Gunman Shoots Texas H.S. Football Coach
 

By LISA FALKENBERG, Associated Press Writer

CANTON, Texas - The father of a high school football player shot and wounded the team's coach with an assault rifle Thursday and fled in a pickup loaded with weapons, claiming to have a hit list, state officials said.



Schools in the district were locked down while police searched for the shooter, Jeffrey Doyle Robertson. His truck was found abandoned abut two hours after the shooting near a golf course outside Canton, and he was captured soon after, authorities said. No other details were available.


Gary Joe Kinne, who is also the Canton High School athletic director, was shot in the school's field house with an AK-47 rifle, according to the state's Homeland Security office. Kinne was airlifted to a hospital in nearby Tyler, but authorities were not releasing his condition. Police Chief Mike Echols said Kinne was shot in the chest.


Police were investigating a possible motive. Robertson had said he had a hit list, Homeland Security spokeswoman Sophie Yanez said.


Robertson had been banned from the Canton High School campus and told not to attend school functions, Echols said. Robertson had previous confrontations with some of the coaches, including Kinne, who took over the football program in 2003, authorities said. Kinne's son was the team's quarterback.


I know it has been said before but......was it really that serious? :confused:

God Bless Texas.

Shocking that he drove a pickup truck.

This reminds me of Steve Buscemi in Billy Madison.

Are AK-47's legal in Texas?

god bless cliches

There are certainly no crazies in Cali...

True... but I loathe California. I get the impression that you're actually proud to be a Texan.

They are legal once again, since the ban wasn't renewed last year. And there was a loophole anyways, that if you already owned one when the ban took effect, it was still considered legal to own.

Understood. We wouldn't be proud of being from California either.

It was legal to own and transfer them all along. I think the assault gun ban was widely misunderstood.

In any case, the fact that the weapon happened to be an AK-47 is probably not important to the story, but it does make for good media play.

I'm less concerned with AK-47's as it relates to this specific story and more generally curious as to why they would be legal to own in the first place - why does a citizen need an assault rifle?

Deer are on the juice.

Agreed. A good hunting rifle would actually be a lot more accurate, and potentially much more lethal.

It is not likely (possible, but not likely) that the AK-47 was fully automatic anyway. And there are much better semi-automatics available.

I've read scouting reports of that Kid having a rifle arm..


like father like son i suppose

1.) can YOU define an assault rifle? betcha can't without looking it up.
(no biggie though. "it just LOOKS evil" is close enough for most people, including congressmen)

[tired fofc topic]
2.) why would the people wish to surrender the ability to own an AK-47 if they so choose?
[/tired fofc topic]

Frankie,

I would say there is almost no chance the AK47 was automatic, unless it illegally modified.

It is fairly easy to own a fully automatic weapon. The population of legal "class 3" owners has a fairly decent crime rate (something like 1 homicide in 70 years). I bet this wasnt #2.

Now they are saying the weapon used was a .45 handgun. I wonder how they got that confused with an Kalishnakov?

perhaps in tha absence of facts they (not sure who they is) just went with what sounded good.

To keep the king of England out of your face.

Also, it is the coach's son who is the QB, not the shooter's son. But if the shooters son has as good an arm as you claim, I am sure some Texas HS would give him a tryout.

I think you mean QUEEN.

No, the founding fathers didn't have anything against Queen. In fact, I read that Ben Franklin actually worked as a roadie for Queen when he was supposed to be serving as the ambassador to France and he helped them write Bohemian Rhapsody.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to guns. My interpretation of an assualt rifle is a military combat weapon with rapid-fire capability and better accuracy than a machine-gun.


That's not the question I'm asking - the question I'm asking is why should "the people" have AK-47's in the first place?

I'm no fan of guns, but I can understand pistols for personal protection and for recreational target shooting, rifles for hunting or recreational target shooting, and shotguns for hunting or recreational skeet shooting. I fail to see why an AK-47 is necessary for personal protection, hunting or recreational shooting.

I guess I lack the love of guns but I'd ask the same thing.

Why would you want to own and AK-47? How about a bazooka, maybe a nuke just so I have one.

I would agree though it's a waste of time going through the minutia of defining assault weapons, automatic or whatever. Outside of missles, tanks and stuff what difference does it make what gun is legal/illegal. It's a gun. Either allow them or not.