world

Professor charged in fatal shooting on Alabama campus

50 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Again people kill people not guns, odd that multi-fatality shooters happen predominantly in the US. God bless the 2nd amendment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People with guns kill people, or themselves, or both. The 2nd Amendment is America's eternal curse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More accurately, the intentional misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the curse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The old adage that 'people kill not guns' is foolish semantic-quibbling garbage; people with guns kill people a lot - and civilians tend to do it a lot in the USA. When will they ever learn? I already know the answer: never. Why? Because guns are a desperate cockeyed passion, and they can't seem to grow up and grow out of it. Fences round campuses would help, as would security screening - it might create a lot of jobs too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns don't die, people do. BTW, Starbucks Coffee outlets in many US states now permit licensed handgun holders to openly carry guns into the shops. So when you say their frappucinos are to die for, you might be right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People kill fewer people when they don't have a gun to do it with. No one would trust their neighbor with a nuke, and no one would support his having one with a "people kill people, not nukes" argument. So why do they think it works for guns?

Spudman was being sarcastic by the way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More accurately, the intentional misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the curse.

How is it being misinterpreted?

You should check this link out: http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Jonswan, what do you propose then? Banning of guns? Well then you just end up with the same situation as drugs, its not controlled and violence and crime spikes around it.

Around 30k people are killed each year by guns, that also includes self defense and people killed by cops, guns are used in self defense an estimated 2 to 2.5 million times per year, so they save far more lives then they take.

If you take the 30k divided by the total number of legally owned firearm, 300 million, that means the death rate is 0.0001. That is not even a tenth of a 1/10th of 1%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what do you propose then? Banning of guns? Well then you just end up with the same situation as drugs, its not controlled and violence and crime spikes around it.

Errm... isn't that the situation now? Out-of-control people shooting indiscriminately in colleges, shopping malls and other public places?

people kill people

Maybe America should consider banning people, then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again people kill people not guns

Yeah that's what people say in Australia, New Zealand and Japan. That's why there sooooo many shootings in these countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving wrote- Around 30k people are killed each year by guns, that also includes self defense and people killed by cops, guns are used in self defense an estimated 2 to 2.5 million times per year, so they save far more lives then they take.

Source? And you are telling us that up to 2,500,000 incidents of people drawing guns to protect themselves, but less 30,000 people are killed by those protecting themselves?

You really should think before blindly accepting statistics. What that tells me is that a whole lot of people are drawing guns but not really justified in doing so.

And why would any think they need a gun to protect themselves anyway? The number one answer has got to be fear that the other person has a gun. Guns are so rare in Japan that I feel safe with a dull replica sword by my bed. Its a glorified heavy stick, but a stick would do also. And I can remember drawing it maybe five times to check sounds in the night, but probably did more than that. Only once did I feel I needed it after the fact. That was when I discovered a near naked man hiding behind the neighbors house. But he was not violent. My sword saved no lives, and neither did most of the incidents you cite where people drew guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strict gun control will be very necessary immediately but people don't like it. It will surely happens again and again and again,,,,,,,. well, unfortunately gun's country, isn't it? Dad has two guns, Mom has one, teen son has one, teen daughter has one. There is no wonder about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult,

"More accurately, the intentional misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the curse."

Here, here! I'll absolutely second that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo,

"Maybe America should consider banning people, then."

LOL! I think you may have hit on something here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are an estimated 200 million plus guns in the United States. So talk of banning guns is nonsensical as well as unconstitutional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter wrote: There are an estimated 200 million plus guns in the United States. So talk of banning guns is nonsensical as well as unconstitutional.

It would be nonsensical if the idea was to do it tomorrow. I don't think everyone is in that much of a hurry. I don't like the word ban, and I think some people say it reflexively, perhaps in reaction to the opposition's quick use of it. Actually I think most people would be happy with restrictions, such as strict licensing like here in Japan. People often say guns are banned in Japan, which is not true.

And gun restrictions are not unconstitutional. Who is going to argue that the certified insane have a right to own a gun? Or those with a violent criminal history?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are an estimated 200 million plus guns in the United States

Jesus! 200 million guns there! Surely understandable why Americans love war and why they want to put military bases all over the World. I have seen the video that whole bunch of ordinary (more than hundreds of) people have all kinds of automatic heavy guns/weapons and all get together at the rural place and shoot at the one target like hell. I thought at the time they really love shooting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

again and again and nothing changes. American laws are designed so that the government has opened a war against its own population until all people are exterminated and then only guns will remain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America has a gun culture. The constitution of the country gives every citizen the "right to bear arms". So why are we so shocked when there are so many cases of mass shootings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pro Gun and Anti gun bashers, shut UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was a disgruntled Faculty member who didnt get Tenure. She took out her frustrations on students.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how every time there's a shooting in the U.S. ( as if shootings never happen in any other countries ) some posters jump on "America's gun culture." Our psychos use guns, other psychos use knives, trucks, baseball bats, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could you please stop jumping on these cases to make gun debates? Guns are not the cause of these problems, but definitely a terrible symptom.

Let's all admit that having a gun makes it very easy to something horrible.

Let's also admit that someone snaps and that guns are just a tool used to kill people.

No point getting in an endless debate. Find the real cause of these problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“This town is unaccustomed to shootings and multiple deaths,” Garner said.

was

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moonbeams, you have a point, but its easiest to take a bridge by attacking both ends at the same time. America needs to become a less violent society, somehow, but cracking down on guns in the meantime can only help in the long run. Guns are not "just a tool". They are the ultimate tool for the average mass slayer. You cannot find or elimate all such people before they try to kill, but I promise they will do less damage with baseball bat. This woman would have been hard pressed to kill just one person with a bat, and that is why we talk of removing the gun from the equation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You take guns from good people only the outlaws will have guns. More people die from drug overdoses than guns. speeking of numbers. Auto are more dangerous than guns why not ban cars and trucks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

for those bashing gun owner ship, are you telling me that this lady wouldn't killed anyone? of course, most likely less but not zero. Go ahead and ban guns, and you'll still see them on the streets and we'll still still mass killing. didn't that Oklahoma guy use farm stuff to blow a building up?

There is another piece to this puzzle! We've had guns since the US foundation and only in the last 20years to do we see all these rampages. What was it about long ago that we are missing now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, Bombs are illegal but people who are crazy enough to want to kill people can still do as much if not more damage with that than a gun.

Personally I don't have a gun, nor do I plan on owning one. Yet I have seen criminals that legally aren't allowed to own a gun, have one. It doesn't matter what people want to say about gun laws in the US, it is the people that are the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Errm... isn't that the situation now? Out-of-control people shooting indiscriminately in colleges, shopping malls and other public places?

Isn't that the situation now with knives and matches and cars? Out of control people stabbing in houses, restaurants, malls. Arson attacks against places of worship, homes, businesses? I would disagree that isn't the situation considering Gun related incidents are down more then 80% since the 1990's in the USA.

Source? And you are telling us that up to 2,500,000 incidents of people drawing guns to protect themselves, but less 30,000 people are killed by those protecting themselves?

USA department of justice is the source. Pretty impressive isn't it. Yes that is what I'm telling you, not everyone that pulls a gun fires it, is that so hard to believe?

You really should think before blindly accepting statistics. What that tells me is that a whole lot of people are drawing guns but not really justified in doing so.

How are you coming to the conclusion they are not really justified? If they were not justified then it would be a crime considering in the US it is illegal all over the US to point a firearm at another person unless it is self-defense. You can't just go around in the US with a gun and then point it at someone, that is illegal. Since it is against the law I'm shocked you would think those people were not justified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't matter what people want to say about gun laws in the US, it is the people that are the problem." There you go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dearjohn you also didn't read what I said about 30k in my first post, the 30k includes everything, self defense from civilians, crime deaths, killed by police officers/law enforcement, etc. It is a grand total of all deaths by gun from all sources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strict gun control will be very necessary immediately but people don't like it.

Why would you need to further restrict something that has a fatality rate of .0001%? 10 times more people die from heart disease in the USA each year, don't you think the USA should instead restrict heart disease causing foods and drinks before further restricting guns?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HonestDictator wrote-Well, Bombs are illegal but people who are crazy enough to want to kill people can still do as much if not more damage with that than a gun.

So how many bombing incidents in the U.S. last year? How about the death toll? A Nigerian bloke tried to set off a bomb. He failed.

You realize you are not doing your argument any favors? You and skipthesong bringing up bombs only shows how banning bombs have reduced bombing incidents. And since they are so hard to obtain you have to make your own, shows us how well a gun ban could work. Thanks! But I expect you both will just turn the page in the NRA book of recommended responses in hopes to just keep this going in circles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving wrote- If they were not justified then it would be a crime considering in the US it is illegal all over the US to point a firearm at another person unless it is self-defense.

The stat you quoted says nothing about pointing guns at other people. If people pointed guns that often at other people but killed so few it would make even less sense. If people pointed guns at people that often but did not need to actually shoot them it shows that they acted very pre-emptively, so pre-emptively in fact that they did not need to point a gun at anybody. They were over-reacting. I doubt that is what happened. If that is actually how often people pointed guns at others, it does you case a disservice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America needs to become a less violent society

They have been, according to the FBI and the US department of justice violent crime rate has been falling for the past 2 to 3 decades. For example according to the FBI and US department of justice gun violence has dropped 80% since the early 90's.

I mean for example if you tally up all violent crimes and did it per 100k, the USA would be around 600 per 100k, the UK would be around 1500 per 100k.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those who wants to keep a gun at home, if really someday when you lost someone by gun who you loved the most in the world, don't say at the time we should have done something more about gun control years ago, because it would be too late for you at the time you noticed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The stat you quoted says nothing about pointing guns at other people.

That is pretty much a straw man argument considering in order to use a gun in self defense is to use point it at someone, to just draw the gun and then point it in the air or at the ground that would not be in self defense.

If people pointed guns that often at other people but killed so few it would make even less sense.

Yes it does, it depends on whether or not the person ever fired the gun, it also depends upon whether or not if the gun was fired if they made a hit on the person and also not everyone that is shot is killed, there are around 250k gun related incidence, guns being fired in the USA, only 30k of them result in death.

if people pointed guns at people that often but did not need to actually shoot them it shows that they acted very pre-emptively, so pre-emptively in fact that they did not need to point a gun at anybody. They were over-reacting.

According to USA law they were not, you have to remember that most states require people to take gun safety lessons so they know when to draw and when to fire. Under US law in order to prove self defense you pretty much have to prove the person or people you attacked where presenting an immediate threat of violence against you or they may have pretty much been trying to break into your property. They may draw their gun when someone threatens them with physical violence whether it be with a fist or a knife, if they draw a gun that could quickly get the other side to back down or even escalate.

Not necessarily it does my case a disservice, all it does is show that the victims of crimes are armed and willing to defend themselves. Here are examples for you:

http://www.mcsm.org/moreuse.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh bull crap dear john. I've experienced gun violence first hand. I'd prefer they never existed, from jump street. Until the mentality, not the guns, are fixed, I'm keeping one legally or illegally. And be damn sure I',m The US is not the only country that allows its citizens to have guns, yet we do seem to be only with people getting hyped and shooting up places. Why doest that not happen in the other countries? Noliving makes a good point, but you prefer to remain blind to that those facts. In fact completely disregard the point how many people OD on drugs, yet 90% on this board are in favor of legalizing them? Again, not everyone who buys a gun legally is set to kill someone and I've never shot anyone, however most who buy one illegally are either felt they need to or are set out to shoot someone. Come out of you white picketed fenced neighborhoods once in a while. I wouldn't drive through my mom's neighborhood with having something to scare someone with - that's equivalent to committing suicide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dearjohn I have an article you might want to read, it is call the Failed Experiment by Gary A Mauser. The article is all about gun control and how it relates to crime. The author is a professor at a Canadian institute.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/failed/FailedExperimentRev.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if you tally up all violent crimes and did it per 100k, the USA would be around 600 per 100k, the UK would be around 1500 per 100k.

From nationmaster -

murder - US 0.0428 per 1000, UK 0.01406 per 1000

rape - US 0.313 per 1000 UK 0.0142 per 1000

assault - US 7.569 per 1000 UK 7.459 per 1000

Overall homicide - US 9.1 per 100,000 UK not listed (lowest given is Singapore @0.945)

Moderator: All readers back on topic please. From here on, posts that do not focus on the Alabama shooting will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My niece lives in H'ville.. She IM'd me about this.

Seems the suspect is a Harvard neuroscientist who was denied tenure at UAH.

Another black mark for Harvard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII

Harvard has nothing to do with the shooting. You post nonsense sometimes, but at least you haven't attacked Obama on this thread - an historical occasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well nobody is going to say anything nice about her now.

From the article- “When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,’” said Tucker.

Maybe Tucker should have read the textbook? And paying attention in class goes without saying. I have shared classrooms with so many dunces who thought the whole class should be brought down to their level and nevermind the other students. And if those same students were actually filing complaints, I could see that driving someone over the edge. Not that it excuses murder, but its best not to poke at people needlessly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Crimsom Tide made a good call in not giving this Harvard educated nutjob tenure if she gets upset so easily.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dearjohn said:

It would be nonsensical if the idea was to do it tomorrow. I don't think everyone is in that much of a hurry. I don't like the word ban, and I think some people say it reflexively, perhaps in reaction to the opposition's quick use of it. Actually I think most people would be happy with restrictions, such as strict licensing like here in Japan. People often say guns are banned in Japan, which is not true.

I wish America would send the far right nut jobs in the Supreme Court a Dear John letter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vermont has a bill in the works requiring non-gun-owners to pay a yearly fee of $550 for not taking care of their own self-defense needs, and depending on the Police to do it for them. They are a burden on the public purse.

As a card-carrying NRA & CCW individual, I like that idea. Gun control is a steady hand!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

incidents like this would be much harder without a gun- i don't think it would have been quite as straightforward to, say, stab a room full of people- not without someone taking her down.

unfortunately gun's country, isn't it? Dad has two guns, Mom has one, teen son has one, teen daughter has one. There is no wonder about it.

a lot of people outside of the u.s.a. seem to have this opinion that everyone in the u.s. has guns and are all gun crazy. i don't know anyone like that, and neither me nor my loved ones have ever owned or used a gun. just f.y.i.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guys, don't worry about guns in the US. Its a non issue. The 2nd Amendment permits guns, and talking like this is never going to make them go away. There are too many gun owners, too many people who enjoy hunting, who love freedom. The politicians will never have enough votes to ban guns, and even if they did, the courts would overturn the laws as being unconstitutional.

Libertas, don't kid yourself. That bill if it passes, which is doubtful, will be overturned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LIBERTAS wrote-Vermont has a bill in the works requiring non-gun-owners to pay a yearly fee of $550 for not taking care of their own self-defense needs, and depending on the Police to do it for them. They are a burden on the public purse.

The logic just doesn't work though. In this case the police would have been called no matter what. Even if this prof pulled her gun and was promptly shot before she could kill anyone, which is best case but near impossible, the police still would have been called.

And suggesting random people on campus be armed? In many states that would be legal except the universities are not allowing it. It should not even be necessary to explain why and you have to wonder if people needing the explanation are just not being intentionally difficult. The reason is that instead of a few incidents a year with three dead, we would have dozens with one or two dead. And that is best case. You do the math. Worst case is that random people come with gun in hand and nobody knows who started the shooting. If you cannot figure this out you must have done poorly in math. Those who run universtities probably didn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Vermont has a bill in the works requiring non-gun-owners to pay a yearly fee of $550 for not taking care of their own self-defense needs, and depending on the Police to do it for them."

Then the fools pushing this bill would be utter idiots, essentially seeking to legalize double-taxation by making the unconstitutional demand that Vermont residents to pay twice, be it though some vague, unmentioned method of "self-defense" (e.g., "buy a gun").

"Protect and Serve" is a phrase generally associated with police departments all across the country. Since local taxes ostensibly already pay for the police to protect the public, what the hell else is their job if taxpayers have to pay and additional $550 per year for protection from criminal elements?

What baffles me even more is how such a law born of stupidity would in any way prevent what happened on the U. of Alabama campus. This fantasy world in which gun proponents imagine that arming everyone in sight will somehow lead to a drastic drop in crime is unsupportable. This woman would have shot everyone in that room regardless of whether they were armed or not. And if someone in the room had managed to un-holster a weapon and fire back, we would likely be reading about far more casualties as a result of panic-induced stray fire.

The thing that both saddens and amuses me is how many of these pseudo-macho gun-totting loons who make up the NRA actually believe in their “heart of hearts” that having a bunch of armed civilians roaming our streets, schools, and shopping malls will magically make things anything else but worse. That many people having that many guns in an uncontrolled environment would absol-frickin-lutely lead to a massive spike in deaths by gunshot -- an no, not just among criminals, but among innocent bystanders.

It isn’t rocket science: The amount of training necessary to be able to handle a firearm safely and effectively runs in the several hundreds of hours. Police departments and military branches devote vast amounts of time and resources to making sure their officers and soldiers can not only shoot straight, but also have the presence of mind to know when and where a firearm should and should not be used.

If we’re going to train non-police and non-military Americans, like day traders, kindergarten teachers, and coffee baristas, as well as all the gun-owning hunters, cop-show fanatics, and Marine boot-camp washouts who still dream of racing across the sand of Iraq screaming, “Semper Fi! Do or Die!” while they shoot up their pals with paint guns every weekend -- y’know, the folks who don’t know their asses from their elbows when it comes to gun safety, but have only managed to not blow their head or the head of a loved one off out of sheer stupid luck -- then we’re going to need an all-encompassing, comprehensive training program to help people become responsible and capable -- yes, CAPABLE firearm owners.

But wait? I suppose that would mean having a “well- regulated militia,” wouldn’t it? Oh, and we can’t have that now, can we? That would infringe on some imagined right for any old schmoe to run around with a gun. Idiots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am very surprised that JT does not mention what CNN had on this morning, the fact that this nut, Amy Bishop, also killed her OWN younger brother when she was 19 years old and that her gun was fired not once, but TWICE and that there seemed to be a huge cover up ever since that time in her life. She shoots her own younger brother twice?? So it is no MISTAKE and then the idiot nerd goes on to HARVARD??? Then she goes on to back water no where armpit Alabama?? What the hell were they thinking?? RIP dead folk down in Alabama state uni!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this nut, Amy Bishop, also killed her OWN younger brother when she was 19 years old and that her gun was fired not once, but TWICE and that there seemed to be a huge cover up ever since that time in her life.

Yeah, she was released the same day and police files vanished. She was also later suspected in a pipe-bomb incident. She must be very well connected, I hope they look into it.

And looking at the pictures of the victims, I wonder if racism had anything to do with her recent shooting.

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