world

Gunman kills 13, then himself at New York immigrant help center

79 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

79 Comments
Login to comment

BLAM BLAM BLAM...Welcome to America...BLAM BLAM BLAM!!

Your first american lesson is that you have the right to own GUNS SEE??...BLAM BLAM BLAM!!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I think I heard that he was an immigrant working toward his citizenship, also. This is unbelieveable. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ABC has just called this horror a "signature American crime." And so it is. Indeed the unfortunate immigrants got a hands-on lesson in the Second Amendment. Fourteen people could be said to have been Second Amendmented to death.

Really and truly, the Second Amendment has got to be amended so that, at least, automatic military-style weapons are unavailable to the general populace. I suspect it won't until an armed madman goes into an NRA convention and blows away a few dozen people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Excuse me, there ought to be strict control of handguns too, making them either difficult or impossible to obtain. How many more of these horrors does the US need before something is done about the proliferation of arms in that country. Yes, I know about Japan and knives. Just imagine the situation if the maniacs also had access to guns as they do in the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this wouldn't have happened if all those immigrants were carrying guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Police did not mention a motive. Rep Maurice Hinchey, whose district includes Binghamton, said the gunman had recently been let go from IBM in nearby Johnson City.

Immigrants, particularly those from high achieving groups, are much more vulnerable to mental illness than commonly recognized. When the chips are down, they don't have a lot to fall back on. And the perception in places like Vietnam is, "You're in America, you got it made."

For years I had a boat person refugee hairdresser who grew up in Saigon. She told me on more than one occasion, "I can't go back. Everyone in my father's village is going to expect me to help them out. They don't understand the cost of living here and however much I give, it won't be as much as someone else got from his overseas relatives."

If you're not contributing to the remittance economy, you can't show your face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bamboohat - hope that was intended as a joke

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To those who think that the people could have defended themselves: they were sitting a test - presumably at desks with no quick access to their belongings....would have made no difference at all if they owned firearms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mz-

not intended as a joke, just an observation. Nobody would walk into a room full of armed people and open fire. You can either level the playing field by making it impossible to get gets, or make sure that everybody has got one. the end result would be the same. There'd be less incidents like this, which I agree are horrible and shouldn't happen. different paths to the same outcome.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sorry but I disagree with you bamboohat. Even if they owned arms they wouldn't be sitting at their desks with their fingers on triggers would they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bamboohat,

This would still happen. The guy was a nut, and nuts don't think straight. So this would still happen. However, the body count might be less. I say might because that assumes the test takers kill the gunman after he kills only a few and that ends it. But there is a VERY good chance that that won't end it, as, in the confusion, many do not know who the original gunman was and they start shooting eachother. Plus, security personnel who burst into the room certainly will have no idea. The gunman won't be wearing a yellow armband saying "gunman" you know.

But even worse than that is all the other incidents such a situation would cause. If so many were so armed we would have incidents like this even more, all the while taking the chance of a lesser and occasionally even greater body count. Certainly the grand total of deaths would be much much higher for all such incidents, even if most resulted in fewer deaths.

This is certainly not the first time I have said all this. Others have said it as well. And it is unbelievable that some people still don't get it. Yes, I know that in communities where most everyone has a gun in their house, crime rates are low. But having a gun in your house and a gun on your hip out in the world are two COMPLETELY different situations. People are not as stable as houses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Likeitis - very well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

these slaughters happen at locations where the perpetrator knows there are no guns on the premises; schools, college campuses, nursing homes, workplaces etc. I've yet to see it happen in locations where armed security is present or the targets might be able to shoot back.

the call to strip law abiding Americans the right to protect themselves is just fascists being fascists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: I've yet to see it happen in locations where armed security is present or the targets might be able to shoot back.

Crazy people don't always think straight, but that is not to say they are stupid. Of course they choose the softer target. Now, I might be able to agree that such pre-meditated incidents would happen less, but you have got to see that the scenario of sudden gunfights breaking out is going to go off the fracking charts, with all the problems that happen when people do not know who is who but so many draw a weapon.

the call to strip law abiding Americans the right to protect themselves is just fascists being fascists.

I know a lot of women who I guess are now fascists. Here I thought they were just employing common sense and logic in ways that so many men, lost in their wet-dreams of violent confrontation, cannot. Please open your eyes to reality, and leave your gun dreams on your PlayStation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is America today & you can all give your excuses as to why this happens but in no country in the World does this happen so often. We don’t even get this sort of killing happening in countries where it is normal for people to carry automatic weapons (many of the Arab countries). This is psycho America, face it, “gods” own country is has far more psychos with guns wanting to kill, excuses aren’t going to change that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please open your eyes to reality, and leave your gun dreams on your PlayStation.

The reality is that American society contains predators and the government cannot guarantee any of its citizens safety whether guns are permitted in society or not.

The government is incapable of enforcing laws already on the books, what makes you think anyone is going to be any safer if they deny citizens the ability to protect themselves?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The constitution of the U.S guarantees the right of individuals the right to carry firearms no matter how much everybody rants and raves. The constitution can be ammended but to totally strike the 2nd amendment would nullify the entire document and is therefore cannot be done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've yet to see it happen in locations where armed security is present or the targets might be able to shoot back.

That requires money, and I bet this center was scraping by even in good times. As for the students, to their credit they were trying to learn English which requires concentration. If they have to ready to open fire in the event an armed nutcase appears on the scene, in this case someone who was licensed to carry firearms, their progress is probably going to be quite slow.

I resolved to give up reading letters to the editor after the Oakland police killing. "The NRA is responsible," "No, it's liberals who think criminals should be paroled." No wonder we have lost the ability to solve problems in this country; too many are focused on pointing fingers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "These slaughters happen at locations where the perpetrator knows there are no guns on the premises; schools, college campuses, nursing homes, workplaces etc. I've yet to see it happen in locations where armed security is present or the targets might be able to shoot back. The call to strip law abiding Americans the right to protect themselves is just fascists being fascists."

I love how you precede the last line of your post by listing off the half a dozen places (plus etc.) that you know of where gun massacres have happened of late. Yeah, nice 'defense', VOR.

Anyway, the weekly gun massacre is in, and expect nothing less from the likes of VOR to come on AGAIN and defend how necessary guns were for this man to commit his task.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: The reality is that American society contains predators and the government cannot guarantee any of its citizens safety whether guns are permitted in society or not.

This is true. But if and when guns are better controlled and their numbers severely reduced, then we won't need guns to defend ourselves so often, will we?

And just so you don't get confused, I am NOT talking about taking away a citizen's right to defend themselves. Defend all you want. I just want to set up a situation where you don't have to defend yourself from a gun the overwhelming majority of the time.

The root of the problem is not that the defenders don't have guns. The root of the problem is that the attackers do. And no other weapon is quite like the gun. Its quick. Its easy. It kills at a distance. It takes little skill and training. And you cannot outrun it and you basically cannot block, outrun or dodge the bullets. No one should ever have to worry so much about defending themselves from such a weapon, because it is darn near impossible to do so.

The government is incapable of enforcing laws already on the books

The laws suck. This is why I want to get the NRA people involved in making them. Such as it is they just block and water down the ideas to the point that they are not very effective at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton: We don’t even get this sort of killing happening in countries where it is normal for people to carry automatic weapons (many of the Arab countries).

Uh, that would depend on what you mean by "sort" of killing. They might not be attacking such soft targets so much, but there is no shortage of killing. I do not want to live in such a state of civil unrest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the aftermath of the Oakland shooting the one letter in my local newspaper which posed questions, rather than blaming someone else, was written by a 13-year old. Sometimes children have a clearer perspective:

The Second Amendment states that we have the right to bear arms, but how much is too much? When our founding fathers created the Constitution did they envision a country where criminals could possess assault weapons?

...How is this right, where the public can own, and use, weapons that are larger and more powerful than those of our protection?...I think the government must ban assault weapons. At a minimum, the weapon arsenal used by officers should be superior to those available to criminals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is true. But if and when guns are better controlled and their numbers severely reduced, then we won't need guns to defend ourselves so often, will we?

The most violent cities in America are the ones with the strictist gun control laws. How do you explain that?

I know you are well intentioned but taking away law abiding citizens' ability to protect themselves only puts them in more danger. Can you guarantee my safety? If not, please do not attempt to deny me my right to protect myself and my loved ones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most violent cities in America are the ones with the strictist gun control laws. How do you explain that?

Those cities implemented gun control laws in response to higher crime rates. Guess what? In NYC four out of five guns used in the commission of a crime were purchased south of the Mason-Dixon Line where laws are laxer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonderful stuff (not). Only in America (and parts of downtown Bagdhad). This is a tragedy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "The most violent cities in America are the ones with the strictist gun control laws. How do you explain that?"

One easy way to explain at least part of the numbers is two-fold:

1) Laws have been established and controls tightened in areas that have high gun crime rates, not vice-versa. Don't put the cart before the horse. 2) Secondly because there are stricter laws, if people don't follow even the simple laws like registration (thinking it's their "Gawd-given right to bear arms without registering them" or some crap like that) they are technically committing a crime, and the rate goes up. Now, if someone tries to take away their gun or take THEM in for failing to register, they whip out their guns in 'defense'.

Sorry, bud, but you just can't explain away the absolute lack of logic in regards to current gun laws, and the current weekly (or sometimes three in one week!) gun massacres by saying "you're defending yourself".

I just pray you don't have to find out the hard way how foolish your logic is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the call to strip law abiding Americans the right to protect themselves is just fascists being fascists

the fascists bit is lame, but yr so called rights will continue to translate into many thousands of deaths each & every year in the "good ole" USA, man can you imagine the carnage if most everyone was packing heat, scary scary stuff

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those cities implemented gun control laws in response to higher crime rates. Guess what? In NYC four out of five guns used in the commission of a crime were purchased south of the Mason-Dixon Line where laws are laxer.

so the criminals drive south and purchase their guns legally? are you really sure about that or are you just repeating something you do not have all the facts?

federal gun laws are the same nationwide, some states impose stricter requirements. tell me more how new yorker with criminal records are able to legally purchase guns outside new york?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

so the criminals drive south and purchase their guns legally? are you really sure about that or are you just repeating something you do not have all the facts?

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC, publicized this in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings which were perpetrated by someone in lawful possession of firearms despite having been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. The Binghamton shooter was also in lawful possession of firearms.

Can you guarantee my safety?

Nope, and neither will owning a gun. Maybe in the afterworld there are guarantees, but not in this life. However, if you are going to accuse people of being responsible for any mishap that might happen to you in the event laws were tightened, then you have to accept they have the right to blame you for defending the status quo when something happens to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"government is incapable of enforcing laws already on the books, what makes you think anyone is going to be any safer if they deny citizens the ability to protect themselves?"

It wouldn't have made any difference in this case!! Even if everyone carried guns - would they be sitting taking an exam with their guns on their laps? No! That argument (as in so many other cases) just doesn't apply.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nope, and neither will owning a gun. Maybe in the afterworld there are guarantees, but not in this life.

If you cannot guarantee my safety then you have no business denying my right to protect my family.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The government is incapable of enforcing laws already on the books, what makes you think anyone is going to be any safer if they deny citizens the ability to protect themselves

Protection then becomes your overriding concern. How were these students supposed to both learn a foreign language and be ready to fire in the event a nutcase with an assault weapon came through the door?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"...denying my right to protect my family."

Protect from what? You're the only people in the developed world who make such comments. Totally frightened, emotionally insecure people who turn to GOD and the GUN to save yourselves. Amazing!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Protection then becomes your overriding concern. How were these students supposed to both learn a foreign language and be ready to fire in the event a nutcase with an assault weapon came through the door?

I'm not advocating everybody carry a weapon. Its a personal choice. If you don't feel the need to own a weapon, don't. Just don't attempt to deny millions of law abiding citizens the right to do so unless you can guarantee their safety.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you cannot guarantee my safety then you have no business denying my right to protect my family." Best statement yet.

Does anyone know if he obtained this gun legally? If he didn't, it kind of makes the conversation of banning gun ownership moot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm not advocating everybody carry a weapon. Its a personal choice. If you don't feel the need to own a weapon, don't. Just don't attempt to deny millions of law abiding citizens the right to do so unless you can guarantee their safety.

I had a negihbor who used all the arguments you have used about protecting his family in defense of firearm ownership. Guess what? His wife was the victim of an armed robbery in their driveway. He was inside watching TV and wasn't even aware of what was going on. Perhaps his gun lulled her into a false sense of security. If I had made a large bank withdrawal, as she had, I would have been on the alert for someone following me and driven home via the police station if there had been any doubt. Common sense is your best defense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know a guy who was confronted by two individuals who intended to rob him. When he pulled his weapon they ran away. Since they no longer posed any danger to him he left it at that. His gun prevented himself from being robbed or killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can we all get to the root of today's article? Its not about gun control, its about some white supremacist who decided to kill a few immigrants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"..white supremacist who decided to kill a few immigrants."

Actually the perpetrator was asian...an asian supremacist....

"Jiverly Voong, also known as Linh Phat Voong"

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

skip, what made you think the guy was a white supremacist?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you cannot guarantee my safety then you have no business denying my right to protect my family." Best statement yet.

Having a gun is no guarantee either.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having a gun is no guarantee either.

No one said it was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having a gun is no guarantee either." No, you're right, but it just being pulled out worked for me on two occasions. That is better than what the government has done so far.

skip, what made you think the guy was a white supremacist?" It is usually the case. Sorry if I offended anyone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No one said it was."

But you wrote anyone advocating resrtricting gun ownership had to guarantee the safety of those who now rely on personal firearms to do the job while conceding guns themselves offer no such guarantee. Time to cut to the chase here: you lack a consistent argument to support your position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"..white supremacist who decided to kill a few immigrants." Actually the perpetrator was asian...an asian supremacist....

Ethnicity is far less important than the fact he was in lawful possession of the firearms he used to kill 14 people (including himself).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

I disagree. I can say with no doubt, had this guy been a white supremacist, the discussion would be much different and I am confident you know that and you know you would be posting much differently. Considering the ethnicity of the victims, maybe the guy had something against those types of people.

Also, I don't see where it says he got these guns legally. Not to fail to mention, he also had a hunting knife too..

I am also very sure that many of those victims, considering where they hail from, probably welcome the idea of getting their hands on weapons legally. Its not like they hail from Liberal Utopias.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When did this become a debate about gun control, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My sympathy goes out to the victims. RIP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But you wrote anyone advocating resrtricting gun ownership had to guarantee the safety of those who now rely on personal firearms to do the job while conceding guns themselves offer no such guarantee.

You got it. If you can't guarantee people's safety, you can not deny them their ability to defend themselves. There is nothing inconsistent about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know a guy who was confronted by two individuals who intended to rob him. When he pulled his weapon they ran away. Since they no longer posed any danger to him he left it at that. His gun prevented himself from being robbed or killed.

VOR: So what you've proven is that simply the sight of something that looks like a gun would work; or in other words, a real gun is not needed. A toy gun would do just as fine.

This still doesn't answer why there are so many incidents of accidental deaths or injuries by guns, and the fact that this number continues to rise. In fact, the number of children under the age of 12 who have died by an accidental usage of a gun, has shown the greatest increase over the past decade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timesup: You put me in my place. Again, I am sorry. I did jump to a conclusion!

VOR: I am on you side on this. Hear this: let them ban the guns. Let it happen. I'll still carry one just like someone would carry a hunting knife, which is banned or someone driving a supped up car, which is illegal and kills. Hell, I'm even going to start smoking which kills more than guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another week, another gun massacre in the States.

Soon, massacres like this just won't even make the news.

Oh, and welcome to America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "If you can't guarantee people's safety, you can not deny them their ability to defend themselves. There is nothing inconsistent about that."

Actually, there is: giving someone a gun guarantees they are in a certain element of danger. Are you not aware how many deaths there are in the US in a year based on accidents? And most are in the homes/outside of the homes of 'careful' and law-abiding citizens. Sorry, bud, but a gun on anyone's person or in anyone's home ups the danger to themselves by hundreds-fold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR: "If you cannot guarantee my safety then you have no business denying my right to protect my family."

Again, your family is in more danger of accidental death by those guns than they are of a criminal (armed) breaking in, and even then they're statistically in more danger of shooting themselves than of hitting the criminal, or of having the criminal turn the gun on them. So, your beloved family is in more DANGER, my friend, by you being so stubborn about your 'gawd-given rights'. I really hope you don't have to learn the hard way, like so many other parents who say things like, "I was SURE I locked the gun rack!", or, "I heard a noise in my closet... I never dreamed it would be my daughter!", or "Why! or why, God, why?!?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "VOR: I am on you side on this. Hear this: let them ban the guns. Let it happen. I'll still carry one just like someone would carry a hunting knife, which is banned or someone driving a supped up car, which is illegal and kills. Hell, I'm even going to start smoking which kills more than guns."

You're being ludicrous. But if you want to be a gun-toting criminal, too, go ahead. As you are so quick to say every time on of these posts come up, and we feel for you, "If only my dad had a gun when he was attacked by a criminal", well skip, I'm sorry, but you would be a gun carrying criminal, too. I don't think that's what anyone wants, and if tougher regulation goes into play you should follow it, not act childish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow wow wow, when will the madness of the NRA end? No one in their right mind can defend this. This was complete and ultra destruction of life by someone who was carrying a gun. This was no drive by in LA this was some nut killing off anyone he could.

When will this madness end? What will it take?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish everyone in the building had a hand gun and took out this guy as soon as he started shooting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another tragedy involving guns in the US. Will it ever end? To the pro-gun people: Which society would you feel safer living in: One where EVERYBODY walks around with a loaded gun? or one where there are little to no guns at all?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

techall: "I wish everyone in the building had a hand gun and took out this guy as soon as he started shooting."

Until no one knew who the killer was and everyone starts shooting each other. You have 30 or more dead before you know it, and the police start shooting everyone with a gun, too, which is everyone (if it works the way you want). Nope... more guns would equal more slaughter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One where EVERYBODY walks around with a loaded gun? or one where there are little to no guns at all?"

This answers a bit ot smitty too. First of all, you are not going to get rid of guns by putting a ban on them. Get rid of criminal gangs (like what they are doing in Oz with the biker gangs), that would reduce the gun crime dramatically and its number one category of victims and one that most concerns me. Far greater is the number of gang killings than one lone gunman or the few accicidental discharges in home of legal gun owners. You guys still fail to see that it is not a person buying a gun legally that is the problem, but crime itself and you are sitting back and not once complaining about it. Instead you gripe about sentences being too harsh, or putting your energy into removing capital punishment instead of removing the problem that leads up to peole buying guns or handing out capital punishment.

If you got rid of crime, or dramatically reduced it where I could feel safe enough to drive around with a gun in places most of you would never go into in the first place, then by all means do and I'll gladly get rid of my guns and knives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "Get rid of criminal gangs (like what they are doing in Oz with the biker gangs), that would reduce the gun crime dramatically and its number one category of victims and one that most concerns me."

Sounds good to me. So why isn't anyone doing anything about that kind of thing?

"Far greater is the number of gang killings than one lone gunman or the few accicidental discharges in home of legal gun owners."

Two wrongs don't make a right, and it would be nice to hear none of the 'few accidental discharges' (in the hundreds if not thousands, actually, skip). Work on the criminals as well, of course, but that doesn't mean you wait for them to go away first before working on other means of thousands upon thousands of deaths.

"You guys still fail to see that it is not a person buying a gun legally that is the problem, but crime itself and you are sitting back and not once complaining about it."

Actually, skip, what YOU fail to see is that until this man walked into the Immigration Office and brandished the weapon with the intent to fire it he was not a criminal. Most gun deaths in the US are committed by 'lawful citizens' until the act is committed, and then of COURSE they are criminals, so the whole 'in the hands of lawful citizens guns are a good thing' is simply moronic! And to say guns aren't a problem in crime is equally as moronic. Yes, if criminals drive around with a bunch of ninja stars instead of guns, tossing them out at people while they drive by, they can still do some damage and maybe even kill someone, but you're seriously saying there is NO difference if a gun or guns are involved, particularly assault rifles?!?

"Instead you gripe about sentences being too harsh, or putting your energy into removing capital punishment instead of removing the problem that leads up to peole buying guns or handing out capital punishment."

Show me where I gripe about sentences being harsh. I disagree with capital punishment, yes, but harsh sentences aside from that, no. The problem that 'leads people to buying guns' and what not is simply lack of intelligence, and ease of access to said weapons; nothing more. If they're harder to get, they're harder for criminals to get.

"If you got rid of crime, or dramatically reduced it where I could feel safe enough to drive around with a gun in places most of you would never go into in the first place, then by all means do and I'll gladly get rid of my guns and knives."

You're really a broken record these days, skip. No one is saying 'get rid of guns OR get rid of crimes'. No one is suggesting that criminals should lawfully be allowed weapons but 'law-abiding citizens' should not. I don't know a single person who doesn't want the crime rate to go down, but that does not mean you stop giving people the means to murder many more than you could otherwise with ease of access!!! And as I said, most people who commit 'crimes' with guns, as with this guy, are not criminals until the act itself! As such you argue against your own point and admit the guy should not have had such easy access to weapons.

You don't even see the contradictions in your arguments!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most gun deaths in the US are committed by 'lawful citizens' until the act is committed, and then of COURSE they are criminals" NO, not if they got a gun illegally.

If they're harder to get, they're harder for criminals to get." Nope there. In almost eery country I've been too, I have always come across the types who can get anything, including guns and including your country.

First of all, I said it a hundred times, I am all for getting rid of the things, even if it means crushing them to scrap metal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "Nope there. In almost eery country I've been too, I have always come across the types who can get anything, including guns and including your country."

Wrong again. In some States you can buy the guns at gun fairs quite easily, without background checks. In other states where it's stricter, they are easier to come by IN THAT STATE. That's fact. What's also a fact is that the NRA push constantly to EASE regulations on obtaining weapons. There may be 'those people' in any country, true, but they're not in the neighbourhood Flea Market with a big tent like in the US. har! And don't compare guns in Canada and the US -- once simple look at crime statistics related to guns in the two countries ought to quickly shut up any critic against gun laws.

"NO, not if they got a gun illegally."

Maybe so, but there are still MANY who have gotten them legally.

Here are a few quotations from the story:

"Noting mass killings in Alabama and Oakland, Calif., last month, he said: “When are we going to be able to curb the kind of violence that is so fraught and so rapid that we can’t even keep track of the incidents?”

"A gunman killed 10 people and himself in Samson, Ala; shootings that began with a traffic stop in Oakland, Calif, left four police officers and the gunman dead; an apparent murder-suicide in Santa Clara, Calif, left six dead; and a gunman went on a rampage at a nursing home Sunday, killing seven elderly residents and a nurse who cared for them."

All too easy to pull these up... all too easy. I'm happy you are for taking the guns away, but perhaps you could make a better case for it one day, and start by getting rid of yours.

Or perhaps what they should do in the US is simply forget about increasing gun regulation and just make it illegal to ask "why" when the next massacre happens next week (or later on this week).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which society would you feel safer living in: One where EVERYBODY walks around with a loaded gun? or one where there are little to no guns at all?

One in which everyone had a loaded gun, because I would realize how foolish it would be for foreign states to attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was chatting to an aquaintance last week [lives in Georgia, U.S.) about how I thought the States would likely be the 'best' country to be living in if climate change hits the fan and global food and water supplies continue drying up.

He quickly replied "I don't think you would. If any fights or riots break out to secure food in the States, most people would be packing guns and it would turn into a turkey shoot."

U.S. guns laws led to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wong is chinese surname but Voong is NOT a vietnamese surname. Who is this man? It is so disturbing that there are frequent incidents like this one these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

McCracken: "One in which everyone had a loaded gun, because I would realize how foolish it would be for foreign states to attack."

Not at all. You just get one foreigner to show up and pull out a gun and the entire country would finish itself for the enemy. For the past 8 year the US was ruled by fear, and it still seems to grip the general populace (nearly as much as the Japanese). Add to this mix everyone having a loaded gun I guarantee you would see at least 2 million gun deaths a year, probably more. Sounds like a ridiculous number, I know, but so does your current actual death rate involving guns to anyone with a brain, and not everyone has a loaded gun.

What's more, no one would ever want to visit the US, and rightly so. Any tourism based business would collapse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You just get one foreigner to show up and pull out a gun and the entire country would finish itself for the enemy.

That's illogical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems that the shooter is no different than suicide bombers elsewhere. Willing to die for an agenda that involves murdering others. I am beginning to suspect that the mental process that a shooter goes through to justify his actions is similar to a suicide bomber.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The arms industry in USA is the most powerful. Most of the areas where violence is unabated is fuelled by it. Your guns are going to kill you one day! The urgent need is to rein in the production of arms and their free supply from taxpayers' money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the fact that this nutter got a gun, legally or not, is just a symptom of the problem. If a gun was completely impossible, then he might not have done, it, but the hate and rage would have remained. That is the bigger issue.

There is much anger in America. Taking away guns won't do anything to pacify this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bamboohat - "There is much anger in America. Taking away guns won't do anything to pacify this."

Of course it will. If you take away the guns, then people won't be able to use..um...guns to blow other people away like this guy did.

It's not rocket science.

Or is it????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi: "Of course it will. If you take away the guns, then people won't be able to use..um...guns to blow other people away like this guy did."

Well, they could still use ninja stars and toaster ovens to kill people, now couldn't they! So it's not guns!! :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

similar to a suicide bomber

There is a sickness in the human heart that causes suicide in any culture. Culturally accepted suicide victims are just as dead in Japan without a gun or a shot fired. A gun is an inanimate object, a tool for good or evil. Guns don't "cause crime" anymore than a cow causes hamburger. If the Vietnamese immigrant used a gasoline bomb to kill everyone, this conversation would be way different. The same old simple knee jerk reaction to blame guns and not the Godless culture of drugs and violence that kids grow up in today will of course solve everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

30061015: Agreed. Guns are inanimate objects, so why not get rid of them altogether?

That was a rhetorical question. While I can't think of anyone who would disagree they are inanimate objects, so would all agree that a paperback book is an inanimate object. How much damage do you think he would have done going into the same place and swinging the book around or throwing it at someone. Or let's say a gas bomb... how many people do you know have gas bombs in their home or fight for their right to carry gas bombs under the Second Amendment.

Again, we can agree that they are different inanimate objects, and we can likewise agree that different inanimate objects serve different purposes. Assault and hand guns serve no other purpose than to shoot other people, and you can stand a lot further away, shoot a lot more people, and kill many many more than you can with a book. You can deflect a book, you can fight back against a person who wields a book against you. Hell, you can even debate them on the merits of the content; you cannot do the same (save for the latter, possibly) with a gun or the bullets fired.

Time for those who hide behind the 'guns don't kill people' logic to realize no one questions who the criminal is, but people with a brains in their heads know that someone with a gun can do FAR more damage and create far more carnage than simply with other inanimate objects. And again, if you want to counter with with 'gas bombs' or the like, remember that they are not the things people carry on them (in some states or illegally in others), go to shows to buy, sell at gun shops, buy for their kids, etc. People who defend guns don't defend gas bombs, so stop being childish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you take away the guns....

Sushi, there are nearly 200 million guns in America. And you want to confiscate them from law-abiding citizens who have registered them legally? Best start living in the real world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I haven't been reading the posts....but has anyone changed anyone's mind yet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "I haven't been reading the posts....but has anyone changed anyone's mind yet?"

Nope... and no one ever really will through this kind of debate. The only time someone changes their mind is either just before they're shot by some nut, or when they get the news a loved one was killed, or worst of all if they accidentally shoot a loved one, and then suddenly the need to own guns becomes 'questionable'.

As for here, though... nope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With the economic collapse we've obviously entered an era of unbridled frustration because sadly this story is already old news. Other than the father in Washington who shot and killed his five kids, there's this story which is so appropriate to the usual shooting spree comments: "A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest and 'lying in wait' opened fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call Saturday, killing three of them and turning a quiet Pittsburgh street into a battlefield, police said." Apparently he was upset about losing his job and, according to his best friend, he didn't like "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

There are guns, there are women and smallish men who in theory should pack the guns if protection is the main issue, and then there are guys who just love guns and equate them with their manhood and identity but always hide behind the self defense argument for greater moral justification lest they appear paranoid, uncivil, unsophisticated, reactionary, self indulgent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites