Court papers: Man used assault rifle in road rage incident

Waynesville — A Haywood County man charged with attempted murder in a road rage incident in Clyde used an assault rifle to fire at four men in a truck, according to court papers filed Thursday.
Advertisement

Investigators found two, 30-round AR-15 rifle magazines loaded with .223-caliber ammunition when they searched a truck belonging to 47-year-old John Riley Fullwood of 100 Fullwood Lane, Clyde. http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090611/NEWS01/90611089

Border Patrol Agents Arrest Teenage Suspect, Seize AK-47
Otay Mesa, California - Yesterday morning, U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested a suspected robber on Otay Mountain. He allegedly used an assault rifle to rob a group of illegal aliens. http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5860&Itemid=2

Mobile Co. Deputy Shot In Hat
When the deputy gets back in his car, a single shot is fired by an SKS assault rifle. The bullet goes through the driver side door and into the hat that deputy Howard is wearing.http://www.wkrg.com/alabama/article/mobile-co.-deputy-shot-in-hat/98210/

if you have an issue with facts I suggest you take it up with the publishing papers.

Just because they printed it, doesn't make it a fact.

The AR-15 is NOT an Assault Rifle. The M16, it's select-fire military counterpart, IS an Assault Rifle. Period. End of story.
You can quote idiots all day long, it doesn't change anything. Garbage in-Garbage out.

Edit: And the damn SKS isn't an assault rifle OR an assault weapon by ANYONE's bar. Not even in California. It has a fixed 10 round internal magazine, and barring some rare, never legally imported brazilian copy, does not have select-fire capability.

I didn't write it, I highly suggest you take it up with the author.

Blatantly wrong misinformation. Why do you keep copying and pasting it?

I can't change the article and I'm still going to post the articles so good luck.

Since you seem so adament to post an article about firearms that has misinformation, and to continuely quote it as truth, then I assume that you'd do the same about one of those ridiculous articles about Obama not having an American birth certificate? Or do you just pick and choose which misinformation you like depending on if it furthers your cause?

exactly what is written, you should really discuss the article with it's authors.

doesn't make it smell any better.

2008 stats? Because this anecdotal crap is a total waste of time.

make you click the link?

Half of these articles are complete horseshit, and many get corrections later on. The preliminary article almost NEVER correctly identifies the weapon used.

a rifle? That's what my posts are about. I didn't write these articles and it would be wrong for me to change another authors work. I'll reiterate, take it up with the author.

because you disagree with the established FBI crime data from 2007 and prior, that indicates long rifles are used in around 3% of murders, correct?

I'm posting crimes with rifles just as members of the gun forum post "good shooting" stories. Did you not want to see stories about rifle crime?

Anecdotes from either side are useless in debating policy. The 'justifiable homicide' shooting stories are often full of holes as well.

would I find if I searched all of the "good shooting" threads and your name? Would you be as adamant in those threads as you are this one?

First I quibbled with them on the term 'righteous shoot' which is awful, the correct term is 'justifiable homicide' or 'excusable homicide' depending upon the language in the state laws at hand. Then I began opposing posting those stories at all, because, as I mentioned in my previous post, anecdotes are useless.

disdain for both type of posts is equal and on record here at DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=192906&mesg_id=192949
Opposing anecdotes used to SUPPORT concealed carry in national parks.
I am in favor of concealed carry in national parks, but I will not leverage apochryphal or anecdotal stories to get it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196730#196816
Objection to the term 'righteous shoot'. It's pure spin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=226253&mesg_id=226355
This one falls inbetween I guess.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=printer_friendly&forum=118&topic_id=179736
Again, attacking anecdotes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x188152#188266
Criticizing the lack of the use of 'alleged'.

There are probably more, the search feature sucks. I'm very specific about language. And I do not like anecdotal stories.

Edit: I see five individual stories about firearms used legally in self defense on the front page of this subforum. Easily outweighed by threads such as yours. Still, I'm happy to shit those threads up with 'your anecdote sucks' posts as well, if it makes you feel better.

you think my rifle posts outnumber the "good shooting" posts? You may want to recount

This fight has been lost. In the public's mind (and frankly, in mine, too), a civilian, semi-automatic version of a military assault rifle is still an assault rifle.

For most people now, the defining feature(s) of an assault rifle is not the ability for fully-automatic fire. Rather, it is rugged appearance, function, and ability to use high-capacity magazines.

When someone commits a crime with a civilian assault rifle, you aren't helping the situation by continuing to scream at the top of your lungs, "But it's not a real assault rifle!!!!". No one cares.

After "assault weapons" it will be higher powered "sniper" rifles, then high powered handguns, then standard capacity mags.
The antis will never stop until they are all gone or restricted beyond belief.

I have found the all rifles = 3% is more effective though.
It is simple and cuts through the BS.

The immediate reaction is "wait 3%. I thought these things were a menace".

Hold the line on "assault weapons" means the antis are too busy to take rights away elsewhere.

Nobody cares, and there's no going back to the original definition. The damage has been done; it's over.

Then you are responsible for the facts.

take it up with the author.

That certainly explains a lot of your posts.

and you're so passionate about it you should really take it up with the newspapers that ran the story.

information, you are responsible for it.

Your attitude here would fit right in at Fox News.

So can I misquote War and Peace in an essay? Fox News, that was a good one.

wrong subject

I know this is your area of expertise (journalism, not guns) but dayum man, do you have blinders on?

fyi.. 'assault rifle' = select fire (meaning full auto or semi)

AR-15 = select fire only, not an 'assault rifle'

SKS = select fire, no protruding pistol grip, collapsible stock, etc, so not even an 'assault weapon', much less 'assault rifle'

AK-47* - if this actually is an AK-47 and not a semi-automatic clone (the vertical handgrip up front looks suspiciously like one from a romanian clone) from mexico, it could be full auto, and indeed an assault rifle. Of course, since it didn't come from the US and certainly couldn't be bought in california like that, what's the point in including it?

his editor, neither are you. It would be wrong for me to change another's work. Once again my thrust is about rifle crimes, were these rifle crimes? Take up your debate with the actual author.

The FBI lies about such things, but the ATF doesn't, eh?

Here's the schedule of crime stats releases for 2008

January 2009 Release of the Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June, 2008.
May 2009 Release of preliminary statistics for law enforcement officers killed in 2008.
June 2009 Release of the Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2008.
September 2009 Release of Crime in the United States, 2008.
October 2009 Release of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2008, and Hate Crime Statistics, 2008.
December 2009 Release of the Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June, 2009.

The September report should have the 'by weapon' data- since someone actually has to read the police reports and derive the data (it's not a checkbox on a spreadsheet) I trust it a hell of a lot more than some gun-404 reporter in any random rag with a website.

personal attacks show how shallow you are. Keep on though, I'm not going anywhere.

And BillBuckhead.

An assault rifle is a specific type of rifle. One that is capable of full auto fire. The guns mentioned in the articles are not assault rifles.

many times in this thread, I didn't write the article.

I simply pointed out the factual error in the article itself.

I would take that up with the authors of the article.

If not, where is your evidence that the AR-15 is an assault rifle. If you agree that there is an error, you've probably have already written to the authors of the article.

I don't but even if I did is it my place to re-write someone elses work?

journalistic integrity - its like honesty you either have and use it, or you don't.

You were all about the facts.

me to rewrite someone elses article? That would be wrong.

By posting that article, you've changed the minds of all the people out there buying "assault weapons". Because of you, they are now going to turn in all of their legally bought evil black semi-automatic rifles so that they may be melted down. And best of all, they won't even care that they are now out thousands of dollars that they spent on their legally acquired property!!! WOO HOOO, YOU DID IT!!!!

This advances your thesis that rifles are responsible for way more than 3% of U.S. murders, how?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

And no, the 2008 data is not out yet, although the preliminary data show a 4.4 percent decrease in murder in 2008 compared to 2007.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_3.html

I was addressing rifle crime, nice try changing my argument though: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=227949&mesg_id=227949

See where it says rifle crime?

because the percentage of robberies and aggravated assaults involving any kind of firearm are considerably lower than the percentage of murders involving firearms. Because of their generally higher energies, and less common use in "low level" gun crimes compared to homicides, the murder stats are the worst-case numbers for rifles.

From the FBI:

Robbery, by State and Type of Weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_21.html

Aggravated Assault, by State and Type of Weapon
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_22.html

Only 21.4% of aggravated assaults in 2007 involved ANY type of firearm. And given that there were 729,733 aggravated assaults reported in 2007, even if you found anecdotes of 500 rifle assaults a month for 12 months (for 6000 such anecdotes), that would only be 0.8 percent of aggravated assaults.

For robbery, the numbers are 369,572 robberies reported, 42.8% involving firearms. If you managed to post 500 rifle anecdotes/month for a year, that would bring rifle involvement to 1.6 percent of robberies.

I won't even get into the numbers for rape. Firearms aren't involved in most rapes, and when they are, they are almost never rifles or shotguns, for obvious reasons. (Hint, even the shortest rifles are 2.5 to 3 feet long and are wielded two-handed.)

Like I said, murder is the WORST case for rifle crime, at 3% of total homicides. Rifles don't even crack a percent in other types of violent crime, due to their lack of portability and concealability compared to handguns. Like Pete Shields (no friend of gun owners) said, "rifles and shotguns aren't the problem."

Now, you could possibly argue (as the Brady Campaign likes to) that rifles in the closets and gun safes of people arrested for tax and securities fraud or writing bad checks are "linked to crime" and pad your stats that way---after all, probably 25-30% of U.S. households own rifles, so it's easy to include lots of rifle traces---but that is specious for obvious reasons. The fact is, rifles are involved in so small a percentage of U.S. violent crimes (in any category) as to be barely visible on a pie chart.

mean that handguns are used in so many crimes that the other weapons don't even scratch the surface?

He finally gets it!

*whew*

you or I? You finally admit that handgun violence is a problem in America?

If you wanted to talk about handguns, then you really shouldn't start out with the premise that the FBI is being dishonest and the media is 'getting it right' in regards to rifle use in crime.

Of course, that would be a bass ackwards way to approach that issue, but I momentarily forgot who started this topic.

you didn't answer, are handguns used in so many crimes that it makes rifle crime insignificant? You afraid to answer?

Rifles used in crime are insignificant compared to handgun use. Nobody's claimed anything different. That's been the point we've been trying to make all along that you've been disputing by posting stories that are 75% fact and 25% hyperbole ('SKS Assault Rifle', etc.)

Rifles don't just rank well behind handguns; they rank well behind EVERYTHING except shotguns (which they usually tie for last place).

Just sayin....

...to handgun violence as long as your solution doesn't infringe on the Heller decision that says owning a handgun is an individual civil right.

No, handgun violence is not a problem in America.

Drug and gang-related violence is a problem in America.

but the U.S. aggregate violent crime rate is not that high in per capita terms, and is down fifty or sixty percent from the 1980's; it dropped another 4.4 percent last year. And like I mentioned in the other thread, the last time fewer police officers were shot and killed than in 2008 was in 1956.

FWIW, the reason the gun-control lobby focused on modern-looking rifles at all beginning in the late 1980's was that they were seen as vulnerable, and hence a good way to build momentum for an eventual ban on handguns. It wasn't because they were involved in any significant percentage of crimes, but because of what focusing on those rifles could do for handgun bans.

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

In retrospect, of course, Sugarmann had it backwards; far from building momentum, the "assault weapon" meme almost singlehandedly destroyed the U.S. gun-control lobby.

that's funny.

I recommend it too but not for the greatest page.

Michael "Brady" Harris's selective reading not withstanding.

3% of homicides involve a rifle..... 97% don't.
2% of violent crimes invovle a rifle .... 98% dont.

The stat hasn't changed much in the last 20 years or so.

Criminals carry/use handguns for the same reason Police do.

stats on handguns and violent crime? If you like the stats on rifles you're gonna love the handgun stat.

Handguns were used in 8% of nonfatal violent crimes overall, and 32% of nonfatal violent crimes involving a weapon. Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

The percentage of nonfatal violent crimes in which a firearm was used was 10%.
The percentage of nonfatal violent crimes in which a weapon other than a firearm was used was 16%.
The percentage of nonfatal violent crimes in which no weapon was used was 66%.

table 1 and tell me what you see, you quote 10%, the table shows 27% alone for robbery, weird huh?

... and you'll notice that the rate of assaults was 7.6 times as high as the rate of robberies. And since firearms were used in 8% of assaults, the average for all nonfatal violent crimes winds up coser to that than to the percentage of robberies involving firearms.

You do understand how percentages work, don't you? You do understand that the equation is not: "27% of robberies + 8% of assaults + 3% of rapes/sexual assaults = 38% of violent crime committed using firearms," don't you? But why else would you say "27% alone for robbery," thereby implying that the overall percentage should be higher?

But hey, don't trust me: the numbers I cited are in the unnumbered table at the top right of the same page.

10% in another post?

I'm sure all three would have obeyed gun laws about as well as they obeyed the other laws they routinely broke.

David

the Mexican huh Dave.

And the AK if it was an actual 47, was likely gotten through Mexico, where it was smuggled in from a country NOT the US, or was once purchased by the military.

The foregrip looks Romanian, the buttstock appears to have been removed entirely. Even money whether this was an "assault weapon" acquired via the US civilian market or an honest-to-Dog Pistol Mitralieră model 1963/1965 smuggled into Mexico from elsewhere.

set on full auto. Meaning, this would appear to be an AK of military origin, unless the safety is just wedged half-on against the charging handle (which inexplicably is back).

You would need a higher resolution photo to be able to tell for sure, though.

I blew up the image, tried to de-pixellate it a bit.. no joy.

If only things really worked like they do on CSI, NCIS, and such :)

Why is that, Michael?

other than actual news events

:shrug:

Or, put another way, what is your point of your OP?