world

Ex-Marine kills 2, then himself at New Jersey supermarket

39 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

assault rifle similar to an AK-47, Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan

Bruce unless that rifle was fully automatic its not an assault rifle.

I wonder if the reason the shooter did this was because he wanted people to feel the pain he was feeling, incredibly selfish act.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

“I don’t know what triggered him to do what he did.”

Duh!

Easy access to guns. The same damn thing that triggers all of these stupid acts.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Perhaps a copy cat to the movie theater shooter. Authorities warned this may happen and there's been other mass shootings since Colorado. Be safe, everyone. Time for gun control!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Easy access to guns. The same damn thing that triggers all of these stupid acts.

Guns don't cause people to harm other people, the decision to harm someone is made before they grab a gun. Holding a gun doesn't cause you to become violent. That is like saying if I put you behind the wheel of a car you have an urge to run people over or if I give you a knife you have an urge to stab people.

Perhaps a copy cat to the movie theater shooter. Authorities warned this may happen and there's been other mass shootings since Colorado. Be safe, everyone. Time for gun control!

I highly doubt this is a copy cat. There is no evidence to suggest a copy cat. The US already has gun control, there are over 22,000 gun laws in the US. You act as if there are no gun control laws in the US.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The US already has gun control, there are over 22,000 gun laws in the US.

Oh wow, that's roughly one law for each American dead from gunshot wounds per average year. One might conclude the laws are 1) not enforced and 2) disregarded by people who use them to commit murder and/or suicide.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Oh wow, that's roughly one law for each American dead from gunshot wounds per average year. One might conclude the laws are 1) not enforced and 2) disregarded by people who use them to commit murder and/or suicide.

Very good, that is exactly what my point is.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And my point is, that if the laws don't work, maybe the US should try another approach. Like repealing the 2nd Amendment.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

And my point is, that if the laws don't work, maybe the US should try another approach. Like repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Well considering total gun violence has been cut in half in the past 20 years I would argue that the gun laws are working. The reason why there is so many gun laws is because they are not federal laws.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And my point is, that if the laws don't work, maybe the US should try another approach. Like repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Also how can you say the laws don't work if your claim is that they are not enforced? Your second point is irrelevant because that is true with every law.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@noliving

there are over 22,000 gun laws in the US.

And over 200,000,000 guns. Do you not think this is an issue? Seriously, America needs to think about this, 22,000 gun laws are obviously ineffective.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Do you not think this is an issue?

No. Why would the number of owned guns be an issue? The issue really would be the number of gun violence.

Seriously, America needs to think about this, 22,000 gun laws are obviously ineffective.

If they are ineffective than gun homicides and suicides and gun violence in generally should not be going down.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well considering total gun violence has been cut in half in the past 20 years

And this justifies the nearly 22,000 gun related incidents that occur nearly every year? Sure 22,000 is less than over 40,000.

Would you sing the same song if YOU were the victim?

I am getting tired of hearing the saying "Guns don't cause people to harm other people", , of course it's 100% correct, BUT if people didn't have the guns they would have to use something else, and using a knife or club, or some other weapon of choice wakes the killing up close and personal and that in and of itself makes it harder on people to complete the act of killing. It's easy to do it from a distance, plus trying to kill oneself with a knife takes a hell of a lot more guts than with a gun I would imagine.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If they are ineffective than gun homicides and suicides and gun violence in generally should not be going down.

Crime statistics are driven in part by demographics. In most populations (not only the US) the group with the highest rate of violent crime is males between the ages of 16 to 25. It's not rocket science: when the numbers in that segment relative to the total population go down -- and all other factors including availability of guns being equal -- the number of crimes will go down.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guns are not the root of the problem. The lack of respect for life is. Even if you could take away guns these forms of heinous acts would still be happen with explosives, knives or even a motor vehicle could be used to commit a similar act. Perhaps stopping children from making more children would be a start. Who knows.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Guns are not the root of the problem. The lack of respect for life is. Even if you could take away guns these forms of heinous acts would still be happen with explosives, knives or even a motor vehicle could be used to commit a similar act. Perhaps stopping children from making more children would be a start. Who knows.

While I tend to agree that some acts would still occur it would not be on the same level as it is now with the availability of guns to the average consumer. Take the guy in Colorado, a college graduate student, up until he went nuts, a well above average student. If he did not have access to guns would he have done something different? Who knows, BUT having the access (easy) to them gave him the opportunity to commit the terror he did.

Guns are the root of the problem as I see it. No guns, takes more planning and thought for most. It's harder to try to hurt someone when the possibility exists that you will injure yourself at the same time. Plus it's a heck of a lot harder to make a bomb than people think too.

Knives....read my previous post.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ah, daily life in the good old US of A.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Why did the gunner wearing 'desert camouflage' to kills? Was he mistaken the location in Iraq or Afghanistan and everyone he sees were Taliabn or Saddam's insurgents? Maybe he just couldnt adopt with civilian life!

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Why did the gunner wearing 'desert camouflage' to kills? Was he mistaken the location in Iraq or Afghanistan and everyone he sees were Taliabn or Saddam's insurgents? Maybe he just couldnt adopt with civilian life!

Then the dude must have had an overactive imagination.......

Tyler never served overseas, said Marine spokeswoman Capt. Kendra Motz. She wouldn’t comment on the circumstances of his discharge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Me thinks this homeboy never should have been accepted into the US Marines!! This vato was just plum loco to begin with, then got Marine training on how to kill?? Not a good idea in my book! RIP??

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Doesn't look like the psychiatric "help" this guy had was very effective does it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Pondscum,

You write:

Guns are not the root of the problem. The lack of respect for life is.

Probably very true, but I wonder how you propose to change people's lack of respect for life?

Quite a big target that.

Any ideas?

And then you write:

Perhaps stopping children from making more children would be a start.

So, your solution is to kill off the human race in a generation or two?

How do you equate that with "respect for life?"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Home-Grown terrorism is getting worse and worse.after all US did to the world her own ho,e is start feeling heat.i mean which country they didn't invade on name of TERRORISM.i think world should hold meeting about that,world peace certainly in danger after such events almost on daily basis.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why did he use a Kalashnikov assault rifle made in Russia?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why did he use a Kalashnikov assault rifle made in Russia?

CrazyJoe,

They're selling like hot cakes in the States, apparently.

Find the logic in that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually many AK-47 are produced in the USA, there is a factory in Chicago.

I guess he had Post Traumatic Stress Syndrom(PTSD).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are not the root of the problem.

The same cliches keep popping up every time a meaningless shooting involving civilians occurs. Like 'guns don't kill, people do'. That's right, people do. People pull the trigger. How about taking the guns away so people can't pull any triggers?

Somehow I believe many mass shootings in America would not have occurred if gun possession had been outlawed long ago. Psychopaths, nuts or whoever intent on going on a murder spree would have had a hard time throwing scores of knives with deadly accuracy or grenades, or explode dynamite, TNT or C4 (where do you get those?).

Putting lethal weapons in someone's hands (meaning making them easily available) is a stretch from putting someone behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

And this justifies the nearly 22,000 gun related incidents that occur nearly every year? Sure 22,000 is less than over 40,000.

Yes. Gun homicides are not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. In fact it has gotten so low that more people die by drunk drivers each year in the US than are murdered by someone using a gun and nearly 3 times as many people are injured by a drunk driver each year than are injured by a firearm, source for that is MADD.

A tenth of 1% of gun owners will either harm someone else or themselves in a given year, or in other words 99.999% of gun owners each year in the US don't harm anyone.

Crime statistics are driven in part by demographics. In most populations (not only the US) the group with the highest rate of violent crime is males between the ages of 16 to 25. It's not rocket science: when the numbers in that segment relative to the total population go down -- and all other factors including availability of guns being equal -- the number of crimes will go down.

Agreed demographics definitively play a role in it but it still doesn't explain why the criminal rate of such demographic has gone down. If you look at the crime rate today of males between the ages of 16-25 it is lower than the crime rate of males aged 16-25 during the 90's and 80's. I would argue that the primary reason for why violence is going down is more related to culture more than anything else.

If he did not have access to guns would he have done something different? Who knows, BUT having the access (easy) to them gave him the opportunity to commit the terror he did.

Yes, keep in mind that it appears that the guy planned the attack for several months. He also booby trapped his place of residence with explosives.

takes more planning and thought for most.

True but then again unless that person shares there thoughts overtly you won't stop them until it is too late.

It's harder to try to hurt someone when the possibility exists that you will injure yourself at the same time.

Ah you can shoot yourself or even blow yourself up very easily with a gun if you don't know how to handle one.

I am getting tired of hearing the saying "Guns don't cause people to harm other people", , of course it's 100% correct, BUT if people didn't have the guns they would have to use something else, and using a knife or club, or some other weapon of choice wakes the killing up close and personal and that in and of itself makes it harder on people to complete the act of killing.

Different weapons require different tactics. He could have gone into a house with a gas stove and let the gas run without lighting it, closing all the windows and doors, you got yourself a pretty potent explosive if that goes off, you could kill hundreds of people doing that, not to mention the property damage. You could also use a truck or an SUV, go into a city, like NYC, get onto the sidewalk and go over 60MPH, you could kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds or you could do that just outside of school when kids are coming to school or walking away. Another way for example is to take a super-soaker, fill it with a flammable liquid like gasoline, put a lighter at the end, you got yourself a very potent flamethrower right there that could kill dozens of people very quickly in a crowded movie theater. Those are all things that are just as easily accessible as firearms, cheaper in most cases, and can be just as deadly.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Ah, daily life in the good old US of A.

Ya cause god knows if he didn't have a gun he couldn't have killed two people very easily.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Noliving OUTSTANDING!!!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Noliving anyone can (and does) come up with "explanations" to justify their point of view regarding people and their use of guns. You can say whatever you choose, but guns are a HUGE problem in the USA and until people get tired and fed up with all the incidents NOTHING is going to change.

The founding fathers who wrote the constitution could never have perceived that their laws would be misconstrued as they are today.

I will bet that they are rolling over in their graves at the mistake they made.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

NoLiving: "Ya cause god knows if he didn't have a gun he couldn't have killed two people very easily."

You're right... had it been a spatula instead of an AK-47 and handgun he could have easily killed the two from a distance and they could never have put up a fight to prevent it. It's interesting how you defend the lack of gun control in the US by stating that more people die from drunk drivers or what have you, as though it justifies gun-related deaths. So more people die from other causes... what of it? Why not make it even less by tightening gun laws?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru: "I will bet that they are rolling over in their graves at the mistake they made."

Exactly. They would have torn the thing up and started again, leaving out the current second amendment in favour of something positive.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You're right... had it been a spatula instead of an AK-47 and handgun he could have easily killed the two from a distance and they could never have put up a fight to prevent it. It's interesting how you defend the lack of gun control in the US by stating that more people die from drunk drivers or what have you, as though it justifies gun-related deaths. So more people die from other causes... what of it? Why not make it even less by tightening gun laws?

Ya cause he couldn't just used a knife on them and cut their jugular vein or he couldn't have just used his car and run people over on the sidewalk. His co-workers trusted him, if he would used a knife and kept it concealed and approached them individually he could have easily killed two people without any resistance, you know that's the truth. Him not having a firearm would not have saved these people, all it would have done was just changed how they died.

What of it? Oh I don't know probably that people are over-blowing it out of proportion, that it is not the threat that it is being made out to be also that there are more pressing issues regarding public safety and health and that going after guns with so much energy is a waste of resources. I think it is interesting that you have no desire to want the US to increase or tighten alcohol laws even though they result in the death of just as many if not more people, excluding suicides here, as guns do.

Noliving anyone can (and does) come up with "explanations" to justify their point of view regarding people and their use of guns. You can say whatever you choose, but guns are a HUGE problem in the USA and until people get tired and fed up with all the incidents NOTHING is going to change.

No its not a huge problem, obesity,diabetes, and heart disease are a huge problem in the US not guns. By that argument alcohol is a huge problem in the US which it is not. You refuse to acknowledge that US gun violence has been on the way down for over 20 years, and not just minimal decreases but major decreases.

Based off of the numbers in the US regarding alcohol do you think the US needs to make the laws regarding the sale of alcohol tougher than what they are now?

I always think its interesting how people think we need tougher gun laws but refuse to back tougher alcohol laws in the US.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The founding fathers who wrote the constitution could never have perceived that their laws would be misconstrued as they are today.

How are they misconstrued?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Noliving, cuz the British aren't coming!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

How are they misconstrued?

First I am going to give you the definition of the word;

mis·con·strue to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense; misinterpret.

Now if that doesn't give you an idea of how the constitution was wrote and how it is interpreted today I am sorry but I can not help you. The answer is obvious.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Noliving: "Ya cause he couldn't just used a knife on them and cut their jugular vein or he couldn't have just used his car and run people over on the sidewalk."

Once again, you try to justify guns by deflecting. Then you create scenarios that don't exist to suggest the guy could have done the same thing without the guns -- but guess what, he didn't. And MeanRingo is right -- the flintlock rifles the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the constitution were meant to arm militias in the event that the British tried to take back the colonies; they would most certainly be rolling in their graves over what a debacle the US has become.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Now if that doesn't give you an idea of how the constitution was wrote and how it is interpreted today I am sorry but I can not help you. The answer is obvious.

Yes the answer is that you can't tell me how it is being misconstrued. The reason why you can't help me is because you don't have answer. The 2nd amendment means that owning firearms is an individual right and that the type of weapons allowed are those that are in common use at the time by foot soldiers, what that means is that what ever weapon is most common at whatever time is legal. The most common weapon today are semi-automatics with detachable magazines when it comes to soldiers. The well regulated militia refers to a professional militia and irregular militia and the regulated part means well trained, however though the training is for a militia not individual owners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Once again, you try to justify guns by deflecting.

It is not a deflection at all, it is a refutation of your main point and that is it is nearly impossible or extremely difficult for someone to kill two people in a matter of minutes without the use of a firearm.

Then you create scenarios that don't exist to suggest the guy could have done the same thing without the guns -- but guess what, he didn't.

How is stabbing multiple people to death a scenario that doesn't exist? I'm sure Kyozo Isohi didn't get the memo two and half months ago when he stabbed two people to death. How is running multiple people over to death with a car a scenario that doesn't exist? I'm sure Haroon Jahan, Shahzad Ali and Abdul Musavir would disagree with you saying it is impossible scenario that someone during the British riots last year would use a car to run three people over to their deaths. How is turning a super-soaker into a flamethrower and then using it on people a scenario that doesn't exist, look at YouTube videos of people making flamethrowers out of super-soaker smith, fortunately no one has used it yet on another human being.

Am I correct in stating that Sarin gas attacks by a non military and non governmental organization are an impossible scenario?

Do you honestly think that it is an impossible scenario that someone would use a gas stove to blow up a house and potentially a city block smith? You really think that? Go to any police officer in Canada, USA, UK, France, Japan or anyone with explosive background and ask them is it an impossible scenario that someone could close all the windows and doors and then turn on the gas stove but don't turn it to lighting part setting and just let the gas build up in the house or you could just remove the lighter in the gas stove and just have the setting sit on light. They will tell you it is in fact a realistic scenario and they are very thankful that no one does it.

So what if he didn't smith? The hijackers on 9/11 could have used guns but guess what they didn't they used box cutters. The people who did the Sarin gas attacks could have just sent 32 people as one mass going around stabbing people with steak knives or having a whole bunch of straw buyers buy them guns in the US and then smuggle them into Japan like the Yakuza do but guess what they didn't.

Do you honestly believe with this man that if you took away his guns that he would be just tossed his hands up and said well I can't kill two people so I'm going to just go home and live the rest of my peacefully? Smith do you believe that is what would have happened if he didn't have guns? Do you honestly believe he couldn't have killed two people rather easily with a knife?

the flintlock rifles the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the constitution were meant to arm militias in the event that the British tried to take back the colonies; they would most certainly be rolling in their graves over what a debacle the US has bec

Show me a single piece of article that states the 2nd amendment was specifically to fight off the British and only British in the event that the British tried to take back the US as a colony. Well if flintlock rifles was what the founding fathers were thinking of the time then the founding fathers were only thinking of paper when talking about the first amendment right smith? So the first amendment doesn't apply to photography, films, internet, vinyl records, cassettes, pod casts, TV, etc. right? How can the first amendment apply to those things but 2nd amendment only applies to flintlock firearms? When they were talking about freedom of religion they were only talking about the religions that existed at the time, not the news ones that have been created since then right?

Show me articles where the founding fathers explicitly state or even imply that the 2nd amendment only applies to flintlock guns and that any future firearm technology is illegal for civilians to own. Show me that.

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