world

14-year-old boy kills father before opening fire at South Carolina school

25 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

Guns don't kill people.

14-year olds with guns do.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

And in Bucks County PA today, a father was arraigned in court. His 2 year old son fatally shot himself while playing with a handgun lying on a bedroom table. The house had several loose guns about and the table had much ammunition on it. The boy was described as already knowing how to do a two hand hold of a gun and liked to play with toy guns. Could he tell the difference? Responsible gun owners abhor parents with unsafe homes as this one yet we too often hear from gun owners whose agenda is to attack the media or those who urge reasonable gun control.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

God bless the second amendment!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

How many more lives will have to be sacrificed until they finally truly understand that the right to bear firearms, which was written hundreds years ago, is no longer legitimate nor fit at this time of age.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The solution is more guns, if only the father was armed he could have pre-emptively taken out the 14-year old. Otherwise they could have armed the 6-year old who is in surgery and fighting for his life

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Stay in Japan & bury your head in the sand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's three so far this week, with stress on the SO FAR. Good old USA! People who like guns should all line up in circles in fields and have at it with each other. Let the rest of us live in peace -- the intelligent people who know guns are only for killing and serve no other purpose. Why should we die for the beliefs of gun-nutters?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@ Masae Shimoda

The second amendment says 'arms' not 'firearms'

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Could have meant muskets, cudgels, pitchforks...

Why do some people interpret this to mean semi automatic weapons and powerful handguns?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"Why do some people interpret this to mean semi automatic weapons and powerful handguns?"

Because they like semi-automatic weapons and powerful handguns. Assault weapons really get the juices flowing.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

.......... Both the shooter and all victims were white. Really? So what are they now?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We will never change. Get used to it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Don't forget this isn't only about guns.it's wht's inside that kid's head, and why he chose that weapon over anything else. By the way, the kid have a mother?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"We will never change. Get used to it."

You're probably right. Tbh I don't think the rest of the civilised world cares that much. After all these years we are very much 'used to it' anyway and american kids killing their classmates, mum, brother, sister, etc with dad's firearm has become the norm even in our world.

I think many of us are no longer surprised you guys are fine with that too and it's sort of 'the price to pay' for real freedom I.e your right to keep and bear arms. Weird but fair enough, your country your rules.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So guns aren't secured in a metal box with a lock or combination device? Just put where disgruntled kids can get at them and unleash hell... great.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Peter Payne: "We will never change. Get used to it."

You sound pretty proud of that fact in the face of yet ANOTHER mass shooting this week. Only in the US would someone be. And no one expects you to change. Americans are too dumb when it comes to guns, which is why I said it would be nice if the nutters all lined up and just shot it out -- leave the smart people in peace.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@smith

I'm sure Peter can speak for himself, but I can't be completely alone in detecting just a smidgen of sarcasm in his post.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yeah, I don't know why I am so obsessed with the US Gun Laws! I don't live there, and there are plenty of places in the world where people are suffering. And yes, I have bashed their stupid gun laws, in chats, and have watched them ignore all the statistics contrary to "A Couple of Good Guys With Guns would have...." But the more the rest of the world mocks them the more they seem to dig in and enjoy the Ole West mentality!!! Still I feel bad for the kids who get shot!! I love kids!!! Their parents probably suffer more!!! They should get together and raise one heck of a STINK!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want free access to guns in your society, then you have to accept this sort of thing happening regularly. It's your choice. We accept the risk of accident and death as a result of car accidents for the benefit that cars bring to our mobility. If you're happy to accept these sorts of things as the down-side for the benefits that having guns freely available in society brings, then that's fair enough. Guns for hunting and stuff like that can be handled in a more controlled and safe manner. So far, the only argument I've heard for the existing free access to guns is "the 2nd amendment" and "freedom", which usually translates to "we need to protect ourselves from the government and from other people with guns". Really. Well, if you think all the deaths are worth it, then you have to live with that decision. Good luck with that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But the more the rest of the world mocks them the more they seem to dig in and enjoy the Ole West mentality!!!

We don't enjoy it any more than you do. We're being locked into an 18th century paragraph that has only a peripheral connection to 21st century "arms" - that connection actually BEING the word "arms".

(Background) When we were British colony, the British and "Loyalist" colonists tried to de-fang the upstart "Patriot" colonists by controlling the possession of arms in the colonies. This was in violation of even Britain's laws which guaranteed the right to own and bear arms for self protection. Consequently, the framers of the Constitution wanted something in there guaranteeing that the new government couldn't try doing the same thing to its citizens. Keep in mind that back then the term "bearing arms" meant only muzzle-loading muskets and pistols, and bladed or spiked weapons. Cannons were around, but were not a type of "arms" that could be borne by an individual citizen. Additionally, each of the newly formed states was expected to provide militias as needed by the new nation (there was no formal national army as the Continental Army disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War.) These militias consisted of civilians bringing their weapons from home along with whatever else they could carry. Thus we have the second amendment (it wasn't important enough to be written into the original Constitution) to the U.S. Constitution. The ORIGINAL wording of the right to bear arms (proposed by James Madison) was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This was debated and modified until it resembled something like:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

As you can see here, the meaning of "militia" was as I described above. But the Senate in additional deliberations decided the clause defining "militia" was not necessary along with the conscientious objector clause and the following resulted:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well the House of Representatives had to get their little tweak into the Amendment and added "necessary to", resulting in the actual amendment as ratified:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This Article served perfectly well for the century it was enacted in... The states needed militias and therefore the people needed the arms to participate in the militias. Anyone who became deranged and start shooting people would get only one or two shots off before someone would take them down due to the slow reload time of "arms" back then. But then the government created a permanent standing army and the need for state militias waned. Indeed, at some point those civilian state militias morphed into the current state National Guard units. In both the case of the standing army and the National Guard, the government supplies the arms, not the individual. This effectively renders a major component of the Second Amendment null and void, but any attempts to bring the second amendment into the 21st Century are being stifled by a special interest group with a lot of political power. They are perfectly happy with a second amendment that is ambiguous at best, and irrelevant to modern times at worst.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The 2nd Amendment ensures an 'individual right to possess a firearm" -- at least so said the Supreme Court all the way back in ye 'ol days of, now get this, 2008,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ouch -- the founding fathers got a lot of things right, but they got one thing HORRIBLY, TRAGICALLY W R O N G.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Fadamor

Thanks. Nice post.

This was in violation of even Britain's laws which guaranteed the right to own and bear arms for self protection.

As long as you weren't a Catholic. (English Bill of rights, 1689)

In the USA, the right to bear arms part seems to get pushed above the militia part. Switzerland seems an interesting contrast where there is a duty to possess arms for some, but big restrictions on the circumstances in how you can use them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the USA, the right to bear arms part seems to get pushed above the militia part.

That's because in 2008 the Supreme Court declared in District of Columbia v. Heller that:

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In short, the clause about "militia" was just one example of need and did not limit the intent of the amendment in any way. Once the Supreme Court ruled thusly, the NRA practically had an orgy in the lobby of their multi-million dollar Fairfax, VA headquarters.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

America has lost the plot!!

Shooting after shootings and mass dead "but" no new laws.

I remeber a 13 year old girl using an mac 11 at a firing range, and the gun kicked back killing the trainer guy.

What on earth is a 13 year old doing using a gun or all these people doing having guns?

Second amendment was made for the wild wild west.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

well his life is over don't drop the soap in the shower to the scum bag

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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