world

Arizona gunman kills 5, then himself

14 Comments

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

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

Is America at the snapping point?

I think Japan should adopt US divorce procedures and child custody conventions. They seem to work so well. Oh. Strike that. It seems as though the baby daddy never married the mommy.

In other news, if I am not mistaken, driving from Lake Havasu to Rancho Cucamonga in 3.5 hours is some pretty fast driving. I guess the distance is only 190 miles, but he must have known he was going to commit suicide as soon as he got home. He finished the shooting at about midnight, drove like crazy, got home and killed himself by about 3. Seems to me he drove south to the 10 and then made a choice. He could take a right and go home, or he could have gone straight to Mexico. He had some time to think about it before he came to that intersection. If the police were so much onto him, how did he make it all the way home?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RIP to those killed and peace to their survivors.

Guns are bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are bad.

So he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun? I guess knife crime doesn't exist, or any other object that can be used as a weapon. He would have killed them with anything.

Guns weren't the problem (except the victim's lack of guns). The man was the problem. People who simplify this issue to "bad guns" are also the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are bad.

Are you sure it's not Arizona that's bad?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are you sure it's not Arizona that's bad?

Arizona is bad, but Jan Brewer is fixing it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "So he wouldn't have killed them if he didn't have a gun?"

He might have been able to kill one, maybe more, but my guess is he wouldn't have been able to stand a ways back, like a coward, and fire round after round into the defenseless people.

I agree that the man was the problem, but the gun(s) gave him the tool to carry out his acts on a much larger and more 'effective' scale.

"People who simplify this issue to "bad guns" are also the problem."

Stupidest statement of the day. So people who are against the lax gun controls in the US (where these incidents happen near daily) are in part responsible for this? Give it a rest! If anything, people who claim guns are good or some kind of right are in part responsible; they allowed this man to have the weapon he had when committing the mass murder. But hey, we can argue this again in tomorrow's shooting spree. Hopefully it won't happen, but if it doesn't tomorrow it will the day after, or the day after that. The US is spiralling out of control and STILL people fight for their moronic 'right to bear arms'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I couldn't agree more with a fellow Smith - right on the mark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No People, No Guns. No Fingers, No Triggers. No other way to look at it....Guns don't kill people, people do. I have a Chrome Desert Eagle locked in a case back home, it still hasn't jump off the wall and shot anybody yet.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a Chrome Desert Eagle locked in a case back home, it still hasn't jump off the wall and shot anybody yet.

Just wait...

The neo-libs are really trying to make a connection with this. The gun obviously made him crazy.

He might have been able to kill one, maybe more, but my guess is he wouldn't have been able to stand a ways back, like a coward, and fire round after round into the defenseless people.

Hey, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use guns. They used boxcutters. The anti-gun lobby, while their hearts are in the right place, and waaaay off reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun said: I have a Chrome Desert Eagle locked in a case back home, it still hasn't jump off the wall and shot anybody yet.

It never will. But if you ever wind up on anti-depressents, you will of course surrender your gun, right? And you could never, ever be driven to this sort of violence, even if you wife turned out to be a blood sucking, two-timing, lying tramp who takes the kids, marries a rich guy, but still gouges you for child support and alimony while denying your visitation rights even when you find yourself unemployed with lots of free-time to take the kids to the park. That very efficient killing machine will just gather dust, right? Because if you were driven to violence, you would grab a knife instead, cause you just know its equally efficient. Pah!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard sometimes speak big truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey, the 9/11 hijackers didn't use guns. They used boxcutters.

manfromamerica: That's such a lame argument. How many planes are hijacked as opposed to the number of shootings, huh? More people are involved in shootings or are victims of shootings than being in a hijacking. And frankly, I'd rather take my chances facing a guy with a boxcutter than a gun. The bottom line is that a gun was made for one purpose, and one purpose only; to shoot a projectile at someone. In effect, it is a weapon and only a weapon (or a very dangerous paperweight).

Guns don't kill people, people do.

Gurukun: Yeah, but if you take the guns out of the hands of people then you take away the danger of killing people. I know many people without a gun who live normal, safe lives. I've also heard many incidents where people have accidentally hurt themselves or someone else with a gun they owned. Locking it is never foolproof since it is amazing how kids can get into anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, but if you take the guns out of the hands of people then you take away the danger of killing people. I know many people without a gun who live normal, safe lives. I've also heard many incidents where people have accidentally hurt themselves or someone else with a gun they owned. Locking it is never foolproof since it is amazing how kids can get into anything.

Point well taken. But there are alot of people with guns that live normal, safer lives. I've also heard of many people hurting themselves or someone else with other weopons of choice. Your aboslutely right that nothing is foolproof to kids. So when they ban everything else that can be used as a weopon, then they can ban guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apart from the occasional nut, guns are good.

I'm actually from Arizona. And to put it simply, its very rare to see someone apart from the Police that is armed. A couple years ago, I was talking to a co-worker friend of mine, and he admitted, that he was always packing. Never at work, he kept his weapon in his car. But otherwise, all the time. When I asked him why he felt the need to carry, he said, he helped his son manage his church, and that he was frequently carrying large sums of cash to deposit. Because the church was in a fairly poor neighborhood, and he was having to do this at night, he felt much safer having a weapon. As it happens, it probably saved his life. About 3 years ago, some guys armed with knives tried to rob him, and threatened to kill him. He shot one of them, the other ran away, and was later caught by the Police. The guy he shot survived, and both him and his accomplice got a couple years in jail.

Point being, guns don't always kill, they can save lives as well. Perhaps not the life of the one they are pointed at, but if you are armed, and are attacked by someone with a gun, or a knife, or bat. Having it, can potentially save your life, as well as the lives of those you care about. Considering the rise in home invasions in Arizona, that is a very good thing.

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