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

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.

looks like my odds of killing someone go down if I drive buzzed
 
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!

If you've never accidently popped off a follow up shot I bet Eddie has some .460 or .500 loads you could shoot to find out what it's like. It's not uncommon to have a second shot go off if you weren't ready for the first on a gun with decent recoil.
 
Whatever would mark056 do in states where .gov can't arbitrarily take your guns away?

I knew there was a good reason I put that douche on ignore a long time ago.
 
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.

Really dude? For stumping yourself as some intellectual with a gun you picked the poorest example in history.

I guessed i missed the part in the constitution stating my right to drive shall not be infringed.
 
I would say revoke his license (for some period of time perhaps), give him a fine, and make him go through the whole licensing process again (including re-taking the NRA gun safety course, he obviously wasn't paying attention the first time). This would not be dissimilar from a car accident due to negligence or DUI.

I find it very strange that there are much more lenient penalties for negligence with vehicles, something that many more people have and causes many more death/injuries and is always cited as being a "privilege not a right", than negligence with guns, which are a constitutional right not just a privilege.
 
Smells fishy to me. Perfect timing for the upcoming hearing next week.

Guy with AK unleashes 2 rounds at a school, vote on more restrictions for "assault weapons" next week? Hmmm. [hmmm]

[thinking]

Seriously? Why did the guy have a magazine in the rifle? He had to have one in to fire more than 1 round correct?

Bull sh!t.
 
Really dude? For stumping yourself as some intellectual with a gun you picked the poorest example in history.

I guessed i missed the part in the constitution stating my right to drive shall not be infringed.

It's interesting, I have always maintained that driving is a privilege not a right. Others in this forum frequently cite the 10th Amendment in support of driving as a right. BTW I make no pretense of stumping as some kind of intellectual with a gun...that's your opinion not mine, and my name is Mark not Dude. [wink]

Mark L.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting, I have always maintained that driving is a privilege not a right. Others in this forum frequently cite the 10th Amendment in support of driving as a right. BTW I make no pretense of stumping as some kind of intellectual with a gun...that's your opinion not mine, and my name is Mark not Dude.

Do you have some kind of problem with me?

Mark L.
When they aren't talking about firearms the SJC is keen to call everything a right. I don't recall the exact text, but the SJC has ruled that driving should be considered as a "right" WRT to removal your ability to do it and as such subject to due process. Gee guys, gals and other on the SJC, I guess we only protect the rights we choose so if I get my people on the SJC its ok to attack the rights we don't like?

Sounds fun... [thinking]
 
I would say revoke his license (for some period of time perhaps), give him a fine, and make him go through the whole licensing process again (including re-taking the NRA gun safety course, he obviously wasn't paying attention the first time). This would not be dissimilar from a car accident due to negligence or DUI.

I find it very strange that there are much more lenient penalties for negligence with vehicles, something that many more people have and causes many more death/injuries and is always cited as being a "privilege not a right", than negligence with guns, which are a constitutional right not just a privilege.
Wow.

Holy shit.

Guys like you would crap your pants if you knew that people in most of the country can't have their guns taken away on the whim of some douche cop, even after launching a round into the air.
 
Could this possibly been a case of an SKS slam-fire? Its still a bonehead move (ala not makieing sure the rifle is clear, treating as loaded anyway, and safe muzzle direction)... But that would make ALOT more sense to me... Guy gets home, goes into the basement to clean the rifle, racks the bolt carrier ("huh, why isn't this locked back?? I swear its empty!)... gun ejects a fresh round, bolt rides forward and slam-fires the last two rounds in the mag.

And its not like a trust a reporter to know the differance between an sks and ak.... I've met gun owners that don't know the differance between a bubba sks and an ak for crying out loud.
 
Others in this forum frequently cite the 10th Amendment in support of driving as a right.

I don't have a ready source for saying driving is a privilege, but I KNOW I have heard/seen it at drivers ed courses, defensive driving courses, and around at DMV/RMV in both NY and MA. They usually say something along the lines "You can very well get your license revoked: driving is a privilege not a right, so don't drive like an irresponsible idiot".

How does the 10th amendment support that driving is a right? I know that, as it was intended, just because something was not enumerated as a right doesn't mean it is not a right. I'm pretty sure it is also said somewhere that as a citizen of the US you have the right to move freely between the states, and of course vehicles would be the best choice for that. If I recall correctly in either the Heller Vs DC or McDonald vs Chicago they said something along the lines of you have the right to bear arms and to self defense, and of course handguns are one of the best choices for that, ergo you have the right to own handguns.
 
Well, this turned into one hell of a Charlie Foxtrot. The guy screwed up. It was a stupid, stupid screw up but nobody got hurt. Let him fix the window and move on. Jesus.
 
(just don't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre)

and if did...........Made a mistake yelled fire and there was no fire, in a theater full of kids at a Disney movie and no one was hurt. Should I be banned for ever from seeing a movie with my children and be denied my first amendment right because I broke the "social contract".......Ridiculous right.

Don't get me wrong, 2 rounds into a school that guy failed miserably at being responsible.
 
Last edited:
I still say this is a set up by the libtards in this state to promote their agenda. It reeks to high Heaven.

I find it hard to believe that someone smart enough to negotiate MA laws, get an LTC and own a MA compliant AK, would be so stupid to discharge 2 rounds at a school.
 
Lively discourse!
Don't think cleaning a gun is inherently reckless. Though is this case, the operator was perhaps less than completely careful about process.
Pretty confident DUI is inherently reckless, so in that context, I don't subscribe to the thought of "drive DUI all you waNt as long as you dont hurt someone"
Public ridicule and embarrassment should be enough for the AD into a school. In the event life was impacted or lost however, I'd have no problem with the severest punishment that could be thought up. Personal accountability and all.
 
It's another "out yourself thread".... Apparently we are ruled by those who think the Constitution is a tool to beat an unruly child and some in the citizenry seem dandy with this....

It's a libtard tactic to make "assault weapons" seem evil. It will be used next week I'm sure. I'll bet money on it.
 
I really don't see how accidental damage to property not your own with a gun is any different than doing it with a car, circ saw, remote control helicopter, or anything else. Stuff happens.

Someone should smack this guy upside the head, call him an idiot, then send him a bill in the mail for the repairs. And maybe put the recovered projectiles in a shadowbox to hang on his wall or something.
 
I really don't see how accidental damage to property not your own with a gun is any different than doing it with a car, circ saw, remote control helicopter, or anything else. Stuff happens.

Someone should smack this guy upside the head, call him an idiot, then send him a bill in the mail for the repairs. And maybe put the recovered projectiles in a shadowbox to hang on his wall or something.

Are you still stuck on those? [laugh]
 
If you've never accidently popped off a follow up shot I bet Eddie has some .460 or .500 loads you could shoot to find out what it's like. It's not uncommon to have a second shot go off if you weren't ready for the first on a gun with decent recoil.

With a typical AK variant the only ways 2 rounds are going off is if the gun was select fire, had a modified trigger assembly, or in a rare case it had a dirty ass bolt and he had mag loaded with soft primered ammo resulting in a slam fire.

Without knowing for sure what the guy was doing its hard to figure out. We'll probably wind up knowing more about what really happened with Osama and the Navy Seals than we will with this guy.
 
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.

[rofl] Are you serious?

Find me a pedal stomper that got their license revoked without injuring someone. You can't. Hitting inanimate objects with your car is not exactly a high crime. Maybe if they crashed their car enough times they -might- get a suspension. The only time the stompers stop driving is when their kids convince them its time to quit or they kill somebody.

-Mike
 
Really dude? For stumping yourself as some intellectual with a gun you picked the poorest example in history.

I guessed i missed the part in the constitution stating my right to drive shall not be infringed.

It's my fault for derailing the thread with that, but the reason I bring it up is an important one.

Driving is not a right, but yet it is, sadly, in practical terms, protected FAR better than gun ownership is. Violent Felons can drive cars, amongst other things. I also don't remember the last time I had to fill out a 4473 or get a "May Issue" license to own a car that was revocable on non statutory grounds. They also don't take your car away if someone files a 209A against you. I can put equipment/accessories on my car that the state doesn't like and at worse I'll probably only get a civil infraction. Put the wrong part on a gun or use the wrong magazine and you (potentially) could get a felony rap. [thinking]

That, to me, qualifies as a "f-ed up set of priorities".


-Mike
 
Last edited:
In the similar manner that Japanese pilots used the last resort of crashing into ships and suicide bombers blow themselves up, do you suppose some antigun nuts might be so dedicated
that they deliberately commit a well timed crime to force things their way?
 
Back
Top Bottom