8 killed in California salon shooting

Why report only this particular incident? This is daily business in the USA, where since yesterday around 100 people died by the gun.

I agree, here in the US the national pastime seems to be murder, followed closely by child abuse.

If this had happened in an inner city ghetto or barrio nobody would care but it happens in a quiet white suburb?? Get ready for Hollywood to make a soap opera or movie! Anyway RIP dead folk in California

Maybe they gave the guy a really bad hair cut.

Why report only this particular incident? This is daily business in the USA, where since yesterday around 100 people died by the gun.

Your thinking mexico not the US.

I guess this latest slaughter will not make one iota of difference to the US gun laws

6 killed in California salon shooting

Wow, maybe i was influenced by the Western Spaghetti Movie i watched last night, but initially i read "6 killed in California saloon shooting" and i was like OMG!!!

There are some things I just cannot think with in cases like this:

1) Why is it so easy to own a gun in the U.S.A?

It doesn't make any sense at all.

2) Why no one seems to make the connection between the huge amount of violence on American TV and in American movies and shootings like these?

3) Why they are so careful not to use "sexist" words, non-"pc" words or show sex in any form on TV, yet it's OK to see Sylvester Stallone machine gunning literally thousands of people in movies like Rambo?

To solve this, wouldn't it be possible to:

1) Make it very difficult to own a gun - for ANY reason.

2) Ban the hunting of animals for sport.

3) Get the violence off TV.

4) Have a real campaign to clamp down on drugs - LEGAL and illegal. A very large percent of this kind of killing incident is committed by people on psychiatric drugs.

5) Make education free or heavily subsidized and available to all at any level, up to PhD.

When you go to get a haircut in America, you could very well be taking your life into your hands.

Ditto any number of ordinarily mundane activities.

I guess this latest slaughter will not make one iota of difference to the US gun laws

Why would it? There are less than 10,000 murders with guns and there are over 65+ million gun owners that own more than 300+ million guns and gun violence in general, including murders and suicides, has been decreasing for the past 17 years even though on average the US adds 4.5+ million guns each year. More guns hit the streets and yet there is less gun crime. If gun violence has been decreasing for 17 years even though total number of guns is increasing that would suggest the current US gun laws are working in reducing gun crime. If you were to do a per capita of per 100 gun owners on the number of legal gun owners that committed any crime with a gun it would be less than one. You are more likely to fall to your death in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun. Your more likely to die in a car accident then be murdered by a gun in the US. You are 53 times more likely to die of a heart attack in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun.

I can tell you right now that ending the war on drugs would have more effect on gun crime than any gun law ever would in the US. Take Detroit for example, 60-70% of its homicides are related to narcotics. You end the drug war you could basically cut Detroit's murder rate in half.

You are more likely to fall to your death in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun. Your more likely to die in a car accident then be murdered by a gun in the US. You are 53 times more likely to die of a heart attack in the US then you are to be murdered by a gun.

The odds that if seven other people are dying around you, it's a gun that doing the dirty work.

If you were to do a per capita of per 100 gun owners on the number of legal gun owners that committed any crime with a gun it would be less than one.

How did the people who committed crimes get their guns? At some point, when they left the factory, they must have been transferred from a "legal" owner who, it is claimed, has not committed any crime.

@johninnaha:

While they are at it, might as well get rid of those other annoying Bill of Rights freedoms.

While they are at it, might as well get rid of those other annoying Bill of Rights freedoms.

Well, I always thought that life was a pretty basic freedom -- and someone exercising his second amendment right just deprived 8 people of all of their freedoms. Forever.

You think that's what the writers of the second amendment had in mind?

Truth hurts?? Sure give me a hundred thumbs down! But the fact is that people do kill others and people angry, drunk, on drugs with GUNS well they kill way more people, just like in this case in a quiet beach town, far far away from Compton and East LA, right?

The odds that if seven other people are dying around you, it's a gun that doing the dirty work

No, it's the person doing the dirty work.

The odds that if seven other people are dying around you, it's a gun that doing the dirty work.

Ya so? It's pretty rare in the US to have seven people dying around you within secodns, unless it is a hospital or a nursing home.

How did the people who committed crimes get their guns? At some point, when they left the factory, they must have been transferred from a "legal" owner who, it is claimed, has not committed any crime.

A large source or the largest source is corrupt FFL's, in 94 during the height of gun crime only 8% of FFL's were illegally trafficking firearms, which means that a very small percentage of FFL's today are a large source for illegal firearms. Straw buyers are also another source, if the legal gun owner knowingly transferred the gun to a criminal or a mentally unstable person that would be illegal, remember I said any crime with a gun that includes illegal transferring a gun. Another source, according to interviews with criminals, is that they steal them from friends and family members. You have to keep in mind that most people don't check on their guns on a daily basis so that provides them with another avenue on getting the gun.

If you include the straw purchasers it is still less than 1 out of 100 or less than 1% of legal gun owners commit any crime with a gun. 1 out of 100 or 1% of legal gun owners is a minimum of 6.5 million people and seeing as there around 100,000 incidents involving guns, and the good news is incidents involving guns in the US is falling, it is way below 1% of gun owners commit a crime.

Gun owners do not deserve the demonetization that they are given. In fact your average gun owner is less likely to a commit a crime than a person in law enforcement in the US. In other words, the police are more likely to a commit a crime then your average gun owner.

someone exercising his second amendment right just deprived 8 people of all of their freedoms. Forever.

Someone committing homicide with a firearm is not exercising their second amendment rights. That would be like saying if someone lied under oath they were exercising their first amendment rights or if they made death/terrorist threats that they were exercising their first amendment rights.

@yabits: No I don't think the framers of the Constitution were granting people the right to commit murder, I think some human beings abuse the right they have and therefor deprive other of their rights. I don't think the right to drive an automobile give the right to drive drunk or impared and kill people wither, I don't think the right to fly in an airplane gave people the right to smash them into buildings and kill people either. With some people it's just the "Gun" thing, Maybe the headline should read "Today 79,999,999 gun owners in the United States didn't shoot anybody".

@Jeffrey: I agree, here in the US the national pastime seems to be murder, followed closely by child abuse.

And invading other countries in the name of national security. Just face it, the US is a violent culture. Full Stop.

Noliving,

The death rate for handguns in the US is 12,000 per year. Even if your number the dead and families of the dead due to gun violence I am sure would not care. Only a gun nut would say 10,000 murders are justified by the infantile desire to have guns. Japan has 100 gun deaths a year versus US thousands. Even a NRA member can figure out why that is.

The fact is if you have guns in your home in the USA you have a higher chance of being killed than if you do not.

I think and will always think that the second amendment in the american bill or rights, is the dumbest and most assinine idea on the planet. but hey, whatever. I'm only a mere US passport holder.

blackpassenger..

Not a US citizen holder, but don't recall any other country that has it and yet gun-owner ship is not banned(restricted yet).

The death rate for handguns in the US is 12,000 per year. Even if your number the dead and families of the dead due to gun violence I am sure would not care.

Sorry but your wrong, the FBI says that for the years 2010, 2009 the number of homicides committed with all categories of firearms in the US was less than 10,000. Oh I care but considering that the grand total gun violence has been dropping for the past 17 years and yet the US has added more than 50 million firearms to its streets would in fact suggest that gun violence is not that pressing of a problem or concern compared to lets say obesity and obesity related health problems in the US. And unlike gun violence in the US, obesity and its health are increasing in the US. As a result I place greater emphasis on Obesity and its effects on society then I do on guns. There are over 500,000 deaths by heart attack in the US and its increasing. Less than 10,000 have been murdered each year for the past two to three years and 2011 is so far showing to be on track to be even lower.

Only a gun nut would say 10,000 murders are justified by the infantile desire to have guns.

Why is a desire to own guns infantile? The reason why they justify it, including me, is because they/me are able to put it into context. The context is that there are 65 million+ gun owners that own more than 300 million+ guns, the US adds on average 4.5+ million guns each year, there is a grand total of 300+ million people that live in the US. The current grand total of homicide is less than 10,000. If you take 10,000 and divide it by 65 million you get 0.00015% of legal gun owners will commit a murder. That means 99.99985% of gun owners will not kill anyone. Why should gun owners be punished when not even a tenth of one percent of gun owners commit homicide?

Here is another context, more people die each year by alcohol related incidents, does not mean they die by alcohol overdose but that they died from an incident in which alcohol played a major role in the death such as drunk driving, then people are murdered by guns. By your logic alcohol should be made illegal and that those that want to consume alcohol have an infantile desire. But most people when they see those alcohol stats they correctly point out that tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans safely drink alcohol each year in the US, so although 12,000+ fatalities that were related or were caused by alcohol seems like a big or large number but when compared to the total number of people that are consuming alcohol each year in the US it is actually a very small minority of people that are really ever in harms way.

Japan has 100 gun deaths a year versus US thousands. Even a NRA member can figure out why that is.

Your point? Japan has 7,000+ auto deaths each year, the US has 40,000+ auto deaths each year. I think a AAA member can figure out why that is. In fact I'm willing to bet you can figure out why that is to.

Oh here is something to consider, more Japanese people per capita commit suicide then Americans commit murder and suicide combined. Meaning you are more likely to die in Japan then you are in the US even though the US has more than 300+ million guns. Can you please tell me why that is?

The fact is if you have guns in your home in the USA you have a higher chance of being killed than if you do not.

Really? I did not know this. Did you know that if you have electricity in your home you are more likely to be electrocuted to death then if you didn't have electricity in your house. Did you know that if you have plumbing you are more likely to drown or slip and fall to your death then if you didn't have plumbing. Did you know that if you owned a car you are more likely to die in a car accident then if you didn't own a car. Did you know that if you own knives you are more likely to die by a cut or a stab then if you didn't own knives. I know I didn't those things..............

I want you to justify something for me. Most people have metal kitchenware utensils even though plastic kitchenware utensils are just as effective as metal ones and safer, except for when cutting steaks. Considering the number of people that are stabbed to death with a kitchen knives of some type, why do people need to own metal kitchen utensils, especially knives, when plastic ones do the job just as well and they are safer.

According to the latest news this shooting occured over a custody battle for a child (aka a drag unit) How stupid....

The fact is if you have guns in your home in the USA you have a higher chance of being killed than if you do not.

I can't figure this one out. It would seem as if you had a gun in your house you would have a better chance of not being killed. Or, If I had a gun in my house, an intruder would have a higher chance of being killed than if I didn't have one.

@blackpassenger: You are a U.S. citizen, so start a petition, get a most of people to agree with you in 2/3 of the states and have the Constitution ammended to repeal the second ammendment. That is also a freedom granted by the Bill of Rights..........Good Luck.

@It's Me: Well that may be because most other countries started as monarchies, dictatorships or colonies of monarchies and freedoms are granted to the people by the governments that replaced or superceded the monarchies. In our case, the People empower the government......and restrict that power (see tenth ammendment in the Bill of Rights). So, as it stands, the U.S. government is expressly forbidden to outlaw gun ownership and cannot usurp that power without the consent of the People and the States.

Someone committing homicide with a firearm is not exercising their second amendment rights.

According to the gun rights people, the shooter had a second amendment right to purchase and carry the weapon into the hair salon. Then, as you just did, they'll claim that his rights stopped when he started to open fire.

Pretty convenient. You really think that's what the authors of the second amendment had in mind?

I don't think the right to drive an automobile give the right to drive drunk or impared and kill people wither, I don't think the right to fly in an airplane gave people the right to smash them into buildings and kill people either.

But the point is that not just anybody has a right to fly a plane or to drive a car. Society has every duty to try to protect itself from those who should not be flying or driving. What's more is that societies are developing improved ways via technology to better insure that a drunk who gets behind the wheel will not be able to stop or operate the car, or someone with malicious intent will not be able to get into a cockpit to take control of a plane.

Why shouldn't a society be able to take similar precautions before it allows a citizen to acquire weapons which can rather easily kill a large number of innocent people in a very short time? And if current measures are obviously not working, to implement improved ones? Why must concerned people consistently be met with stupid, irrelevant statistics like the likelihood of dying in a car accident as a reason to remove focus from heinous massacres such as this one?

Seal Beach is jogging distance from my home town. A little more info gleaned from the LA Times: the perpetrator was apparently ex-military (branch not yet clear); he was in a custody battle for his 7-year old son with his wife, who worked at the salon (also not yet clear if she was killed) and was apparently an alcoholic; he had custody and the woman was required to abstain from alcohol for 24 hours before any child visit. They had a dog and a nice house with a basketball court, where the neighbors often saw him playing with his son.

What a terrible thing! The ease of access to guns is dreadful when an apparently nice, normal guy snaps. I feel very badly for all of them.

Gurukun: "No, it's the person doing the dirty work."

Yeah, cause if he had a melon-baller instead of a gun he would have killed the same number of people from a distance, right?

"I can't figure this one out. It would seem as if you had a gun in your house you would have a better chance of not being killed."

Not at all. A good number of the thousands upon thousands of gun deaths that occur yearly in the US are the result of accidents at home, or kids taking the guns from home to school and shooting other kids. Often siblings shoot each other at home, too, or the parents shoot or get shot by their kids. And lest we forget the BBQ parties where a chagrined husband or wife decides to do in the family after a few too many mohitos (wasn't that just a couple months ago?).

Not at all. A good number of the thousands upon thousands of gun deaths that occur yearly in the US are the result of accidents at home, or kids taking the guns from home to school and shooting other kids. Often siblings shoot each other at home, too, or the parents shoot or get shot by their kids. And lest we forget the BBQ parties where a chagrined husband or wife decides to do in the family after a few too many mohitos (wasn't that just a couple months ago?).

@smithinjapa: people like to slam the US versus Canada when it comes to gun control, especially Michael Moore in his movie "Bowling for Columbine." He examined the gun murder rate in Detroit, and then he went across the lake to Canada (Windsor) and noted how the murder rate was very low. I argue that you can do the same in this case, instead you have to drive about a good 200 miles to the border with US and Mexico. Guns are illegal in Mexico, but you have thousands killed there by gun violence (and other violence) yearly. Guns are legal in America, and you do have a hgher murder rate in Detroit vice Windsor, but you don't have the large scale killings like you do down in Mexico as much as you do in the US.

I guess my point to this, if you want to own a gun, live in Canada.

Readers, please stay on topic. Comparisons to driving a car and flying a plane are, of course, irrelevant.

Alphaape: "Guns are illegal in Mexico, but you have thousands killed there by gun violence (and other violence) yearly."

You're not taking into account the major drug traffiking between Mexico and the US, and the fact that Mexico gets a lot of those weapons from the US (illegally, of course) and they are engaged in major drug wars. Why you would compare a man who is upset and has easy access to a gun and so kills a an ex and the other people in the shop vs. full out drug warfare to try and prove your point is beyond me. If anything, you have just proven the point that guns make things a whole lot worse, or perhaps that police in the US are extremely corrupt? Syllogism don't work, my friend.

You're not taking into account the major drug traffiking between Mexico and the US, and the fact that Mexico gets a lot of those weapons from the US (illegally, of course) and they are engaged in major drug wars.

Mexican drug cartels, it now appears, were provided by the ATF, at US taxpayers' expense, with some of the most lethal firepower money can buy, at the direction of Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Operation Fast and Furious is one Obama scandal that will not and must not go away.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111009,0,6431788.story

I hope none of the weapons used in this murder spree were originally provided by the US government to a Mexican national who in turn sold a weapon to the killer.

Really really stupid waste of innocent life. Guess how many more Americans have been killed in America by Americans since the 'War On Terror' started? The number of American servicemen lost is dwarfed by the number. Stupid. Sad. Sorry State.

@AntoniosM: I know I shouldn't but that was so funny. When will those Americans ever understand that we are not in 1811 anymore where saloon shootings were a daily occurence. Ban those weapons! RIP to the victims.

According to the gun rights people, the shooter had a second amendment right to purchase and carry the weapon into the hair salon. Then, as you just did, they'll claim that his rights stopped when he started to open fire.

Pretty convenient. You really think that's what the authors of the second amendment had in mind?

People like me claim his rights stop when he commits unjustified homicide with them. Fine its convenient for you yabits, that is like saying according to freedom of speech people he had a right to say what he wanted but then claim that his rights stop as soon as he started to yell fire in a crowded room with only one exit which results in a stampede that kills people or that his rights stop as soon as he starts making death threats and hate speech and then that person followers go out and kill people. Pretty convenient I guess.

Not at all. A good number of the thousands upon thousands of gun deaths that occur yearly in the US are the result of accidents at home, or kids taking the guns from home to school and shooting other kids.

You should take the time to do research, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (which is part of the Centers for Disease Control.) says that there are less than 800 people that that are killed yearly in the US as a result of accidents at home or kids take the guns from home to school and shooting other kids. Why is it you can't check your facts before you spit out your hyperbole?

You're not taking into account the major drug traffiking between Mexico and the US, and the fact that Mexico gets a lot of those weapons from the US (illegally, of course) and they are engaged in major drug wars. Why you would compare a man who is upset and has easy access to a gun and so kills a an ex and the other people in the shop vs. full out drug warfare to try and prove your point is beyond me. If anything, you have just proven the point that guns make things a whole lot worse, or perhaps that police in the US are extremely corrupt? Syllogism don't work, my friend.

Why should he take it into account? The whole point is that people make the claims that if guns are illegal in the US or very difficult to get then there would be virtually no gun crime. Mexico is prime example of that not being the case. Seeing as guns are heavily restricted to the point that they are pretty much illegal this gun crime as anti-gunners claim shoudln't exist even if there is a drug war.

What the drug war proves is that prohibition makes things a whole lot worse, prohibition on drugs and guns. Ending the drug war and legalizing drugs would have a far greater impact on violence in mexico then any gun law ever would.

And if current measures are obviously not working, to implement improved ones?

But current measures are working, gun violence has been dropping for the past 17 years. If you look at the total number of gun crime for example in 2008-2010 you will see that gun violence has dropped even though more guns hit the streets each year and it is on track to further drop this year. Why is it so hard for you to recognize that the current measures have been working for the past 17 years to reduce gun crime and are still working?

But current measures are working, gun violence has been dropping for the past 17 years.

It largely depends on your opinion of "working". If your formerly 30 percent efficient machine is now 47 percent efficient, that's great, good for you. But if most people in your budget range are running machines at 60 percent and higher, well gee, might be time for a switch, huh?

As it is, America is doing better than Zimbabwe in the number of gun homicides per year, but not by much. Mexico is actually doing better by ten spots. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms

This crime was more than likely preventable, just like so many others that a direct result of America being a flooded with guns, a device invented for the specific purpose of ending life, especially human life.

Banning guns in the US is ridiculous an idea as calling for a ban on spree-killers.

Even in meticulous nanny states like the UK where even most air guns are now restricted access, nutters still get hold of firearms and kill people. In fatc as far as I'm aware, gun crime has risen in the UK since the Dunblane massacre.

Even if the impossible happened and there were no more guns in the US, what would have stopped this nutter plowing into the hair salon with an eighteen-wheeler to kill his ex?

No, no, no, guns are evil, period! We are not living in the old west, at least not here in CIVILIZED Japan. Sure back in the USA you need a gun, too many drugs, too many folk that will shoot you for a parking space etc..it is a totally different reality, would we really feel safer here in Japan, say being on the Yamanote line, Chuo line, etc..super crowded trains and say Joe Blow, no, Koichi Tanaka had a bad day at his office, maybe just got fired, and then this nutty pissed off Japanese dude starts pulling out an UZI?? a AK 47?? and shooting everybody in a small, confined space of this inside of a train?? How many innocent people would get killed in just a few seconds?? TOO MANY! So this BS that guns laws have no value, that not arming every citizen with guns to the teeth will make us safer?? If this nut case in California only had a knife?? Could he have killed so many?? NO!!! NRA burn in hell!! Poor dead folk, RIP.

Okay then Madverts, lets not call for a ban. Who did anyway? This discussion might be better served for not building that strawman.

Even the UK, which you cite, does not have a gun ban. And yes, gun crime has gone up in recent years, even doubled in a ten year span. But that might be an accounting issue. I note that you allude to the laws, but never stick your neck out and actually say it.

It still remains that gun homicides are still 4 times less than in America, despite the apparent rise in gun crime. And I sure hope you don't even imagine that gun crime is synonymous with gun homicides. I would rather get robbed with a gun than killed with one, and you know what I mean so don't go obfuscating that.

No, no, no, guns are evil, period! We are not living in the old west, at least not here in CIVILIZED Japan. Sure back in the USA you need a gun, too many drugs, too many folk that will shoot you for a parking space etc..it is a totally different reality, would we really feel safer here in Japan, say being on the Yamanote line, Chuo line, etc..super crowded trains and say Joe Blow, no, Koichi Tanaka had a bad day at his office, maybe just got fired, and then this nutty pissed off Japanese dude starts pulling out an UZI?? a AK 47?? and shooting everybody in a small, confined space of this inside of a train?? How many innocent people would get killed in just a few seconds?? TOO MANY! So this BS that guns laws have no value, that not arming every citizen with guns to the teeth will make us safer?? If this nut case in California only had a knife?? Could he have killed so many?? NO!!! NRA burn in hell!! Poor dead folk, RIP.

@Elbuda Mexicano: It does happen here in Japan. Guns aren't used but knives are. That same senario you described is just as good for a mass stabbing. Remember Akihabra? The problem is it is the people, and not the instruments that do the killing. A gun can't get motivated to go and call people just like a knife can't do it either. It is the actions of one individual. Whether he will use a gun, knife, club or car, if they are intent on doing harm to others, they will use whatever is available.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize that the current measures have been working for the past 17 years to reduce gun crime and are still working?

Because tragedies like this keep occurring mainly in the United States on a near-weekly basis.

In any industry whose safety record can show a record of improvement over the years, but still suffers major catastrophes from time to time, I don't believe their attitude would be, "we've done all that we can." No. They'd examine the tragedy to look for its systemic component -- since these keep repeating -- and look for ways to implement more systemic improvements until catastrophes became much fewer and far between.

The "right" described in the second amendment is different from a first amendment right in that the wording of the former admits to the necessity of it being "well-regulated." I believe that an individual state has every right to a well-regulated militia, and that the federal government may not infringe by taking weapons from those individuals the state has deemed appropriate and necessary to keep and bear them. The constitution also proscribes the right to a trial by jury -- but it does not say that a citizen has an inherent right to serve on one.

The problem is it is the people, and not the instruments that do the killing.

The instruments largely determine how swiftly and efficiently the killing is done. In that sense, an instrument that enables a killer to kill many more people in less time does indeed become a large part of the problem.

The choice of instrument also largely determines how effectively ordinary people can resist, defend themselves, run away or otherwise save their lives. If given the choice of an empty field and an assailant armed with a gun or a ...knife, baseball bat, hammer, etc... most people would be far better off if the assailant did NOT have a gun.

And so would society.

The problem is it is the people, and not the instruments that do the killing.

Both are a problem Alphaape. Or do you think people should be able to own fully automatic guns, grenades, land mines, tanks and possess nukes too? How about poisons, liquid, gas and solid? You may as well say it was not the sarin gas, the problem was Aum. Well, you can't predict what people will do with knives, guns or sarin gas, but you can darn well prevent a lot of damage by not handing far more destructive power than they need.

And Aum making their own sarin does not prove any point beneficial to your argument either. There were not sarin attacks by private groups before or since, precisely because sarin is illegal to own and its hard to make. Not that I want guns illegal, but highly restricted would do.

Not at all. A good number of the thousands upon thousands of gun deaths that occur yearly in the US are the result of accidents at home, or kids taking the guns from home to school and shooting other kids.

Something wierd about Thousands upon thousands....I seriously doubt that there are that many. There are probably more stabbing in the U.S. then those types of accidents.

Yeah, cause if he had a melon-baller instead of a gun he would have killed the same number of people from a distance, right?

Yeah, but if you place a melon-baller in a park, how many people would it kill just sitting there? Someone would have to "Use" it" to kill, right?

The problem is it is the people, and not the instruments that do the killing.

Alphaape: That is so true. The fact that there are just more than enough loonies running around in the U.S. makes for potentially hazardous situations when they get their hands on a gun. Of course, it doesn't help that the culture of gun violence that is continuously perpetrated through entertainment seems to glorify the ownership of a gun.

As you've said, mass stabbings can happen in Japan, and IMO wouldn't happen as often in America, due to culture differences. In the U.S., from the time we're little, we're naturally taught to lock our doors, be always aware while walking the street, never make yourself look like a potential target of a crime, never walk alone at night, etc. Thus, if someone were to brandish a knife in a crowded New York street, more people would likely be ready to run away, or take that perpetrator down. In Japan, people are not aware of such things, and thus wouldn't know how to act. They're too docile and just grew up with the fact that it's quite natural to not always lock your doors or walk on the street at night in Japan. It's like attacking wolves (Americans) with a knife versus sheep (Japanese) with a knife; two totally different situations.

Not that I want guns illegal, but highly restricted would do

Guns are restricted. Chicago has some of the toughest gun ownership laws as well as D.C. and other major cities. And guess what, they have some of the highest gun death rates. The restrictive laws hamper the honest law abiding citizen, not the law breaker who will get guns anyway.

It largely depends on your opinion of "working". If your formerly 30 percent efficient machine is now 47 percent efficient, that's great, good for you. But if most people in your budget range are running machines at 60 percent and higher, well gee, might be time for a switch, huh

Well I base it upon trends. For example in the past 3 years the US has reduced it gun homicide by around 20-25%. No I wouldn't say its time to switch because its not a rat race. As long as the person is improving his efficiency that is all that matters really. So for example lets say the 47% increases to 50% and then the year after that it is 55% and so on that is fine. The US has more than cuts its gun violence in half, talking grand total here not per capita's, since 1994 and yet it has added at least 50+ million guns. So its working, it may not be working fast enough for your taste but again its not a rat race. At the current levels of gun violence it would take over 300 years to kill 1% of the US population. Where as heart disease is killing 1% of the US population every 6 years and its rising where as gun violence is in fact dropping.

This crime was more than likely preventable, just like so many others that a direct result of America being a flooded with guns, a device invented for the specific purpose of ending life, especially human life.

The scale possibly but the actual crime no, even though he had a restraining order against him, he still would have at the very least assaulted his ex wife. However though there are a variety of ways of killing a lot of people very quickly for example he could rammed his vehicle into the building, or he could have made a home made flamethrower with a supersoaker and burned them to death or just walked in with a chain saw or he could rounded up some friends and walked in there and just hacked everyone to death. The problem that most anti gun people have is that they focus exclusively on gun crime, they don't actually look at the overall crime situation. So if gun crime goes up but the overall crime situation is decreasing then your streets are getting safer.

Agreed as such that sort of device has restriction on how it can be used and the gun owning community supports these restrictions, for example it is illegal in the US to point a gun or fire one in a public setting unless it is in defense of your life or the life of another.

Even the UK, which you cite, does not have a gun ban. And yes, gun crime has gone up in recent years, even doubled in a ten year span. But that might be an accounting issue. I note that you allude to the laws, but never stick your neck out and actually say it.

It still remains that gun homicides are still 4 times less than in America, despite the apparent rise in gun crime. And I sure hope you don't even imagine that gun crime is synonymous with gun homicides. I would rather get robbed with a gun than killed with one, and you know what I mean so don't go obfuscating that.

UK has a hand gun ban and it has made gun ownership so difficult that it is pretty much a ban especially if you have no criminal record and mental illness if they deny you a right to a gun even though you meet all the legal requirements because the UK government just doesn't want you to have one then it is a gun ban even though its "legal". Your right gun homicides are less than in America but unlike America your trends is that it is increasing at a while in the US it is decreasing.

So lets look at your model again, lets make America the 30% that increases its efficiency to 47% and lets make the UK the 60% but is going to have its efficiently cut in half in 10 years which trend would you rather have?

Because tragedies like this keep occurring mainly in the United States on a near-weekly basis.

No they don't.

They'd examine the tragedy to look for its systemic component -- since these keep repeating -- and look for ways to implement more systemic improvements until catastrophes became much fewer and far between.

And you what is behind those tragedies? Narcotics trade in the US. If you ended the drug war in the US, heck even the UN says that the US needs to end its drug war because its the primary driver of violence in latin america and the US, you would have more effect on gun crime then any gun law ever would. 60-70% of homicides in Detroit for example are drug related, even though the primary means of the homicide was with a gun the motive, which is the most important thing not how, was drugs.

If you want to end gun violence in the US then you need to end the war on drugs in the US.

The "right" described in the second amendment is different from a first amendment right in that the wording of the former admits to the necessity of it being "well-regulated." I believe that an individual state has every right to a well-regulated militia, and that the federal government may not infringe by taking weapons from those individuals the state has deemed appropriate and necessary to keep and bear them. The constitution also proscribes the right to a trial by jury -- but it does not say that a citizen has an inherent right to serve on one.

You have to understand what "Well-regulated" means first.

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss. --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29. Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

Here is another:

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army. --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

Well regulated means trained and discipline fighting force.

As for the Jury, every single citizen is required to be available for jury duty unless:

be a United States citizen; be at least 18 years of age; reside primarily in the judicial district for one year; be adequately proficient in English; have no disqualifying mental or physical condition; not currently be subject to felony charges; and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored)

So as long as your a citizen and over the age of 18, speak English and are not a criminal you are by law required to report for jury duty.

Well regulated doesn't mean restrictions placed on what guns you can own etc.

And you what is behind those tragedies? Narcotics trade in the US.

Narcotics trade was behind this shooting? Behind the massacre at Virginia Tech? Behind Columbine?

The incidents where someone gets P.O.'d at someone they've been in a relationship with -- or whose well-observed craziness and hostility or aloofness to other human beings finally drives them over the edge -- happen in the United States on a near-weekly basis. Ending the war on drugs would do nothing to end this type of violence -- which is often described as "going postal" because of a coincidental string of mass-killings at US post offices a few decades ago.

If you want to end gun violence in the US then you need to end the war on drugs in the US.

I really can't trust much of your analysis when you reach the conclusion that shootings of the type we're reading about here would end when the war on drugs ends.

And, yes, such multiple/mass shootings occur on the weekly basis here in the U.S. Four members of a family were just shot dead in South Carolina by, apparently, another family member. Had nothing to do with drugs.

So as long as your a citizen and over the age of 18, speak English and are not a criminal you are by law required to report for jury duty.

Just because a citizen can be called to be a prospective juror, doesn't mean they have any right to sit on a jury panel. They can't go down to the courthouse and demand to be placed on a jury. If called to the courthouse, they must undergo a cursory screening for fitness before they'd ever be placed on a panel.

Society should do no less when making the decision to issue guns to a citizen, never forgetting the whole purpose and intent is to maintain a well-regulated militia, not a bunch of heavily armed border-line crazies with hair-trigger tempers. You don't want those types on juries or carrying guns.

Narcotics trade was behind this shooting? Behind the massacre at Virginia Tech? Behind Columbine? The incidents where someone gets P.O.'d at someone they've been in a relationship with -- or whose well-observed craziness and hostility or aloofness to other human beings finally drives them over the edge -- happen in the United States on a near-weekly basis. Ending the war on drugs would do nothing to end this type of violence -- which is often described as "going postal" because of a coincidental string of mass-killings at US post offices a few decades ago.

Did I ever state that yabits? I claimed that the majority of gun crime/violence is tied to the drug war. Meaning that if you want to have the greatest impact on gun violence and or just violence in general in the US you need to end the Drug war, even the UN says that. I'm not claiming that every single gun crime is tied to drugs, I'm stating that the vast majority of it is.

Yabits do you honestly believe that if this man didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed her that day and or anyone else in that business that day? Go ahead take away the guns, he would have just used knives and or just run them over with his car. Do you honestly believe in your scenarios that if someone gets PO'd and they don't have a gun they won't kill or they won't at least attempt to kill the person they are mad at? In your scenarios yabits even if they didn't have guns they would still kill people they just use other means and you know it. In order to deal with the domestic violence you do social programs that deal with social behaviors related to anger and violence. Gun laws will have no effect on reducing domestic violence.

And, yes, such multiple/mass shootings occur on the weekly basis here in the U.S. Four members of a family were just shot dead in South Carolina by, apparently, another family member. Had nothing to do with drugs.

No it doesn't happen on a weekly basis, at most it happens on a monthly basis. Your right it had nothing to do with drugs and it had nothing to do with guns, it had everything to do with the fact that the perp didn't know how to control his anger problems. No gun law would have stopped him from killing those 3 people, it was a murder suicide so the fourth victim was the perp.

I really can't trust much of your analysis when you reach the conclusion that shootings of the type we're reading about here would end when the war on drugs ends.

Isn't it a little obvious that in that statement I'm implying that the vast majority of gun violence in the US has deal with the drug war. Especially when you look at the previous two sentence to the one your quoting that basically states that 60-70% of murders in the city of detroit are the result of drugs. I'm not stating that every single gun crime or gun related violence would end I'm stating that more than half of gun crime and gun violence would end. Even the UN says that. The UN this year called on, by implying, that the USA drug war needs to end because it is the primary driver of violence in the US and Latin America. Heck go to Canada and you'll find that the majority of gun crime is related to the drug trade.

Do you honestly believe that less than half of the gun violence in the US is related to the drug industry?

Just because a citizen can be called to be a prospective juror, doesn't mean they have any right to sit on a jury panel. They can't go down to the courthouse and demand to be placed on a jury. If called to the courthouse, they must undergo a cursory screening for fitness before they'd ever be placed on a panel.

That is a straw man argument. The US constitution forces all citizens, unless the exceptions I state otherwise, have to be available for jury duty. Just because they get screened out of one jury doesn't mean they can't ever be called again for jury and if they were to be called for jury duty for every single crime they would serve on at least one jury panel. The fact the US government has the right to call upon any citizen for jury duty and force them to report for jury duty means they have the inherent right to be on a jury panel. In order for your argument to work a person would have to be able to get through the screen process and be able to voluntarily quit jury duty after the US justice system has put you on the jury panel. Do you know what "Inherent" means? Oh and in fact you can volunteer yourself for Grand Jury trials. No guarantee your going to get on.

never forgetting the whole purpose and intent is to maintain a well-regulated militia, not a bunch of heavily armed border-line crazies with hair-trigger tempers. You don't want those types on juries or carrying guns.

What? Well-regulated militia according to the quotes I provided means, from the founding fathers, a trained and discipline fighting force, it doesn't mean gun regulation.

Did I ever state that yabits?

Yes. You said that behind "these tragedies" was the war on narcotics.

Meaning that if you want to have the greatest impact on gun violence and or just violence in general in the US you need to end the Drug war

While I am supportive of ending the drug war, I am under no delusion that it would lessen these types of massacres which occur so frequently in the United States to any great extent.

Yabits do you honestly believe that if this man didn't have a gun he wouldn't have killed her that day and or anyone else in that business that day? Go ahead take away the guns, he would have just used knives and or just run them over with his car.

Do you honestly believe the man could have killed 8 innocent people in the hair salon with his car? Seriously? This is why we aren't likely to have any kind of rational discussion -- when claims like that are made.

Good day.

Elbuda Mexicano - No, no, no, guns are evil, period! We are not living in the old west, at least not here in CIVILIZED Japan. Sure back in the USA you need a gun, too many drugs, too many folk that will shoot you for a parking space etc..

How are those restrictive gun ownership laws working out in Mexico? The law abiding citizens there are unarmed while the cartels are importing fully automatic weapons, grenades, and rocket launchers by the jumbo jet load. People should have a right to defend themselves. The cartels and the Mexican government disagree and tens of thousands of Mexicans are being murdered.

yabits - The "right" described in the second amendment is different from a first amendment right in that the wording of the former admits to the necessity of it being "well-regulated." I believe that an individual state has every right to a well-regulated militia, and that the federal government may not infringe by taking weapons from those individuals the state has deemed appropriate and necessary to keep and bear them.

Wrong. All of the "rights" listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights are "rights" of the individual. The government has no "rights". The government can make laws but has no "powers" except what is granted by the States or given in the U.S. Constitution.

You'll notice that the term "The People" is used 5 times in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Each of those refer to the people of the U.S.. NOT to the U.S. government, NOT to the States, and NOT to a government militia or national guard. "The People" are the people. The militia's in the 1700's were manned by citizens who owned their own weapons and supplied their own shot, flints, powder, knives, tomahawks, etc. Many towns and villages did have a cache of weapons that could be used for mutual defense.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently ruled (twice - once pertaining to Washington DC (federal onclave) and the 2nd pertaining to Chicago and all other U.S. cities ) that the 2nd Amendment is a "right" of "the people" to defend themselves. The "right" of the individual to own firearms.

You'll notice that the term "The People" is used 5 times in the U.S. Bill of Rights. Each of those refer to the people of the U.S.. NOT to the U.S. government, NOT to the States, and NOT to a government militia or national guard. "The People" are the people.

The Fourth Amendment makes a clear distinction that "the people" are not to confused with individuals when it says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons." It serves no useful purpose to engage in a discussion with one who can't understand that basic difference.

The history of court cases on just about any major issue has decisions that swing in both directions. Societies evolve and people look at the laws with greater wisdom and experience.

People have a basic right to be secure in their persons from some crazy citizen getting guns and using them to go on a rampage -- as was done in this hair salon -- and depriving 8 people of their lives. That's a right that trumps any second amendment right that gets interpreted as "any individual who wants one can own a gun." If the state is given the right to deny any individual the right to possess a firearm -- whether a felon or mentally insane person -- the authority and legal precedence is there to deny it to individuals for other reasons, as deemed justified by "the people."

Yes. You said that behind "these tragedies" was the war on narcotics.

Really? I would like to see it where I specifically stated that every time an ex husband goes to kill his ex wife its because of drugs. I would like to see it where I specifically stated domestic violence involving guns is because of drugs. I stated/implied that the vast majority of gun violence/gun crime in the US is related to the war on drugs. Meaning that ending the war on drugs would have more effect on gun violence/gun crime then any gun law ever would.

This is what you stated:

In any industry whose safety record can show a record of improvement over the years, but still suffers major catastrophes from time to time, I don't believe their attitude would be, "we've done all that we can." No. They'd examine the tragedy to look for its systemic component -- since these keep repeating -- and look for ways to implement more systemic improvements until catastrophes became much fewer and far between.

In the above quote you are referring to gun violence in general in the US, you are talking about mass shootings in general in the US. You are not specifically talking about domestic violence between family and or friends in the US. And you know how I know that? Because you were quoting me on how the total number of gun violence in the US was falling for the past 17 years, in fact it has been cut in half.

So then what was my response then to that quote?

And you what is behind those tragedies? Narcotics trade in the US.

I was referring to those tragedies/gun violence in a generalized term stating/implying that the majority of gun violence in the US is related to the war on drugs and I backed that up with the homicide figures for the city of Detroit.

While I am supportive of ending the drug war, I am under no delusion that it would lessen these types of massacres which occur so frequently in the United States to any great extent.

I agree that ending the drug war would have a limited impact on domestic violence but they don't occur as frequently as you make them out to be and even if you did ban firearms you didn't stop the domestic violence the domestic violence and possible murders would still occur just in a different way. In order to deal with domestic violence you need to teach people how to deal with their emotions, best time to do this is in school.

Do you honestly believe the man could have killed 8 innocent people in the hair salon with his car? Seriously? This is why we aren't likely to have any kind of rational discussion -- when claims like that are made.

Good day.

Ya its not hard at all, most hair salon places have 3-4 chairs lined up in a row that run parallel to the side walls, fill each seat with a patron and have maybe have each patron have a hair stylist behind them and then have some people in the waiting area. Take your SUV or Truck and ram the hair salon from the front, which is usually just made of glass, at about 60-100 MPH.

In fact here is a link to a news story that shows 8 people killed by a rolling truck.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38710643/ns/us_news-life/t/driver-off-road-race-crash-killed-idd/#.TptD3psg_lY

The Fourth Amendment makes a clear distinction that "the people" are not to confused with individuals when it says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons." It serves no useful purpose to engage in a discussion with one who can't understand that basic difference.

Your either really ignorant or your purposely lying/distorting the fourth amendment.

This is what the fourth amendment says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The fourth amendment is talking about Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The term "Persons" is referring to the searching of and seizure of whatever it is on the individual itself. Meaning if your walking on your private property or public property, law enforcement can't just walk up to you and start searching you without a warrant or probable cause. It doesn't mean the person has the right to be secure from violence or crazy people that want to do harm to them.

I can't believe with either your ignorance or your downright fabrication of what the 4th amendment means that you are accusing ArrestPaul of not knowing the basics.

So which is it, are you that ignorant or your purposely fabricating what the 4th amendment means? I seriously want to know which is it.

yabits - The Fourth Amendment makes a clear distinction that "the people" are not to confused with individuals when it says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons." It serves no useful purpose to engage in a discussion with one who can't understand that basic difference.

People have a basic right to be secure in their persons from some crazy citizen getting guns and using them to go on a rampage -- as was done in this hair salon -- and depriving 8 people of their lives. That's a right that trumps any second amendment right that gets interpreted as "any individual who wants one can own a gun." If the state is given the right to deny any individual the right to possess a firearm -- whether a felon or mentally insane person -- the authority and legal precedence is there to deny it to individuals for other reasons, as deemed justified by "the people

Hahahaha, you're a funny guy. The 4th Amendment refers to the same "THE PEOPLE" as the other Amendments. Individuals not associated with or acting as an agent of the government. The 4th specifically addresses Search and Seizure. The term "in their persons" means that YOU cannot be searched without your permission or a court ordered warrant. The 4th also include your houses, papers, and effects.

"The People" still means the people. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your position.

Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.