3 shot dead at pool party in Alabama

Ah, another day, another mass shooting in the US. Of course, some people will come on here and claim that if the assailant(s) didn't have a gun they could have done the same thing with a rubber ducky and intent, but we all know the gun-nutter line.

RIP to the victims. Not a lot of detail, but I expect a lot of excuses to follow -- oh, and another mass shooting tomorrow.

Late Saturday? Footballers? Sounds like a mixture of aggression, stupidity, pride, and probably fueled by whatever was being passed around.

Must have peppered the building if they had to cover it with a sheet to keep out the rain, or do they mean protect evidence at the crime scene from the rain?

And that, people, is why you need to ban the ownership of weapons. Unstable loonies/drink or drugs + weaponry = death and mayhem.

nandakandamanda: "Sounds like a mixture of aggression, stupidity, pride, and probably fueled by whatever was being passed around."

Exactly why easy access to guns should never be allowed. True, had the people responsible been armed with a prosthetic leg they might have managed to kill someone, but when you give gasoline and a way to burn it to a person who is angry all you do is start a fire. Thunderbird's got it right.

Ah, another day, another mass shooting in the US. Of course, some people will come on here and claim that if the assailant(s) didn't have a gun they could have done the same thing with a rubber ducky and intent, but we all know the gun-nutter line.

This is what we know of the fight so far from dailymail:

Little is known about the details of the shooting, but reports have emerged saying that among the victims were two former Auburn football players who were shot after a fistfight erupted.

He said he and his friend were approached by two other men who started arguing with them over a woman. Vines said he punched one of the men, while his friend hit both of the men over the head with a bottle.

Either one or both of the two men then started shooting, he said. He said his friend was shot and killed, while two others also were hit by gunfire. Vines said he had never before seen the men who he had been arguing with.

Considering that this was a melee fight and only one person so far has died this could have easily been done with a knife, so go ahead and pass more restrictive gun laws this result would have still happened with a knife. If you honestly think if there wasn't a gun in this situation that this result would not have happened you are naive.

but when you give gasoline and a way to burn it to a person who is angry all you do is start a fire.

Your joking with this statement right? Do you have any idea how dangerous a fire is? Especially in a dry environment.

Noliving: Why you go makin stuff up? I don't see any news of a mass family suicide in Japan today. Don't start making up news on the fly.

I'm not making anything up considering more Japanese kill themselves then the combine homicide and suicide rate of the US you know there has been at least one mass suicide in Japan each day.

You don't see any news on JapanToday on a daily basis of the gun killings in the US or heck even on CNN or MSNBC or Fox news pages that doesn't mean they don't occur each day in the US. By your argument SmithinJapan is making things up when he said this:

Ah, another day, another mass shooting in the US.

Go to MSNBC right now you won't find anything on that site about the Alabama shooting. Go to CNN right now you won't find anything about the Alabama shooting. The only one that has it is Foxnews news currently at the time of this posting.

We have all seen the stories where a mother or father kills their children and or the spouse and then themselves. That is a very common occurrence in Japan.

Freakashow, you need to realize that on average 100 people commit suicide in Japan each day.

Considering that this was a melee fight and only one person so far has died this could have easily been done with a knife,

Right. People trying to stab one guy often end up accidentally stabbing others, especially if they have multiple knives and ninja knife throwing skills, which are as common as Hollywood portrays. Sure.

Noliving: "Considering that this was a melee fight and only one person so far has died this could have easily been done with a knife, so go ahead and pass more restrictive gun laws this result would have still happened with a knife. "

So you're saying you think he could have done the same thing had it been a piece of paper instead of a gun? Come on, bud... let's hear you make excuses as to why this person having a gun is the same as if they had a paint brush and anger issues.

It would be better if there were NO guns in America ever. But since that already happened, it is proven statistically that when you take guns away from lawful citizens, gun crime and homicides surges. On the other hand, when these laws are eased, homicides and other crime decrease as well.

@Thunderbird2

And that, people, is why you need to ban the ownership of weapons. Unstable loonies/drink or drugs + weaponry = death and mayhem.

Educate yourself about cities in America with strict gun bans and you will see that banning guns has quite the opposite effect where it is implemented. Why stop at guns? ban everything! drink, drugs, jail the loonies etc etc. better ban all non plastic cutlery too!

I grew up in New York state and we always had at least a dozen guns or so in the cabinet. Nobody ever got hurt due to stupidity and the firearms were respected. When I watched those London riots happen a while back I couldn't help but to feel sorry for all those helpless people who couldn't even defend themselves or their private property. It's a shame really. Had that happened at my house or place of business the vandalism and looting would have been met with a shotgun.

One only needs to understand that historically whenever tyrants have taken control of people one of the first things they did was eliminate their right to defend themselves.

And that, people, is why you need to ban the ownership of weapons. Unstable loonies/drink or drugs + weaponry = death and mayhem

This case in Auburn is a case of something more than what is reported. If a woman was involved, it probably has to do a with a standing beef against some who where atheletes and a guy who wasn't and felt that they were moving in on his "woman." What ever the case, it is a tragic loss of life. If guns weren't going to be used, some other method of killing would have occured.

smithinjapan started the comments trying to get everyone arguing over gun ownership in the US.

I then posted to try and keep the comments neutral.

Neutral is boring, I know.

People on JT get into fights too easily. Lucky we don't have guns on this site! ;8)

warallthetime,

Well said! The anti-gun activists are so quick to jump on the blame-the-guns meme. The shooters are clearly not law-abiding people. Odds are their guns were not legally owned, either. These were two trouble-making thugs.

You go to a party with a gun and start an argument, you are obviously planning to do something. if you cant get hold of a gun you will find something else to use instead. This Pandoras Box was opened when guns were invented in the first place, and there is no putting them back in again now.

What a tragic loss of young life this is over a "female". Like there is ever a good reason to kill someone, but over a girl??! These kids were like 20 years old! What a terrible waste.

If guns weren't going to be used, some other method of killing would have occured.

Really? How do you figure that? If there were no guns, nobody would be dead. Period.

The shooters are clearly not law-abiding people.

Obviously not now, but who knows if they were before? And what is your point?

Odds are their guns were not legally owned, either.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Incidents like this happen in US regularly I would like to see guns banned in US, but as someone pointed out it probably wouldn't work. As an example, people are not allowed to carry guns in Norway and look at the massacre that happened there. No one had guns to defend themselves and shoot that nutter down.

Really? How do you figure that? If there were no guns, nobody would be dead. Period.

Because no one ever dies unless guns are involved right?

Obviously not now, but who knows if they were before? And what is your point?

They brought guns to a party, where drinking is involved? I have a hard time seeing how anyone who a law abiding, gun respecting person could do that.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Based on the fact that these guys, were not be best and brightest. Would a responsible gun owner bring a gun to a party like this? If they did, would they then pull the gun and start blazing away if they got into an argument with someone? Really wonder why you used the name 2020hindsight when you are asking these questions.

So if guns are not to blame, maybe it is the system who gives guns to those that are mentally unstable or still immature?

I like shooting a gun as much as the next guy, but its getting out of control. Im not anti-gun, but when you look at 25-30 yrs ago and compare to it now. Most people settled things with a fight. Of course sometimes people died, but now some gun carrying person pulls a weapon and all hell breaks loose. Open your eyes people, imagine what it going to look like in another 25 yrs. OMG another person wants to take my guns away!!!! Yeah yeah yeah....... keep on with this thinking.<>

life has no value to some people and as long as that is the case , murders like this will continue to happen. these people are the takers in society, the criminal, the lost causes, predators. they recognize no law and nothing besides jail or their own death will prevent them from preying on society. those of us that excercise our right to self protect do not take that responsibility lightly and do so knowing at some point that weapon may have to be used to save either your own or someone elses life. the anti gun crowd lkes to take advantage of these horrible crimes whenever they get a chance but what they fail to understand is that their utopian pipedream of a gun free society is just that, a pipedream. not only is it unobtainable, it only puts more people;s lives in danger.

Because no one ever dies unless guns are involved right?

Nope. It just makes it a lot, lot more likely.

'Another mass killing in Japan today'- a man and woman stabbed to death in Osaka, thank god they didn't have a gun or the killer didn't.

Knives should be banned too. Luckily he didn't have a gun or many, many more people would likely have died.

The US has around 100 gun related deaths per 1,000,000 people. The UK has 5. Tell me that gun laws aren't to blame.

warallthetime: "When I watched those London riots happen a while back I couldn't help but to feel sorry for all those helpless people who couldn't even defend themselves or their private property."

Yesterday when I posted on this site I said it would happen again tomorrow, and it has. This time California. It's a shame that it's so utterly predictable, but it is. Where will tomorrow's mass shooting be? This isn't at all an issue of people 'defending themselves', it's about maniacs with guns attacking others.

2020hindsights: "The US has around 100 gun related deaths per 1,000,000 people. The UK has 5. Tell me that gun laws aren't to blame."

Exactly! But gun activists will come on here and blame eating utensils for the sake of deflection, and say it's their history and right to bear arms against tyrants, etc. etc. You don't even have to look at the US vs. UK, just look north of the US border for a stark contrast in terms of gun related deaths and you KNOW it's lack of gun laws and ease of access that allow these murders to occur so often and so rampantly.

Moliner: "Based on the fact that these guys, were not be best and brightest. Would a responsible gun owner bring a gun to a party like this"

That's part of the point, isn't it? ANYONE, more or less, can get a gun EASILY in the US (and even now complain about having to wait six days to obtain it, if it's not a gun show they want to buy at) -- it's not limited to 'responsible' people. In fact, I daresay a responsible person simply wouldn't own a gun.

Noliving: "Your joking with this statement right? Do you have any idea how dangerous a fire is? Especially in a dry environment."

So even though you cherry-picked my comment you still missed the obvious allusion? YES, fire is dangerous, as are guns -- give either to an angry person and you create a 'fire'. Get it? Thanks for proving my point, though.

living in a good neighborhood or a decent city no longer protects you from encounters with gangbanging scum loser like the perp in this story, who shoots three or four complete strangers because his crowd, his "peeps", his subculture dictates that a man has got to stand up to "disrespectment" in even the pettiest matters .It is exactly why i would be packing a gun if i were back in the states. it's not the country it once was. the fact that the killer is still at large only underscores why private citizens need to arm themselves these days.

It doesn't really matter with US gun laws. Its not as easy to attain a weapon by legal means as many like to think, although some states aren't as good as others with their laws.. On the other hand those with criminal intent can easily attain a weapon because they go through underground ties. No training classes, gun licenses, or background checks or waiting periods. Figure out the difference folks. Do you think criminal organizations go to the local gun store and try to do business the "legit" way?

Reminds of a time I went to visit some relatives in Detroit back in 96 and my cousin took me to hang out with some of his friends. They were gang bangers obviously and he chewed them out when one of them started showing off his "piece" like it was a toy. Obviously he didn't get his firearm by legal means.

But seriously... I want you in detail to explain to me how this could have happened (keep in mind we don't know what happened) if the guy had a toilet plunger, or hell.... let's say a paint brush! -- and done the same thing. Come on, bud... you can come up with the excuses! Hell, the NRA probably has an excuse page just for you to try and justify this mass murder!

Huh? I said this could have easily been done with a knife no where was I talking about a plunger or a paint brush. But if your looking for idea of how a plunger or a paint brush could have done the same thing well here you go, you know that Adams apple you got in your neck? Guess what happens if its gets hit especially with a hard object? Your wind pipe gets crushed. If you take the stick end of the paintbrush or the plunger and you aim for the frontal part of the throat you can crush the windpipe, in some cases a piece of the windpipe will break off, when that happens the automatic reaction is to swallow to clear the throat, the problem is that the broken piece of bone there is kind of like blade and will either result in it getting lodged in throat or it will cut the throat as it does down resulting in serious internal bleeding. This is easier to accomplish with a stick end of a plunger.

With a Paintbrush there is a better area of the neck to hit then the visible Adams apple, you know at the very base of the neck, you know how if you breath deeply how there is kind of that part of the neck where it collapse and you can stick your finger in and there are two vein like structures on the left and right side, well if you hit some with stick of the paint brush you will have the same effect.

Now as for the people that were wounded by gun shots that is very easy, you do the same thing to them as they come in to try and restrain you. I mean if you saw someone hitting someone in the neck with a plunger smith you would try to restrain the person because you don't think that a plunger being used that way is a lethal do you? Don't know what happened? This is what the dailymail said:

Little is known about the details of the shooting, but reports have emerged saying that among the victims were two former Auburn football players who were shot after a fistfight erupted. He said he and his friend were approached by two other men who started arguing with them over a woman. Vines said he punched one of the men, while his friend hit both of the men over the head with a bottle. Either one or both of the two men then started shooting, he said. He said his friend was shot and killed, while two others also were hit by gunfire. Vines said he had never before seen the men who he had been arguing with.

This right here is one of the wounded admitting they started the fight and that it was a melee fight that escalated to a gun being fired after the deceased hit both of the of the men over the head with a bottle. Which by the way can be lethal.

NoLiving is the kind of guy that would compare a family member being shot to taking a wrong vitamin because he's so used to mass shootings that he's literally numb to the reasons why they occur. Worse yet is that he probably insists there should be a gun for every American beside the obesity pill stack.

Well lets see here smith, I said suicide, suicide is the intentional act of killing yourself so its not opps I took the wrong vitamin no they purposely did it. Your the one doing the comparing Smith, your the one that attaches more significance to a person being killed on purpose by another person then someone that purposely takes there own life.

Well if anyone goes through my posts on past topics would see that I have argued that the reason for why mass shootings occur in the US is due to a culture that says force is acceptable.

Here we go blaming guns for everything. Paint brushes, toilet plungers, prosthetic legs, AND GUNS, do not kill people. I dare anybody to set a toilet plunger on the ground and let me know when it kills somebody.

So you're saying you think he could have done the same thing had it been a piece of paper instead of a gun? Come on, bud... let's hear you make excuses as to why this person having a gun is the same as if they had a paint brush and anger issues.

Not a piece of paper but with multiple pieces of paper it is possible. Myth-busters did a thing on the paper crossbow weapon and showed it is possible to kill someone.

Do you disagree with my statement that someone could easily do the same thing with a supersoaker filled with gasoline and a lighter at the end? How about an aerosol can of some sort and a lighter at the end of the spray?

Really? How do you figure that? If there were no guns, nobody would be dead. Period.

2020 you can't possibly believe that statement. Are you saying that if the person brought a knife with them instead of a gun they wouldn't have been able to kill anyone that night? What if they used a car and rammed it into the building at 100mph+?

Incidents like this happen in US regularly I would like to see guns banned in US, but as someone pointed out it probably wouldn't work.

The thing is though is that is treating nothing more than a symptom. Your not taking away the desire to assault or kill someone, as long as that desire remains the incident will happen. Banning guns won't do anything. For example you got the yob culture going on in UK and the argument is to ban knives as if that will do anything to stop yobs.

but its getting out of control.

How is it getting out of control? Total gun violence has been cut by at least half in the past 20 years, that includes homicides, suicides, and assault with a gun and during that time the number of guns owned legally has increased by over 100+ million. So how is something getting out of control when the total number of incidents is going down.

"Huh? I said this could have easily been done with a knife no where was I talking about a plunger or a paint brush."

You defend gun-laws and constantly claim that with intent the same thing could have been done without a gun in order to try and deflect from the fact that the amount of damage a gun can do, from a distance, is FAR more than a person using his or her physical strength with pretty much any weapon other than something ballistic. Heck, a minute ago you were comparing gun rampages in the US with suicides in Japan! Next you'll be justifying possession of firearms by comparing the number of US gun deaths with deaths of people in floods!

"This right here is one of the wounded admitting they started the fight and that it was a melee fight that escalated to a gun being fired after the deceased hit both of the of the men over the head with a bottle. Which by the way can be lethal."

Was it lethal? Could it have killed four people from a distance if he tossed it, when back and picked up the pieces, then tossed it again, then went and picked up the smaller pieces, and tossed it again, then went back and picked up the pieces (all while the victims were not moving, of course, or fighting back) and threw it again?

"Your the one doing the comparing Smith, your the one that attaches more significance to a person being killed on purpose by another person then someone that purposely takes there own life."

Yes, I am, and rightly so. Regardless it's a whole lot easier for a person in the US to do either thanks to the moronic gun laws. But hey, just ask the people in Sacramento who are 'shocked' by yet ANOTHER shooting (and it is literally a daily thing).

"Well if anyone goes through my posts on past topics would see that I have argued that the reason for why mass shootings occur in the US is due to a culture that says force is acceptable."

It's due to lunacy, period. You cannot justify it. Even investigations into the whole Florida shooting and 'stand your ground' law have revealed that in a number of cases where people were let off Scott-free because they were 'defending themselves' had shot their victims on the back. Force like that, and criminals, are only acceptable when you agree to accept them. That you can't see the wrong in it is a major part of the problem.

since rioting and using arms to defend yourself came up, I'm actually pretty sure there are plenty of people who would rather somebody steal their tv set then have to shoot dead a fellow human being. Yes, if your life is equally threatened then by all means defend your family, but a mugging of some thousand dollar object doesn't necessarily deserve a bullet through the head even if it is justified in the US. I'm sure there are cases where you open fire before asking questions only to find out it is the kid from across the street who goes to school with your child. I would rather spend more money on security to stop trespassers and to record the event, but I guess buying a gun is the cheaper option. Maybe bars and pool bars need metal detectors these days.

You defend gun-laws and constantly claim that with intent the same thing could have been done without a gun in order to try and deflect from the fact that the amount of damage a gun can do, from a distance, is FAR more than a person using his or her physical strength with pretty much any weapon other than something ballistic. Heck, a minute ago you were comparing gun rampages in the US with suicides in Japan! Next you'll be justifying possession of firearms by comparing the number of US gun deaths with deaths of people in floods!

You know why Smith? Because people keep thinking that if you take away the gun you take away the desire and motive to kill. You don't.

You know why I constantly claim they could have been done without a gun? Because almost all of the stories deal with 1-3 homicides. If you have a knife you can easily kill three people, do I have to bring up the two people that were just recently stabbed to death in Japan? If you take a metal bat and hit them in the back of a head you can easily kill them in one swing. Do I have to bring up the stories in which two or more people are killed because they got run over? I have always stated that overall guns are the more lethal weapons, the only times a gun lethality becomes factor is when it involves the death of dozens of people in a single incident in a very short period of time like a minute or two and even then you could do the same by taking a car at 100mph+ and just run people over on the sidewalk in Manhatten. When it comes to incidents where 1-5 people are killded you make it sound like that only a gun is capable of doing that very easily.

Was it lethal? Could it have killed four people from a distance if he tossed it, when back and picked up the pieces, then tossed it again, then went and picked up the smaller pieces, and tossed it again, then went back and picked up the pieces (all while the victims were not moving, of course, or fighting back) and threw it again?

Is every single gun shot wound lethal smith? The answer to your question is yes he could have killed four people. Your know that is true even if the victims were moving and fighting back. But seeing as this was meelee combat that took place in which a gun was used at a pointblank range the real question is could someone with a bottle at pointblank range hitting someone over the head kill them. The answer is yes. If I take a firework like a mortar shell put it in the bottle or just strap it to the bottle and threw it in the crowd you could kill multiple people doing just that.

But hey, just ask the people in Sacramento who are 'shocked' by yet ANOTHER shooting (and it is literally a daily thing)

Stabbing deaths are a daily thing in every single country, someone committing suicide is a daily thing in every single country. Someone getting killed by being run over is a daily thing in every single country. Every single day someone is being strangled to death by someone else with only using their bare hands. There is nothing special about a person being killed by gun versus someone being killed by someone using their bare hands.

It's due to lunacy, period. You cannot justify it. Even investigations into the whole Florida shooting and 'stand your ground' law have revealed that in a number of cases where people were let off Scott-free because they were 'defending themselves' had shot their victims on the back. Force like that, and criminals, are only acceptable when you agree to accept them. That you can't see the wrong in it is a major part of the problem.

I never have justified. I have always stated the US needs to change its culture away from saying force is acceptable to get what you want. The only force that I'm in agreement with is when it is self-defense. Where have I ever stated it is acceptable to shoot someone, including the attacker, when they are retreating? I even in stating in the TM story on here that the reason why people were getting off scott-free because of the stand your ground was because of a corrupt judicial system.

Uhh, everyday? Sorry, no mass suicide today, nor was there one yesterday. Stick to the facts, man.

Freakashow, 100 people on average commit suicide every single day in Japan. Just because Japantoday doesn't report every single suicide on the front page doesn't mean they don't happen. Just like how if Japantoday doesn't report every single gun homicide that occurs in the US it doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Only big things like this make the news in the U.S., while so many single person homicides with guns, "normal" muggings, accidental shooting deaths etc. never make it in the national U.S. news (much less on JT or websites like these).

No they don't make the national news but they do make the state and local news. Do you really think anyone in Montana really cares about a murder that doesn't affect them that occured in Maine? The only stories that make the national news in the US are stories that affect the US nationally. A mugging in Chicago isn't exactly something that affects the entire nation.

NoLiving: "Oh please smith, how many family suicides are there in Japan, quite a lot. Smith your argument is that there are mass deaths or mass killings every single day in the US that is the point your making, my point is that there are just as many if not more so in Japan."

You seriously do not get it, do you? Okay, show me the proof that the victims of this shooting, and those in Sacramento today, were going to kill themselves. Come on, bud. You're comparing suicide in Japan to MURDER and saying they are the same thing.

"Stabbing deaths are a daily thing in every single country, someone committing suicide is a daily thing in every single country. Someone getting killed by being run over is a daily thing in every single country. Every single day someone is being strangled to death by someone else with only using their bare hands. There is nothing special about a person being killed by gun versus someone being killed by someone using their bare hands."

Bla bla bla bla bla, the usual deflection. You still manage to avoid addressing the fact that a lot MORE damage can be done thanks to having guns at easy access. It's quite pathetic. A knife can be used for cutting, in cooking. A car gets you from place to place. What is the purpose of a handgun besides killing a person? When you cherry-picked my comment earlier you never bothered to answer that. Tonight I want you to cook an egg or something and try to cut it with a gun -- be it your grandad's flintlock rifle, your dad's blunderbuss, or your own sad excuse for the outdated constitution.

"The answer is yes. If I take a firework like a mortar shell put it in the bottle or just strap it to the bottle and threw it in the crowd you could kill multiple people doing just that."

Is that what happened? or did the guy just have a gun and easily kill a bunch of people. All you gun-nutters have in your defense is a bunch of 'what-ifs' that never hold any water, so you try and deflect. You still never answered if the bottle actually killed anybody, but feel free to ignore that obvious fact as well as pretending the guy could have killed all the victims buy running around and picking up pieces of broken glass instead of having the ease of a handgun to do the job (what's the purpose of a handgun, by the way?). But hey, since you mention other weapons like mortar shells, where were they? ah, wait... more deflection.

"You know why I constantly claim they could have been done without a gun? Because almost all of the stories deal with 1-3 homicides. If you have a knife you can easily kill three people, do I have to bring up the two people that were just recently stabbed to death in Japan?"

Almost all of the stories you pop your head into, you mean. If the nut in Japan has access to guns as easily as your moronic gun laws put guns in the hands of people that even Molenir questions it would have been a LOT worse, and yet you take an example of a man who wants to kill in order to get the death penalty when just before you were talking about suicide rates. MAKE UP YOUR MIND, man! Please stop doing anything and everything to avoid addressing the problems of your nation's laws and blaming everything else under the sun! How many people were killed in Sacramento today? How many in Alabama yesterday? How many last week in gun-related deaths (most did not appear on JT because it is just TOO common-place!).

Reporting a gun-related death in the US is like saying some old guy farted in Japan. It's accepted, excused, and in many cases defended as a right.

Noliving

How is it getting out of control? Total gun violence has been cut by at least half in the past 20 years, that includes homicides, suicides, and assault with a gun and during that time the number of guns owned legally has increased by over 100+ million. So how is something getting out of control when the total number of incidents is going down.

Going down?? Well maybe in the city. I live part time in Nippon and part in the NASA area in Houston. There are shooting deaths all the time and there were not 25 yrs ago. Some dude got popped because 3 people were trying to steal from his car, he went out from his job location to see what was going on. Pop! gone in less than 60 sec. Japanese friend lost his life in San Fran, yrs back. Gun shot! No idea who did it. A month or so ago, a Dollar store was getting robbed then a so called concealed weapons license person who whips his gun out, shots at the guy misses and kills an innocent worker, etc........ Of course the morality issue is a major factor when comparing Jpn to The US. and that takes us down another long road of discussion. The amount of guns is out of control and the way people want to pack all the time is a recipe or disaster. Go ahead and talk the talk " yep mess with me and I'll give ya a new orifice cause imma packin" blah blah blah. Constitution, ....... I've heard it all, just remember this conversation in 25 yrs from now. Let's hope no person you know, or much less love , gets popped because of some perp with an itchy trigger finger

The other way of viewing it is what if Japan did have guns? I can guarantee the murder rate would go up. The biggest problem with guns is the mortality rate of the gun itself. It's just too easy to kill multiple people from afar. Perhaps rubber bullets, a taser or some other non-lethal weapon is the answer to freedom of self-defence in the US, but semi-automatic weapons cannot be the answer. The argument that people kill people with guns and not the gun itself is just plain stupid. The majority of gun owners don't have ample training in arms let alone a cool head in times of panic and uncertainty. A good proportion have itchy trigger fingers before they even get a hold of a gun. Kids want to look cool, some are addicted to war/shooting games and many are just insane, uneducated, mentally unstable, under the influence of drugs or just very angry and cannot control their rage. Road rage comes to mind..... people react to stress differently and unpredictably.

NoLiving: "You know why Smith? Because people keep thinking that if you take away the gun you take away the desire and motive to kill. You don't."

But in many cases, you take away the means -- and that's the point. If this person in Alabama didn't have the weapon he did, three people would not be dead, bottom line.

If this person in Alabama didn't have the weapon he did, three people would not be dead, bottom line.

nonsense. over the course of the hunting season literally hundreds of thousands of young males in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania head out on winter weekends with guns, ammo and often booze. nobody gets killed. nobody takes out three total strangers because he feels he got 'dissed' and had to 'represent' or ' send a message.'

nonsense. over the course of the hunting season literally hundreds of thousands of young males in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania head out on winter weekends with guns, ammo and often booze. nobody gets killed

Well, not actually true. I remember just late last year, there was a story of two hunters getting killed by accidentally shooting themselves during the opening of deer hunting season in Minnesota (four had died in all, but the other two were not from their own guns). And there are even more stories of hunters accidentally shooting themselves or others, yet living to tell their tales. I remember even a story of a hunter's dog accidentally shooting his owner with a gun. Every year, people are accidentally shot by guns and many even die, but I guess NRA nuts will claim it's just "collateral damage" for their selfish right to enjoy their deadly hobbies.

So if guns are not to blame, maybe it is the system who gives guns to those that are mentally unstable or still immature?

Umm, actually, I think the guy who pulled the trigger is to blame. But maybe you feel differently.