He killed someone, now he goes to jail.

Far more people get killed every year in cars having nothing to do with drinking.

See this chart of deaths and BAC

Of the 37,261 deaths, only 11,773 involved a driver with a BAC of >.08 and 23,317 had a BAC of ZERO

You're twice as likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drunk one.

An argument that ignores the majority of deaths is clearly an argument aimed at imposing your moral compass on the rest of us rather than an actual worry about people dying. If you don't like people dying in cars, try and ban them.
 
xtry51 said:
I would say yes. Until he killed someone he hadn't done anything wrong.

Anytime you're driving you could have a mechanical failure and kill someone (like a tie rod or ball joint letting go). Just because there is a CHANCE of something bad happening does not mean it should be illegal. He killed someone, now he goes to jail.

Far more people get killed every year in cars having nothing to do with drinking.

See this chart of deaths and BAC

Of the 37,261 deaths, only 11,773 involved a driver with a BAC of >.08 and 23,317 had a BAC of ZERO

You're twice as likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drunk one.

An argument that ignores the majority of deaths is clearly an argument aimed at imposing your moral compass on the rest of us rather than an actual worry about people dying. If you don't like people dying in cars, try and ban them.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

Morality cannot be legislated.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
 
mark056 said:
No one is equating an AD with murder. There is however the social contract theory with regard to rights which is frequently expounded on upon this board. Simply put, you abrogate your unalienable rights when you fail to exercise them in a responsible manner (the old yelling "fire" in a theater argument).
Click to expand...

I would argue that this ND, is more like "yelling fire in a theater with 10 people in it". Completely stupid, yes, but the odds of someone getting hurt are low. Yes, it could have been a lot worse, but that's not what happened. We don't convict elderly pedal stompers of vehicular homicide when they launch their car into a telephone pole (and hurt nobody but themselves) even though it just as easily could have been a sidewalk with a dozen schoolchildren traipsing along it. The level of negligence is pretty similar, and in either case there was no malicious intent by the operator of the gun or the car.

In a sane world the judge would order him to pay restitution for the damages and perhaps costs incurred by the PD for investigating the incident (if any) and admonish the guy to take a firearms safety course.

-Mike
 
cekim said:
What about the circular saw? Drill? Nail gun? Kitchen knives? Razor blades? What about someone who gets fired from work and then hops into a 3ton death machine on wheels and mows down a crowd?!? [shocked] Dear Lord, we need to lock everyone up just to be sure...
Click to expand...

Seriously? It isn't the "potential" of this idiot to hurt someone, it's the fact that he "thought it wasn't loaded" not just once, but twice!

That's way beyond worrying about what an inanimate object could do. This guy deserves what he's getting.
 
drgrant said:
I would argue that this ND, is more like "yelling fire in a theater with 10 people in it". Completely stupid, yes, but the odds of someone getting hurt are low. Yes, it could have been a lot worse, but that's not what happened. We don't convict elderly pedal stompers of vehicular homicide when they launch their car into a telephone pole (and hurt nobody but themselves) even though it just as easily could have been a sidewalk with a dozen schoolchildren traipsing along it. The level of negligence is pretty similar, and in either case there was no malicious intent by the operator of the gun or the car.

In a sane world the judge would order him to pay restitution for the damages and perhaps costs incurred by the PD for investigating the incident (if any) and admonish the guy to take a firearms safety course.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Mike, we don't convict elderly pedal stompers for vehicular homicide if they crash into a telephone pole, but we usually revoke their license to drive.

Mark L.
 

Similar threads

NY man dead after accidentally shooting himself in the groin
2
Replies
34
Views
869
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
School Confiscation
Replies
28
Views
721
SpaceCritter
SpaceCritter
Springfield Armory goes old school
2
Replies
37
Views
885
cathouse01
cathouse01
Old school fighting
2
Replies
52
Views
956
jkelly1229
J
Man see’s demonic faces
Replies
5
Views
366
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Back
Top Bottom