world

7 residents, 1 nurse die in N Carolina nursing home shooting

82 Comments

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

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

82 Comments
Login to comment

Man is things are getting sicker and sicker in the States. When will the NRA lose it's grip and true gun control be put in place.

Guns do not kill, sick people with legally owned guns kill people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the old folks had had guns under their pillows this could have been prevented. Or does that argument not apply here???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America when will you learn that guns should be banned? They do far more harm than good and this is another example to add to the countless others of just why guns are so dangerous.

Ban guns and put an end to this kind of tragedy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is the security system at this long-term care facility? It seems that some nursing homes in the U.S have very little security system, outdated or sometimes none at all. It is an unfortunate event that could have been prevented if there was adequate security. I wish the wounded victims a speedy recovery. And hopeful, an installment of innovative security systems in both long-term and short-term care facilities, and implementation of disaster preparedness plan to prevent further occurrence in the further.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gun shootings again! Maybe needed gun control? You might be next!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just when you thought guns kill people....sheesh..!

This is getting ridiculous. This has been ..what - the second mass killing like this in the States since the year started.

When are Americans going to realize the longer they cling to their guns, the more masacres like this are going to happen?

It's not rocket science.

Banning guns would be a start, and it would take a painful and long process before the majority of Americans were weaned off their weapons.

Part of the problem is the fact that:

1/ Americans can readily own guns, (and buy them from Wal-Mart - can you believe that?), and 2/ The "we need guns' mentality (see 1/)

America is in the grip of a very vicious cycle where people think they need guns because other people have guns.

See...I mentioned the problem twice - the GUNS.

Get rid of the guns either through banning them, making them available to registered shooters and sportspeople only, and a large part of the problem will be solved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nurse13,

I'm sorry, I have to ask this, but:

Are you being sarcastic?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are to American like sushi is to Japanese. To the point that they even wrote it into the constitution. But more than that, it has been a source of profits ever since, specially with the Indians. Now it is a lucrative industry where countries are literarily forced to purchase weapons. And this goes to all weapons manufacturing countries, not just the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the U.S. is also the world's largest weapons seller?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really, you've got to wonder what kind of a trainwreck a society has become when you hear people say things like "But, we NEED guns to protect ourselves." (from other people who also have guns).

And it's many of these same people who wonder why America has a gun problem, why massacres like this latest one occur, and yet they still think - hey! - we NEED our guns and we've got an amendment in our Constitution to make damn sure we can cling to our guns!

And the problem just rolls on.....

It's really sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This may irritate some people, but Candidate Obama was bang on the money when he said during the election campaign that Americans "cling to their guns."

Unless or until a U.S. administration has the fortitude to clamp down and impose draconian limits on gun owndership rules, America is ALWAYS going to have a gun problem, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, et el, will be having this exact same debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Really, you've got to wonder what kind of a trainwreck a society has become when you hear people say things like "But, we NEED guns to protect ourselves." (from other people who also have guns)."

A trainwreck of a society that doesn't protect its borders. A trainwreck of a society in which the criminal justice system serves as a revolving door to violent criminals. A trainwreck of society which produces a bunch of cowards who think the government is capable of protecting them. Yeah sushi i'll have to agree with you on that one, America has become a trainwreck. Thank your fellow liberals for driving a once great society right off the tracks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This will turn out to be another crazy guy who was put on psychiaric medication, just like the shooters at Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc., etc., etc. Investigation needs to be done to find out what "medication" this guy is on, who put him on it, and instigate a class-action suit against the drug manufacturers guilty of making such dangerous drugs.

It's not guns -- it's psychiatric drugs plus guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Samuraiiki;

Guns are to American like sushi is to Japanese. To the point that they even wrote it into the constitution.

Sushi is written into the Japanese Constitution? Who knew!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The gun crowd suffer under a few illusions that need to be overcome.

Gun Crowd: "The constitution guarantees the right to own guns." Reality: This is not correct. The constitution provides for the citizenry to form militias and bear arms in defense of the nation. It does not say anything at all about personal gun ownership.

Gun Crowd: "Guns protect us from oppression." Reality: In 1776 a bunch of armed famers could resist and fight against a modern army with modest effect. In 2009 a bunch of farmers would be up against smart weapons and top level technology. Which means farmers die and the oppressive attacker wins. Without the support of a competing super power and equally high tech weapons, guns in the hands of the citizens to resist an oppressive govenment just means giving the repressors a chance to wipe out some of the competition.

Gun Crowd: "Guns will protect us from enemies who attack the US." Reality: Like who? See the point above when talking about any invader who has a modern army. And for anyone without such military power, just how do you think their attack will go? And why would your standing military need you and your Walmart weapons to help out?

Gun Crowd: "Guns protect us from crime." Reality: No, they usually end up being stolen for use in crimes, taken and used on you as a crime or used by you or members of your family to commit crimes agains each other. Statistics show again and again, guns do not protect you, they endanger you. Plain and simple.

Gun Crowd: "But we want our guns." Reality: Time to become a more enlightened society. Guns must go.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DJ Fuzz, I’m not being sarcastic, I’m very sincere. Perhaps the minimum/outdated security system applies to the low crime boroughs/counties. Some of the long-term care facilities I’ve worked at had minimum security system. In addition, security officers and safety precautions were inadequate or security measures were not enforced adequately in my opinion. For example: there was one incident where a senile patient walked out of the facility without anyone being aware of his departure. The facility became aware of the missing patient only because he was absent for a recreational activity. In my opinion, a few long-term care facilities (e.g., especially nursing homes) have minimum security system and security measures implemented preparing for events such as this in comparison to short-term care facilities (e.g., out-of-patient/ acute care hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). They do however prepare for disasters in events such as natural disasters, fire, bioterrorists attack, etc. In the last word, I meant future not further. Quite a shame that comments can not be revised once posted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Man, they should arm those nurses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A society where security measures to prevent people walking in and shooting up the inmates of a nursing home need to be considered seriously, is a seriously sick society.

Checking on the whereabouts of senile patients is not 'security', it's part and parcel of the nursing care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless or until a U.S. administration has the fortitude to clamp down and impose draconian limits on gun owndership rules, America is ALWAYS going to have a gun problem

You were more on the money when you said:

it would take a painful and long process before the majority of Americans were weaned off their weapons.

But it need not be so painful. What we need to do is convince the responsible gun owners to police themselves and license themselves. They need to view this as a patriotic duty. What we don't need is the government trying to forcefully disarm the country. We need those people working with us, and for themselves as well as us.

All the government need do is establish a framework for that to happen. Groups like the NRA could set up their own licensing and registration system totally independent of the government, with specific information on individuals only to be given to the authorities when a crime has been committed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank your fellow liberals for driving a once great society right off the tracks.

Huh? I thought America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. But now you're saying that a nutter shooting 8 people is the fault of liberals? What about the NRA and the gun culture/paranoia it promotes? No? Only the liberals? Sure. As if non-liberals are the 2nd Coming. Get your head on straight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The constitution provides for the citizenry to form militias and bear arms in defense of the nation. It does not say anything at all about personal gun ownership.

This is highly debatable. Unfortunately only because the Second Amendment is slightly garbled. But if you look at English Common Law, among other things, you realize that the meaning is that everyone has a right to bear arms, so that they can form a militia if and when need be. You simply cannot respond to an emergency in this order 1)form a militia 2)apply for recognition of your militia 3) obtain proof of your militia arms ownership and purchase rights 4)go out and buy arms. The emergency will be long passed once you have done all that.

If the second amendment is going to make any sense at all, the people already have the weapons.

I don't like it either, but that is simply the way it is. Yes, something needs to be done, but it need not be high-handed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Altria: Man, they should arm those nurses.

So we could read about dozens of incidents and accidents at nursing homes every single year instead of this one off bizzare attack??? Thanks, but no thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nurse13, Thank you for the clarification. I whole-heartedly agree with you that those types of facilities should be taking every possible measure to ensure that the people in their care remain IN their care. (ie. the residents aren't able to leave unchecked, etc.)

That is, of course, what those facilities are for.

Unfortunately, those facilities ARE NOT designed or managed with the intention of preventing the intrusion of a gun-wielding mad-man. Nor can or should they be.

It is a pretty sad day when we are contemplating the necessity of setting up some kind of security perimeter around a facility which provides a sanctuary for the most senior and relatively defenseless members of our society.

What's next, armed guards and metal detectors at day-care centres, libraries, hospitals, kindergartens, etc?

Please understand, Nurse13, I am not taking issue with your stance. I am taking issue with the fact that a society has digressed to the point that someone actually needs to even consider a stance such as yours.

The much wiser, classier, and more succinct Cleo has summed it up correctly. (please see above)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think that Nurse13 might be referring to doors that do not open without either some sort of access code, an access card, or somebody behind glass pushing a button. Those sort of minimun security would go a long way to keeping a gunman out, AS WELL AS keep patients in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe it is time for a revision of the amendment. Who needs a militia now? We are not a rural collection of towns any more. We do not need a militia. We don't need guns. So let's change the amendment to clearly show both facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So let's change the amendment to clearly show both facts.

I got a better idea. Let's keep the amendment and scrap the standing army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DJ Fuzz, I sincerely appreciate all comments even those in oppose to my opinions. I’m aware that not everyone will share my opinions and I would be naïve to think otherwise. In addition, I actually enjoy responding to questions other posters might have. This I believe shows interest and initiate interactions which I believe to be very insightful. Please understand that I did not take offense to your previous comment. Liketis, you are correct in your assumptions. I was referring to exactly as you commented. I thought I conveyed my meaning adequately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nurse13: I thought I conveyed my meaning adequately.

As did I. But you have to remember that some people here at JT never seem to leave their homes, and have not seen with their own eyes what security measures there are out there.

Anyway, your humility and patience is appreciated and a much needed example around here. Thanks for your input.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: This isn't the 'second' time it's happened this year, it's the fifth; two went unreported (or perhaps one got minor mention), one of which was last week, and two had already been reported the when the massacre in Germany took place. As it is, it's been at least 4 gun rampages in as many weeks. I think even VOR is having trouble defending guns these days.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are not going to be outlawed. Our armed forces are not going to be dissolved. The best that the usual gun control crowd can hope for is Obama maybe finding a radio talk show host to try and blame.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: "SushiSake: This isn't the 'second' time it's happened this year, it's the fifth."

Sorry, my mistake.

Honestly, it's pitiful watching Americans trying to defend their gun culture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm certain there will be some GOP/NRA wingnuts out there who are going to be - seriously - talking about ways to make nursing home more secure to prevent attacks like this occuring in future.

Stupid, meet stupider..... unreal...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow, 32 comments so far and not a single ounce of sympathy for the victims.

Like I said...when a shooting happens anywhere else in the world people express sympathy for the victims. When it happens in the US, the victims are loaded into the guns of the pro- and anti-gun people and they start firing away. The victims' role is essentially ammunition for debate.

Lovely.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,

And so it should be. If the continuing massacres haven't yet convinced people that there is something wrong with the US gun culture yet, then it NEEDS to be continually debated until something changes.

Sympathy is not going to bring those people back or save the next random victims. But if enough people eventually debate it and eventually get the message across that US (non) gun control is not working, then maybe these people's lives will not have been snuffed out in vain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some Guy not happy that some old people getting care from the government?

GJDailleult the idea of senior citizens with Alzheimer that have big Magnums onder their pillow is both Funny and scary

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And so it should be. If the continuing massacres haven't yet convinced people that there is something wrong with the US gun culture yet, then it NEEDS to be continually debated until something changes." Yeah, that's right. Let's become a knife culture: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511340,00.html

More people are dying from second hand smoke than from guns, are you calling for a ban on cigarettes? How many knife wounds filled Canadian, UK, and other places? Thousands. Are you calling for a ban on that? No. YOu have all decided to be deceived by some politicians who have made gun law their case. I don't see enough people out there looking for ways to reduce the mind sets that make people go out and kill people with guns, because if we did, then there wouldn't be any stabbings going on either. Get rid of the criminal mind set. Get rid of the whole idea of ever getting gun and using for steal or hurt and then talk about making guns illegal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "Wow, 32 comments so far and not a single ounce of sympathy for the victims. Like I said...when a shooting happens anywhere else in the world people express sympathy for the victims. When it happens in the US, the victims are loaded into the guns of the pro- and anti-gun people and they start firing away."

There is a major difference between the U.S. and the rest of the world, and that difference is that shooting sprees aren't an almost monthly occurence outside the U.S. and the various warzones around the world as they are in America.

I think the debate you mention erupts because non-Americans are just frustrated at seeing massacres like this latest one happening over and over and over again, with little if any changes made to improve the situation.

Expressing sympathy for the victims should be the appropriate thing to do, but that will not address the symptoms of this and other shooting sprees, which is the overwhelming prevalence of weapons in American society.

Unless or until this is addressed, these massacres will unfortunately continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand, Sushi and archiebald. It wouldn't be proper to express sympathy for the victims when there's a debate that we need to get into...out of sympathy for the victims, of course.

non-Americans are just frustrated

So the Americans are pro-gun and the foreigners are anti-gun? I'm an American and I'm anti-gun. I think most Americans on this board are, actually. Your creating more problems than solving if you choose to ignore us. Sometimes unique foreign points of view and very healthy, and sometimes, like above, they just insert needless foreign polarization to an important topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I think the most important issue related to this thread is that gun control is not being debated to any serious degree in the U.S.

Unless or until it is, the body count from mindless massacres like this one will continue to mount.

It's great that you are American and anti-gun, and I would be interested to hear what, if anything, you are doing to lead to the problem of gun control being addressed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, well I'm European, pro-gun and have sympathy for the victims.

Banning guns will only work if we could ban crazy people. America doesn't have a monopoly on Gun-sprees, nor crazy people. Better regulation is the only answer, but there will still be those out there that will slip through the net and continue their motiviation to mass-murder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's ideal?

1/ Allow anyone who walks into Wal-Mart to own a weapon? 2/ Ban the availability of guns among the wider public and allow only a small segment of society to own a weapon, under tight restrictions?

It only takes a smattering of brain cells to see which is the better option.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I understand, Sushi and archiebald. It wouldn't be proper to express sympathy for the victims when there's a debate that we need to get into...out of sympathy for the victims, of course.

Sometimes Super, a person's sympathy manifests itself as passionate debate with the aim to prevent future victims. If we did not care, our posts would be quite different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi, I think you are getting a few things wrong. Ask any American and they will tell mostly the same as I will tell you: get rid of the crime element and then you happily take away the guns I would prefer not to have.

1/ Allow anyone who walks into Wal-Mart to own a weapon?" That's been tried and get this, the ACLU backed an ex-con and filed for a discrimination suit. I'll try to find a link on that later. But to answer your question, of course not however, should there also be a ban on large kitchen knives, you know those 2 foot in length types?

2/ Ban the availability of guns among the wider public and allow only a small segment of society to own a weapon, under tight restrictions?" No, because then we go back the beginning of the entire debate. Just as much as I am scared of the criminals, I am also scared of stupid cops. Bad enough many of those illiterate fools have easy access to them.

I am all for getting rid of guns, once you get rid of the element that would have killed even without a gun. Why do we have so much killing today and guns have been part of the American public (bans are a recent thing mind you) since its inception. And no, I am not a member of the NRA, nor would I ever be and nor am I part of any militia for the most part.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"allow only a small segment of society to own a weapon, under tight restrictions?"

There's tight restrictions in Germany. It didn't stop a nutter slipping through the net...the UK has draconian gun laws yet there are daily shootings. Strangely enough gun laws are pretty lax here in France, but there ae rarely shooting sprees here.

Banning guns won't stop the nutters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's great that you are American and anti-gun, and I would be interested to hear what, if anything, you are doing to lead to the problem of gun control being addressed.

I am also American, and, ahem, pro-gun CONTROL. And I would like to hear what you and anyone else thinks about my methods of addressing the issue of gun control. I think I have presented some good ideas. I think our politicians present some lousy ones. They won't have any good ideas unless we give them to them. So lets start talking.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Banning guns won't stop the nutters.

Who said anything about stopping them? What we want to do is reduce the number of incidents. Do you know the per captita gun death rate of those countries per year? Are they equivalent to the U.S.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: get rid of the crime element and then you happily take away the guns I would prefer not to have.

Crime? I do not care nearly as much about crime as I do death. If crime rates go up, I am willing to take the risk so long as the rates of premature death go down.

Besides, you want to protect your home? Get a dog. Heck, get a sword, because when guns become a rarity it will be dead useful.

Worried about some chasing you with a knife? Get fit. Take up jogging. Because you might be able to outrun someone with a knife. You will not be outrunning bullets even if you start taking steroids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't know, clue me up likeitis...

Gun crime is up, buy a huge amount in the UK since the Dunblane massacre that set off the draconian laws fro example. If you want proof of the NRA's favourite expression that outlawing guns leans only outlaws have them then look no further. I'm the first to critsize certain types of guns that can be obtained easily in the US that nobody can justify owning in "self-defense".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because you're the one asking me about per capita stats.

I've already stated my position, which is that tight gun control - what you are advocating - has been proven not to work in the UK, as guns become more freely available on the black market to the people more likely to use them in a crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "There's tight restrictions in Germany. It didn't stop a nutter slipping through the net"

For the first time in..... 7 years, I believe it was! And yet, already in the US there have been five massacres like this, with the body count varying. It was so shocking in Germany because it so rarely happens, unlike the weekly report where it happens in the US. Are you saying you think that making guns more available to everyone would make the gun massacre rate in Germany less than one in 7 years and.... well... I don't even know the last time one happened before that.

SuperLib: "I understand, Sushi and archiebald. It wouldn't be proper to express sympathy for the victims when there's a debate that we need to get into...out of sympathy for the victims, of course....So the Americans are pro-gun and the foreigners are anti-gun?"

Man, your arguments are getting weaker and weaker as you do your best to twist people's words into bizarre one-sided arguments and comments completely devoid of any actual opinion of your own (on the subject). Dude, ALL of the people who are talking about the need for proper gun-control in the US, Americans included, OF COURSE feel sympathy for the people wounded/killed and their families, or else we wouldn't be posting here at all. You really are misdirecting your anger at the wrong people, my friend.

It is a horrible shame what happened to these people, and it should NOT be happening again, and again, and again, and again, and again (that's the number of times this year), but until Americans who are TRULY against guns get out more and represent themselves in ways the NRA has been able to, there's going to be no change, and you can just wait for tomorrow's New York Times to tell you about the next one (or any other paper).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are you saying you think that making guns more available to everyone would make the gun massacre rate in Germany less than one in 7 years and.... well... I don't even know the last time one happened before that."

No not at all, but you're welcome to try reading my posts!

Moderator: All readers, please keep your comments focused on the North Carolina shooting. Comparisons to gun crimes in other countries are not relevant and will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1/ Allow anyone who walks into Wal-Mart to own a weapon? 2/ Ban the availability of guns among the wider public and allow only a small segment of society to own a weapon, under tight restrictions?

SushiSake3: A funny thing I read in my hometown newspaper in Arkansa (you know, deep south, Bible Belt, mouth breathers) when a dentisit and his wife were loading their car with goods they had just bought in a "Super Wal-Mart" when a young man armed with a gun decided to come up to them, and demand their money and other items. The dentist obliged, and went around to the back of the car and pulled out his concealed weapon (which he does have a permit to carry as granted by the state of Arkansas). End result, the so-called robber got more than he bargined for since he got shot and ran off only later to be taken to a hospital where he and his accomplaceses were also arrested. The good dentist, well since he was in his right to carry a concealed weapon, and in this case being accousted and shot at by a person who is trying to rob you, he probably will get off.

My point is, the dentist, a law abiding citizen was carrying a gun and guess what, he was shopping and doing his daily routine with his family out in public, not swaggeing with his gun and knocking off the Wal-Mart. The thief, who probably got his hand gun illegally since we can assume that since he is taking up a life of crime, he probably did not go through the necessary steps to purchase a gun legally, and yes guns are available to be sold illegally, just like I am sure a few of the crime people here in Japan have them also.

Lunatics will happen using guns or not. Just look at the tragic events in Boston today where a man killed one of his sisters, killed and decapitated his 5 year old sister on her birthday at her party, and was looking for his other sister before he was killed by the police (in this tragic case he did not use a gun, but a knife). Nut jobs are out there, and taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will not stop them from going off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Crime? I do not care nearly as much about crime as I do death. If crime rates go up, I am willing to take the risk so long as the rates of premature death go down." So, you are telling me no one gets killed with a bat, a knife, etc..? You may be willing to take the risk, why push it on me?

Besides, you want to protect your home? Get a dog.' I do. Heck, get a sword," - I have several. "because when guns become a rarity it will be dead useful." What is that supposed to mean?

Worried about some chasing you with a knife? Get fit." I am. Take up jogging." I do. Because you might be able to outrun someone with a knife." I can "You will not be outrunning bullets even if you start taking steroids." I don't run from a fight if I level the playing field. Having a gun has saved me from a car jacking, a hold up at a bus stop and all I had to do was show it and on both times, neither of them were loaded.

Being anti-gun is fine. I respect that, but as I had stated, I firmly believe if my dad wasn't as anti-gun as many here, he'd be here today teaching JT lefties what being left is all about. Instead, he preferred to follow someone like you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, I think the most important issue related to this thread is that gun control is not being debated to any serious degree in the U.S. Unless or until it is, the body count from mindless massacres like this one will continue to mount.

Again, only a foreigner would say that. Gun control is a hotly debated topic in the US, and it's debated often. Just because the result isn't to your liking it doesn't mean the debate isn't happening. And it's natural for the conversation to evolve into gun control, but for some they just can't wait to jump into a tragedy and start bashing. To me, that's offensive.

It's great that you are American and anti-gun, and I would be interested to hear what, if anything, you are doing to lead to the problem of gun control being addressed.

You need to get people to have the right kind of debate, and hurling insults and calling people stupid isn't going to accomplish anything. The gun control issue is a complex set of different factors that often don't match up well on both sides of the debate. You have a vast majority of the US who see gun violence just as you do, an article in a newspaper. It never creeps into their lives. You have small pockets of areas where gun violence is a part of everyday life. Now try to create one policy that both sides in both places will agree on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Now try to create one policy that both sides in both places will agree on."

Heh, or get all the guns in existence in the US back. I'd like to see that one happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, you are telling me no one gets killed with a bat, a knife, etc..?

No, I am telling you that better gun control would result in an aggregate fewer premature deaths.

"because when guns become a rarity it will be dead useful." What is that supposed to mean?

You seem to have missed my whole gist, but I will focus on this one. In an America with far fewer guns, a sword will be far more useful. Imagine robbing a house while carrying only a knife and the homeowner comes at you with a sword.

I don't run from a fight if I level the playing field.

Most people could not survive take the thorough beatings it would take to make most people responsible gun owners. YOU may be completely competent. I am not worried about YOU. I am worried about the hundreds of millions of other people out there.

Having a gun has saved me from a car jacking, a hold up at a bus stop and all I had to do was show it and on both times, neither of them were loaded.

Odds are you prevented two robberies and only robberies. Go back to the part about caring more about premature deaths. The way things stand now, the number of premature deaths is FAR too high. Something has got to change. If you stick to this tack, then you are basically saying that several unrelated people dying across America is perfectly ok so that you can prevent having your car stolen.

I firmly believe if my dad wasn't as anti-gun as many here, he'd be here today teaching JT lefties what being left is all about. Instead, he preferred to follow someone like you!

Someone like me? You seem to be totally ignorant of my position. See my previous posts. I am all for gun CONTROL. And I do not agree with the methods by which it is currently being done.

As always, sorry to hear about your dad. I cannot remember the details, but I assume he was shot? Keep in mind, the root problem was not that your father did not have a gun. The root problem is that the other guy did. Even people who have guns for self-defense get shot, in fact they say most do rather than successfully use the gun for self-defense. Many die by their own gun even.

Imagine if these nursing home patients were all armed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to see that one happen.

I have already presented a policy that both sides can agree on. Both side may want more in addition to that, but I think both sides would be happy with the policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "You need to get people to have the right kind of debate, and hurling insults and calling people stupid isn't going to accomplish anything."

So far it seems you are amongst the ONLY people hurling insults, and evidently you seem to think 'foreigners' (on a Japanese site, no less) are less capable when it comes to arguing the issue and/or having an opinion on it, and therefore deem it an insult which you bandy about when you are incapable of giving a valid response. The poster in questions asked YOU (SuperLib) as an anti-gun 'non-foreigner' what you are doing to combat the issue, not why there are problems in doing so.

And I don't think I saw anyone on here call you stupid, my friend, so just because you might interpret it to be that, doesn't make it so. I think the lack of gun laws/restrictions in the US are stupid, for sure, and evidently so do you since you are anti-gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis,

I was referring to recalling the millions upon millions of guns floating about in the US, if it where possible. Gun restictions are needed in some form I whole-heartedly agree - but until the real malaise in society is dealt with - in the US like the rest of the world, nut-cases such as this one will continue to fulfill their mass-murdering goal no matter what laws are passed.

And even if you could physicaly ban guns, the maniacs would simply use another tool.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: he probably did not go through the necessary steps to purchase a gun legally, and yes guns are available to be sold illegally, just like I am sure a few of the crime people here in Japan have them also.

Operative words bolded. The problem is that it is so easy for crims and wanna-bees to get guns in America. Odds are good that the nut in the article either got his gun illegally, or never could have gotten his gun given proper gun control. No system is perfect, but America is hardly trying. That is way we get so much of this type of lunacy, and others don't get so much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "And even if you could physicaly ban guns, the maniacs would simply use another tool."

The other tools would not amount to nearly the same death toll, period.

What's more, when people often argue on a pro-gun stance they always pull out this line of 'well, knives can be just as deadly', they forget to take into account that knives don't result in the thousands of accidental gun-related deaths that would NOT occur with any other weapons. They forget that when the murder is not premeditated, a simple fight can turn into multiple homicides after Drunky McGee pulls out his gun at the bar. There are THOUSANDS of cases like this in the US -- where a simple argument, or someone stepping in to help a person in distress, turned into stressed out people firing guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mad: I was referring to recalling the millions upon millions of guns floating about in the US

You said "or", in response to a suggestion of a policy both sides could agree on.

And even if you could physicaly ban guns, the maniacs would simply use another tool.

Yes they would, but too a far smaller degree of effect. If this loon had had a knife instead, I bet the death toll would be smaller.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keep in mind, the root problem was not that your father did not have a gun. The root problem is that the other guy did." And the one who did did not have a legal gun. That's my point. If you make it difficult for law abiding people to get their hands items of self defense, then only the criminals will have access to them. You can't possible just simply melt them down and reuse the metals for somethings else (although, if you got every single gun known in existence, I'd welcome that). Look, in all the places I lived, I have learned that: Nunchaku's are illegal Billy clubs are illegal Black Jacks are illegal Knives over four inches are illegal Sais and swords are illegal (try bringing an expensive sword back from here into JFK and see what response you get - and that was only for collection purposes. So, you see, the gov has thought of everything to disarm society and while the intentions are great, they only stop good people from protecting themselves and make people easy targets. Why, why is it that now, in the last 20 years I can remember, that guns are a problem and when we have had them for so long?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "If you make it difficult for law abiding people to get their hands items of self defense, then only the criminals will have access to them."

So your solution is to give everyone guns? You guys will just never get it. Skip, I really am sorry about your dad, but I'm also willing to bet that if the man could come back his case for gun control and the need for more laws and clamp downs would be stronger, not weaker. That may seem irreverent, but I believe that would be the case. I don't think he'd be asking everyone to go arm themselves. If you make it more difficult for EVERYONE to have access to guns, it will naturally become more difficult even for criminals. What's more, many 'law-abiding citizens' are still law abiding citizens up until the minute they pull the trigger and take someone's life. That's what happened here, I believe. Was this man a criminal before he killed the first victim?

"So, you see, the gov has thought of everything to disarm society and while the intentions are great, they only stop good people from protecting themselves and make people easy targets."

Wrong. Everyone having a gun makes EVERYONE an EASIER target, about a million times over.

"Why, why is it that now, in the last 20 years I can remember, that guns are a problem and when we have had them for so long?"

Now THERE'S a decent question!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smitty,

look, if the gov went ahead and put out a law barring all from hving a gun in every state, I'd abide by it, I am not an NRA type, but what happens when a criminal/thug wants to get something from me? I do know of people being shot for 5 bucks and I am sure you heard enough of those stories. So, I would do like likeithis says and take a chance, but I would do so one time and hopefully that one time I live through it. Then I would find the nearest black market gun dealer and buy one or two of three. The only difference would be that I am now a criminal and the price for a gun has jumped 10fold.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The other tools would not amount to nearly the same death toll, period."

You guys are at best living in La La Land in regards to the carnage one could easily cause with easily obtainable, non-firearm objects were I foaming at the mouth prepared to commit mass-murder. I could buy an industrial gas-powered nail gun, remove the security feature in 10 minutes and cause equal carnage, maybe worse than a nutter with a 9mm.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't North Carolina the land of God Guns and ammo in the US? I had an American sweetheart from SC years ago and she always went on about the gun-lovin' hicks in NC...

America is just too big a place to generalize fella's...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sen Harris Blake, a Moore County Republican,

Gald to see this non-biased article felt that was soooo important to include.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gald to see this non-biased article felt that was soooo important to include.

They should have wrote "Sen Harris Blake(R)" as most of the news media does. At any rate, he just stated what he heard had happened, so I don't see how it baised the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "You guys are at best living in La La Land in regards to the carnage one could easily cause with easily obtainable, non-firearm objects were I foaming at the mouth prepared to commit mass-murder. I could buy an industrial gas-powered nail gun, remove the security feature in 10 minutes and cause equal carnage, maybe worse than a nutter with a 9mm."

You completely ignored the part of my post as to people dying by the gun in cases where a simple argument turns bad, or where accidents occur. Do you think some guy is going to carry a industrial gas-powered gun to a bar, get drunk and get in a fight and nail someone to the wall? Of COURSE anyone who is intent on murder can find a way to do it, but the point is that, even then it's going to take a lot more ingenuity, planning, and technical know-how (yes, even the modifications you mention would not be easy for many) to accomplish what they can currently with a gun.

Look, the bottom line is this: you have yet to prove that removing guns or tightening restrictions would make things worse. You can talk all you want about how some nut intent to kill could turn a microwave into a deadly weapon, but what most people are saying is that the number of gun deaths OVERALL could be reduced (including suicides, homicides, accidents, etc.) if guns were better controlled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have gun control laws in the US. People who obey the law abide by them. D.C. has some of the strictest hand gun laws in the states, and yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. It is the people who do not wish to abide by the laws who wind up doing the most killing. We own guns, keep them locked, and only by God's grace have we not had to fire them to protect ourselves. But yet, I know they are there if I need them. That is what responsible gun ownership is. If you don't like guns, then don't own one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith, this isn't the case of a drunker geezer getting into a brawl and shooting somebody.

It's the pre-medidated mass-murder of people he apparently had no connection to whatsoever. Bing, bing, bing....one afte the other.

Nail gun, burning torch, gas, baseball bat, samurai sword.....all would have achieved his murderous gains in the plural.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: "smith, this isn't the case of a drunker geezer getting into a brawl and shooting somebody."

Ahhh... so while it is a general argument for guns when you were posting, now it's specifically related to this case when I make a general argument about guns. Or... were you talking specifically about this case when you said:

"You guys are at best living in La La Land in regards to the carnage one could easily cause with easily obtainable, non-firearm objects were I foaming at the mouth prepared to commit mass-murder."

or

"If you want proof of the NRA's favourite expression that outlawing guns leans only outlaws have them then look no further."

or

"I've already stated my position, which is that tight gun control - what you are advocating - has been proven not to work in the UK, as guns become more freely available on the black market to the people more likely to use them in a crime."

In fact, I think the Mods already asked you to keep on the thread once. But then suddenly when I point out generalizations about how gun control would benefit the overall death toll (in terms of reducing it) you say 'that's not the case here'.

"Nail gun, burning torch, gas, baseball bat, samurai sword.....all would have achieved his murderous gains in the plural."

I doubt it would have done even half the carnage it did with ANY of those... save that in this case it was an old age home and the ability of the people to fight back may have been slightly less than if they attacked a school or workplace, as is normally the weekly case.

Come on, Madverts, you're way off your game, here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AlphaApe: One of the most hilarious examples of self-contradiction I've seen today!

"So maybe the boday count is not as high as could have been with a gun, but those deaths are still needless tragic events done by some insane individual."

So you admit that if he had a gun, there could easily have been a higher body count -- and it's all but guaranteed the other sister would be dead. As it is, she's alive. Why? She could deflect the stabbings and merely receive defensive wounds. Tell me, how good do you think she would have been at deflecting bullets? Thank you for more than proving my point.

"We ahve gun control laws in the US. People who obey the law abide by them"

Quick question for the 'law abiding citizens' commenters: what was this guy's criminal record before he did this? He was probably a law-abiding citizen up until he pulled the trigger. Hell, skipthesong admits to carrying guns on him... so is he a criminal? Not at all! But if he shot someone, he would cease to be a law abiding citizen and would be a criminal. The people that only count the criminal stats after gun crimes have been committed are morons, in that they fail to take into account almost all gun related crimes are done by 'law abiding citizens' (or they were until the crime took place). And one more question for such people.... is a child who accidentally shoots him or herself with, say, an uzi at a gun show where you can simply pick up and fire automatic weapons, a criminal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Ahhh... so while it is a general argument for guns when you were posting, now it's specifically related to this case when I make a general argument about guns."

Nope, I was being radical and trying to stay on topic. I've already stated that I don't think certain guns should be legal, that more thorough restrictions be put in place, and that elsewhere where draconian gun laws have been passed, gun crime rises.

"I doubt it would have done even half the carnage it did with ANY of those"

Then you don't know what you're talking about. And since you've had it and rejected, please be aware I don't give two hoots if you don't like my opinion on the matter. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madvets: 'Nope, I was being radical and trying to stay on topic. I've already stated that I don't think certain guns should be legal, that more thorough restrictions be put in place, and that elsewhere where draconian gun laws have been passed, gun crime rises.'

Ah, yes... you were being 'on topic by staying that draconian laws elsewhere have been passed and gun crimes have risen', but I was off topic in saying guns contribute to accidental deaths because, "this isn't the case of a drunker geezer getting into a brawl and shooting somebody"

That's about how it reads. Now, go ahead and twist it how you like, but the fact of the matter remains you have been jumping from extreme generalizations, to saying things are not on topic when talking about general gun control in other cases. Again, for possibly the first time since I've seen you posting on here, ever, you are WAY off your ball.

Rather sad, really, watching you go down like that. And all over guns.

"Then you don't know what you're talking about. And since you've had it and rejected, please be aware I don't give two hoots if you don't like my opinion on the matter. :)"

Yeah... you're right... my suggesting that if they guy had a nail gun or blow darts in his garage instead of the gun he committed this crime with it might not have happened the same way means I don't know what I'm talking about. And suggesting that means I "don't like your opinion" is ludicrous, it's that I'm pointing out the flaws in what you claim to be factual. If someone 10 meters away has a gun, that's a fact, not an opinion. You're saying you don't like his opinion is not going to stop the bullet. Sadly, that's about what it would take for someone like yourself to wish the guy had a samurai sword you could try to outrun.

Moderator: Readers, enough of this sniping. Please focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith - you've had my opinion, discarded it, and claimed yourself a winner.

The fact remins that you are advocating tighter gun restriction whilst simaltaeneously ignoring the facts I have given you; which are that tighter firearm restriction has, I agree incredibly, made the problem worse. I have no desire to "snipe" at you or the moderator, you're just going to have to accept other people are allowed to think differently from yourself, and that one rule where you live might differ from others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could buy an industrial gas-powered nail gun, remove the security feature in 10 minutes and cause equal carnage, maybe worse than a nutter with a 9mm.

And another guy could make a huge bomb out of household products. And another could grab two knives and slash a bunch of throats during the Chistmas rush (and one did). What fails to escape your attention though is that people with special skills are special people. Most people are not so special. MOST people prefer the weapon that takes no skill at all. It is a weapon, only a weapon, and designed only to kill. This is not about preventing a few odd incidents. This is about doing something to greatly reduce the numbers of pre-mature deaths. And guns are a major player that, being a weapon and only a weapon, is a major player modern society does not need floating around freely.

The point is that THIS particular nut undoubtedly could NOT have caused this much carnage with the gun. A sub point is that without the ease of obtaining a gun and the difficulty and thought it takes it to employ other methods, he might have thought better of it, and even more likely, just given the idea up for the trouble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape: D.C. has some of the strictest hand gun laws in the states, and yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the U.S.

Your premise seems to be that adding more handguns to D.C. would have kept the murder rates down. Well....

It is interesting that since that ban in 1976, it took about 12 years for murder rates to suddenly jump and for D.C. to become murder capital city of the world's murder capital country. It is also interesting to note that in that time D.C. was falling apart. From the 50s to the 80s, it lost one quarter of its population; a huge demographic shift. Then, it was gripped by the crack epidemic. Murder rates went up. Then they went back down to half of the peak in 2005, and HOLY COW but look at that! It happened without giving everyone a handgun!

Now, I will be the first to admit that the gun laws suck. After all, this nursing home slayer should never have been able to get one, but he did. But it was not because the laws were too strict, and making them more lax is not a solution either. What is needed is smarter gun control, not chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

liketis,

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with that. For one, you have no information on the alleged killer so you can't say he was without any sort of skills as you don't know anything about him, and secondly - some nutters are often paradoxically gifted. Look at Bundy....

My main point, the one that had smith hyper-ventilating until he apprently imploded under the weight of his argument, is that tighter gun restriction has been proven not to stop the problems, in fact in some cases, it has made things a damned sight worse.

I have no idea what sends these people to commit un-thinkable acts, but whatever makes them snap will only neccesatate finding other means for mass murder were shooters not freely available in th US. As you stated, the end result could also be far worse than a nutter brandishing a 9mm...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For one, you have no information on the alleged killer so you can't say he was without any sort of skills as you don't know anything about him

Hello? He is one man. Odds are, he has none. If he does, he is still one man.

Look at Bundy....

Exactly! Look at Bundy. A rarity.

tighter gun restriction has been proven not to stop the problems

One of the best chunks of evidence I have seen for that has been D.C. Yet, as I have shown, its highly dubious. You got anything else? (And I am not talking about the gun toting community where crime is low. I am talking about gun restriction actually making the problem worse. Even if you do, there is going to be more to look at than just the gun restrictions, guaranteed.)

As you stated, the end result could also be far worse than a nutter brandishing a 9mm...

Among rare individuals at the center of rare incidents. You really just to seem to be looking at the big picture here. Such rare and unique incidents are just not worth focusing on. But incidents and nuts like these, including the ones with less of a body count, are far more common and likely to happen again soon than another Ted Bundy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Hello? He is one man. Odds are, he has none. If he does, he is still one man."

Like I said - you know nothing about him, but wish your speculation to be taken as fact.

"Exactly! Look at Bundy. A rarity."

Not from where I'm standing - look at Joef Fritzl for pete's sake. Are you going to tell me he wasn't a nutter? Or are you going to say that becuase he didn't walk into a nursing home spraying bullets then he's qualified to have your "special skills", but gun-toting nutters aren't?

"I am talking about gun restriction actually making the problem worse"

The United Kingdom. I've already told you this, and provided the facts to back it up. I'm hardly one to support the NRA bud, but the UK has long proven when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have 'em. Kids are now shooting kids, and I mean kids - not adolecents.

"Among rare individuals at the center of rare incidents."

It's not as if these incidents are daily, though there are a lot more in the US I agree. I still think tackling the problem with society is the key to the issue, along with sensible (rather than draconian) gun licensing laws.

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