world

6 dead in eastern Kentucky shooting after egg dispute

40 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

If it wasn't a shotgun, he would have killed all five and himself with a pointy stick...or a banana. So don't go thinking removing the shotgun would have helped save lives. :P

Another day another "domestic situation". RIP victims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it wasn't a shotgun, he would have killed all five and himself with a pointy stick...or a banana. So don't go thinking removing the shotgun would have helped save lives. :P Another day another "domestic situation". RIP victims.

Or he would have killed all 5 and himself with a chainsaw or a an axe or with his vehicle etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The truth of the matter is that he was intent on killing those people meaning it wouldn't have mattered if he didn't have a gun, he was going to kill those people anyway possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So let's accept this highly dubious idea that having a country awash with firearms doesn't make it easier for people to kill people.

That means you need to address the far scarier idea that you've got a country full of people apparently intent on killing no matter what obstacles are placed in their way.

So what's being done about that?

Seems bloomin' obvious to me that if you have people intent on killing you don't place lethal weapons of multiple destruction in their hands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a long term expat the word futility, for me, is now defined by the amusing hopelessness of non-Americans fussing about our 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The thing is, the people intent on killing will use any weapon available. But it is the handgun that keeps these animals at bay. Firearms are equalizers. They take the advantage away from the physically stronger. And to be honest, considering the millions of firearms available in the USA, there are relatively few shootings outside of the black and Latino communities.

And when you look past the human animals, you have to understand that large predators such as cougars, wild boar and bear (and face eating chimps) are returning to human habitats. And they do attack humans. Maybe you can reason with a cougar that has chosen to attack you in your backyard in Northern California. Better option is to shoot it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It isn't the people, it isn't the weapons, - it's the eggs.

A man facing eviction over his hostile temper became enraged by how his wife cooked his eggs and killed her, his stepdaughter and three neighbors with a shotgun before shooting himself on Saturday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/11/spat-began-ky-rampage-killed-6/?page=1

The thing is, this apparently wasn't a man 'intent on killing'. It was a man who for no coherent reason (his eggs weren't cooked right) lost it, picked up the first thing that came to hand and went on a rampage. He wasn't facing a cougar, a wild boar, a bear or a face-eating chimp. He was facing his wife, family and neighbours.

He was on the point of being evicted on account of his uncontrollable temper. And a man like that was allowed to own a firearm?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/11/spat-began-ky-rampage-killed-6/?page=1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That means you need to address the far scarier idea that you've got a country full of people apparently intent on killing no matter what obstacles are placed in their way.

Yeah...what’s your point?

So what's being done about that?

Nothing, killer is dead. The worlds still jacked up, nothing we can do about it.

Seems bloomin' obvious to me that if you have people intent on killing you don't place lethal weapons of multiple destruction in their hands.

Or we legalize human bloodsport, give them an outlet.

And a man like that was allowed to own a firearm?

No law against being a sour, bitter, horrible person. I know a lot of people like that, but this guy crossed a line that ought not be crossed and killed somebody.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From the Washington times -

he was known to have a violent history

He was unpredictable

Don't they check on stuff like that before they issue firearms licenses?

He chased his wife around that Jeep shooting at her

He was upset about his eggs. If he'd picked up his knife and fork instead of a gun, he may still have hurt his wife, but there's much less chance that he would actually kill her - not to mention his neighbours.

"I have to admit, a little grin came across my face when I saw his brains go flying," Smith said. "He's been trouble ever since he's been here. He's always been trouble."

I wonder how much trouble it was for him to get his hands on a lethal weapon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If he'd picked up his knife and fork instead of a gun, he may still have hurt his wife, but there's much less chance that he would actually kill her

Don't know. a few guys with boxcutters killed some pilots a few years back then flew the passengers into some buildings. You just never know what he'd have used.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Best thing he did in his entire life, was blowing his head off. World is a better place today for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't know. a few guys with boxcutters killed some pilots a few years back then flew the passengers into some buildings. You just never know what he'd have used.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't realise the trailer park was flying in the sky at the time the egg man lost it.

No doubt he would have used a boxcutter, a 747, a missile, a bomb, an IED, if one had been to hand. If nothing had been to hand he may have slapped her around a bit, maybe even tried to strangle her. As it happened what was to hand was a shotgun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, too bad he didn't shoot himself first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"far scarier idea that you've got a country full of people apparently intent on killing no matter what "

Cleo. It seems that you really did hit on it. A long time ago, I worked in a restaurant, and I will tell you that people do get nutty about their eggs. I have seen people lose it over eggs. The proper thing to do is let people continue to have access to weapons, but ban eggs, or at least mandate that they only be cooked one way. That way, we can make sure that people do not take the law into their own hands.

Americans are finding out that they cannot live with each other. The country is imploding. This guy did not pick any person of ethnicity, or a government official to shoot at. He had no statement to make. He just decided to kill a bunch of people who happened to be near him.

It is terrible to watch. Today it's eggs. Tomorrow, somebody will get French toast instead of waffles, and the body count will be in the dozens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hurray, guns rule the day again. It is bullets and shot that kill, remove the bullets or shot, he would have got no one with a gun only set up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo- Before you poke fun about the amount of weapons available to the public. Here is a fun statistic- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html . Yes the USA has more gun availability to the public then any other country but the USA is also still one of the safest. Regardless if it is a gun, missile, ice cream, or even eggs. Your start doing the math your going to find a bad one. You apply a ratio per capita and the number starts to grow. Does that mean you eliminate the guns or eggs? No. It isn't logical.

RIP to those who have lost their lives.

Moderator: Readers, comparisons to crime rates in other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Regardless if it is a gun, missile, ice cream, or even eggs. Your start doing the math your going to find a bad one. You apply a ratio per capita and the number starts to grow.

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

From the link you give it seems that the only countries with a worse per capita gun homicide record are South Africa, Columbia, Estonia, Brazil, Mexico and Northern Ireland (during the IRA troubles). Non-gun homicide figures in most other countries (with a few notable exceptions) are lower than in the US. So where do you get this idea that the US is 'one of the safest'?

It looks to me like the US needs to 1) instigate a nation-wide anger-management programme, and 2) keep lethal weapons out of the hands of the people who flunk the anger management.

Moderator: Readers, no further references or comparisons with crime rates in other countries please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: As a long term expat the word futility, for me, is now defined by the amusing hopelessness of non-Americans fussing about our 2nd Amendment and gun ownership, etc.

Well said. Once you step back from all the rhetoric, what you see is an argument that just goes around and around in circles, so there's no point in going there.

My only contribution to this debate is to repeat something my mother used to say: "I'd rather be running from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun." Facts: This guy just snapped - no way of telling who will or when they will. In his anger, he grabbed the nearest thing handy - a shotgun. Result - six people dead. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that as no-one who already disagrees with what you're going to say is even slightly going to change their mind based on what you say. It's all been said before.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badmojo: Bad reasoning more like, you wouldn't have got six adults with an unloaded gun. Anyway, whatever, keep the guns and bullets together and keep culling the elements who do the killing and one day they'll be only non-gun totting Americans left. A happy, safer place then will the US be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for the guy I am confused was he a trooper or someone on Disability? Sad story and I feel for all the people that had to deal with him over the years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those calling the US a "gun crazed" country, obivously if you read the article you will see this person had a history of being an abusive person. I am sure that his family knew of it but they all thought that he would never go this far. My guess is he probably has and this time he went over the edge.

But, the real issue here is not guns but as I mentioned the mental stability of the shooter. I see this as no different, than the articles we see here on JT on a weekly basis of a mother killing her kids (stabbing) and trying to kill herself, or many of the other stabbings, drowings, abandonment cases we read about. I am sure that if those same people had the opportunity to have a hand gun they would have used it.

So getting rid of guns will not do it. People will have a tendency to kill each other with whatever is at hand. As far as people saying that there were other adults, do we know the conditions of these adults? Was this man a very large and strong man who could take on everyone? We don't know from this article, so to say that they should have overpowered him is not being logical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The apologists for the murderous gun-totters are an apology themselves. Stop defending the indefensible; or keep on shooting. Just don't try and reason away this idiocy and waste, it will not fly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The apologists for the murderous gun-totters are an apology themselves. Stop defending the indefensible; or keep on shooting. Just don't try and reason away this idiocy and waste, it will not fly.

No one is defending the nut, just the right of ordinary citizens to have guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving said: Or he would have killed all 5 and himself with a chainsaw or a an axe or with his vehicle etc.

Either you watch too many movies or you read too many comic books. Whose fault is it if they cannot outrun the first two, or hear the chainsaw coming? And no, there is no way he could have gone after these specific 5 with a vehicle.

The truth of the matter is that he was intent on killing those people meaning it wouldn't have mattered if he didn't have a gun, he was going to kill those people anyway possible.

Wrong. He was going to try. The shotgun made it far more likely he would succeed.

Molenir said: No one is defending the nut, just the right of ordinary citizens to have guns.

Defending a right made in the age of muskets. I wonder if you ever considered it was intended for swords and muskets, and not semi-autos and pump action shotguns? Our Founding Fathers agreed on that right at a MUCH different time. Time to wake up to 2010. 1791 is on long over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First of all my thoughts are with the innocent victims and families in this awful tragedy, however sadly we will see a very high rise in cases like this as the world becomes a smaller place and we all begin to be intorreble of each other, poverty rises, the rich get richer, crime becomes the norm..so hearing about a madman going on a shooting rampage is no surprise anymore.......rest in peace eternal father

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This 'nut' was an 'ordinary citizen' until the system within which he lives allowed him access to that which should be restricted. Anyway, whatever, keep killing yourselves, just not us. QED...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For those calling the US a "gun crazed" country, obivously if you read the article you will see this person had a history of being an abusive person

Therefore it was absolutely crazy to let this man own a gun.

And innocent people paid with their lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"For those calling the US a "gun crazed" country, obivously if you read the article you will see this person had a history of being an abusive person. I am sure that his family knew of it but they all thought that he would never go this far."

Are you blaming the victims for not being afraid enough to keep themselves from getting killed? Is that how gun-crazy the US is?

Alpha, isn't this rather a non-sequitur? Could we read it like this? The US IS a gun crazed nation BECAUSE this person had a history of being an abusive person AND his family knew about it BUT did nothing or could do nothing to keep from dying.

"So getting rid of guns will not do it."

You know, I wonder if America will ever even try. If tens of thousands of people a year dead is not going to do it, then nothing will. Here it is 9/11 and the US has spent, all told, about a trillion dollars to stop terruh and evildoers, and multiples of the 9/11 dead are killed each year by guns. Nice to see that Americans have their priorities straight, as always. Just think of the economic cost. Forget the fact that kids are being snuffed out disproportionately, or that it is the innocents being killed. A whole family just wanted to start another day and some guy flips out over his eggs.

Oh what the heck. It's eastern Kentucky. That's almost West Va. so who cares, right? Well, it was Florida a few days ago, and next week it will be Des Moines and Bakersfield. It is going to get worse. Somebody in a diner will get some buckshot pancakes soon enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, it was Florida a few days ago, and next week it will be Des Moines and Bakersfield. It is going to get worse. Somebody in a diner will get some buckshot pancakes soon enough.

I can just imagine the questions that onlookers will ask:

A: Muslims? B: No, just some nutcase who went over the edge. A: Oh, thank goodness!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i bet every waitress across the nation is shaking in their shoes as they take breakfast orders this morning!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Within one month's time, and probably less, we'll all be back in here listening to 2nd Amendments supporters explaining why the next mass slaughter in the USA is nothing to be concerned about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A shooting in the USA always brings out the non-Americans to come here and condemn a country that is not even theirs. Then they say that the 2nd Amendment is written on an outdated constitution slamming the Americans again for having such an outdated piece of paper. Then when it suits them that piece of paper is not outdated and they slam the Americans again for pouncing on someone's "constitutional rights". You just can't please everyone America. In your defense I can say look at the ratio of killing sprees to legal guns owned. You can't get past it with a population that big. And of course guns kill people but in the outraged's own country there are stories of mass murderers who do the same. Even Canada has had killing sprees and guns there are restricted. I stand by it's people who kill people. Guns are only a tool. Maybe there should be just a restriction on what kind of guns can be available in the USA not an all out ban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In your defense I can say look at the ratio of killing sprees to legal guns owned

LOL!!! Ratio of killing sprees... Now, there's a comforting statistic.

Only in America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez said: Maybe there should be just a restriction on what kind of guns can be available in the USA not an all out ban.

You act like a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment. Yet you speak of guns and not arms. Are you aware the definition of arms includes nuclear missles, helicopter gunships and biological weapons?

And what about that little militia part the Founding Fathers put in there?

In fact, I am a stronger defender of the 2nd Amendment than you. I would like see more militias with more powerful weapons (but only conventional). The catch is that those weapons would be locked up on a base and not in people's closets. Indeed 1791 is over, so changes have to be made, but they can be made in accordance with the 2nd amendment still. Non-Americans like you think its just about the right of ordinary people to own guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, I wonder if America will ever even try. If tens of thousands of people a year dead is not going to do it, then nothing will.

I agree. Of course I also think that America should allow its citizens to have guns. So, take that as you like. As others have pointed out. There are killing sprees in other countries, where such weapons are not allowed. In Mexico for example, guns aren't supposed to be in common use, yet they are. In fact, if more people owned guns in Mexico, gun violence would mostly be restricted to the nuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If tens of thousands of people a year dead is not going to do it, then nothing will. Here it is 9/11 and the US has spent, all told, about a trillion dollars to stop terruh and evildoers, and multiples of the 9/11 dead are killed each year by guns. Nice to see that Americans have their priorities straight, as always.

Fantastic point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the guy was clearly mentally unstable..if hes going to have a breakdown and kill people hes going to use a weapon of some sorts..if not a gun,then it would be something else.if he stabbed a lot of people,would you be asking for a knife amnesty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Non-Americans like you think its just about the right of ordinary people to own guns."

I think MikeHuntez knows more than the people here pretending to be Americans...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Either you watch too many movies or you read too many comic books. Whose fault is it if they cannot outrun the first two, or hear the chainsaw coming? And no, there is no way he could have gone after these specific 5 with a vehicle.

The murderers fault....

Wrong. He was going to try. The shotgun made it far more likely he would succeed.

Ya that is kind of my point, he was going to try and until he was successful, the fact that he pursued them after they ran away from him into another building, no matter how far away it was., would indicate that he was going to kill them, there was intent. Any weapon would have made it far more likely he would succeed.

Don't they check on stuff like that before they issue firearms licenses?

That is dependent upon state laws, some do some don't.

He was upset about his eggs. If he'd picked up his knife and fork instead of a gun, he may still have hurt his wife, but there's much less chance that he would actually kill her - not to mention his neighbours.

Depends upon how much he wanted her dead, if they want you dead no matter what the weapon is they will keep trying until you are dead, the fact that he followed them to another building would suggest he was intent on killing them.

That means you need to address the far scarier idea that you've got a country full of people apparently intent on killing no matter what obstacles are placed in their way. So what's being done about that?

No it doesn't mean that at all, but in this particular case we can speculate by the fact that since he followed them to another building the he was intent on killing them once his fuse was lit.

All I can say is that according to the FBI and the US Justice Department, the US violent crime in pretty much all areas including murder have been falling for the past 2 decades, so what ever is being done its working not just in murder but all across the board violence like assault to rape to murder to robbery etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If tens of thousands of people a year dead is not going to do it, then nothing will.

Why should they klein2? There are around 300 million legally own firearm to around 64 million owners in the US. There are around 30-35k deaths by guns, half of those deaths by guns are suicides and additional 2-3k deaths are by police, that means that out of 300 million legally owned guns plus those that are illegally owned, there are really only around 10-15k people killed each year out of anger. If you do the statistics that means the gun safety rate, meaning those that don't shoot and wound or kill a single person is 99.999%, that means your chances of being wounded or killed by a legally or illegally owned firearm is 00.0001%.

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