world

North Carolina campus shooting leaves 2 dead, 4 injured; suspect in custody

67 Comments
By Tom Foreman Jr

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

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


67 Comments
Login to comment

Not news unless it is a synagogue.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

The unwillingness to enact proper gun control laws has cost the US thousands of unnecessary deaths.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Students should be able to learn in peace, absolutely — but looking at past school/university shooting statistics, I have serious doubts that peace will prevail.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Certainly the U.S. has a gun problem.

The laws were pretty much the same when I was young and in school many decades ago and this problem was not nearly as prevalent.

I think the U.S. needs to address not only the gun problem but perhaps additional issues which are causing this rise in violence.

I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution. In the past I was also a supporter of the 2nd Amendment however these opinions were formulated at a different time (much much before Columbine). My thoughts on this issue have changed fairly dramatically. The argument that the 2nd Amendment prevents the evolution of a tyrannical government, while possibly true in the 1700s/1800s is no longer valid.

Something needs to be done to address this issue. It is not only school shootings but the daily firearm murders that occur in American cities. The big elephant in the room that no one likes talking about is the massive amount of unregistered firearms in the U.S.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

American people need a courage to doubt wisdom of their founding fathers.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Just another day in 'Merka, the country that never learns.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

@Socrateos: I would agree with a caveat; There are certain constitutional protections provided which were quite progressive for the time and I would hate to see the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the numerous other civil rights protections removed.

The Constitution can be amended and my thoughts are for the issues related to the 2nd Amendment the times are much different now and this requires amendment.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Not news unless it is a synagogue.

not news because its an almost daily accurance, gun violence is just part of everyday life in the US

8 ( +9 / -1 )

 'Merka,

It would be nice if you'd stop using this condescending epithet.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

American people need a courage to doubt wisdom of their founding fathers.

America was a very different country in 1791, when there was a concern to balance a federal army with state militias. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with individual gun ownership. The founding fathers could not have foreseen the future horror of America's gun culture.

We should instead doubt the wisdom of the conservative SC justices in Heller (2008) who ignored the original context of the amendment and absurdly reasoned that "well regulated militia" means "individual".

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution. In the past I was also a supporter of the 2nd Amendment however these opinions were formulated at a different time (much much before Columbine). My thoughts on this issue have changed fairly dramatically. The argument that the 2nd Amendment prevents the evolution of a tyrannical government, while possibly true in the 1700s/1800s is no longer valid.

I also grew up around guns, gun racks in the house and truck, and pistols in the glove compartment. Never heard of any shootings. People had respect for life, guilt, Christian values, and self control. That whole dynamic has changed. Internet? Population explosion? Globalization? who knows but the train has done left.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Tokyo-Engr. America is no longer a nation of grown ups but instead a bunch of spoiled children with no self control. The 2nd Amendment was for adults, not idiots.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

not idiots.

Idiots still have a right to guns as long as they don't have a criminal record. It says "...shall not be infringed..." and the framers meant to have any gun available, including the most advanced military grade weaponry.

Internet?

Japan has the Internet and I don't really recall any mass shootings here

I also grew up around guns

Agreed. According to NRA2A teens should be armed in case they are hanging out and they are attacked and they need to rely on themselves for protection.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

They should offer training and install metal detectors and offer firearms training to teachers that request it.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

In the past I was also a supporter of the 2nd Amendment however these opinions were formulated at a different time (much much before Columbine).

Originalists would absolutely agree with you.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

They should offer training and install metal detectors and offer firearms training to teachers that request it.

Bass, in all seriousness: This sounds like a great idea. I would like to know how many hours of firearms training is the minimum. (Of course, we still haven't decided on the issue of arming teachers, even voluntarily.)

Please keep in mind that special forces and elite civilian units constantly train with firearms to "neutralize the bad guys with guns" and still make mistakes. If they didn't, we would never have any innocent lives lost in hostage rescue operations, etc.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What about metal/gun detectors at the door, which do not open if such are detected and an alarm goes off in the local police office or with the nearby police officer? Arming teachers is not the answer. Not allowing access into the school is the first line of defense.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Longtermer - interesting points. I agree with much of what you say (i.e. Americans are demonstrating that as a collective group that Americans no longer can be entrusted with this right). There were nearly 15,000 people murdered with guns in 2017.

Growing up we had a Ruger Single 6, Colt ASP and Winchester 88 rifle in the house. We all knew how to use them and were taught to respect them. The handguns were for self defense (one acquired when the Zodiac was running around Northern California) and the Winchester was for hunting. We were taught to clean and maintain the guns and also how to store them safely.

Now, I am presenting a counter argument (counter to myself) which presents accurately and factually that a U.S. Federal Court ruled police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens. The most recent of such rulings came after the Parkland shooting. If one reads the entire article (including the ruling of the court) it presents a good case (under the present conditions in the U.S.) that people should have the right to bear arms. For those of you (like me) that are for changing the 2nd Amendment and restricting gun rights I think this article should be read as the counter arguments need to be understood as well.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

It is unfortunate and sad on so many levels that the U.S. has come to this point.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The country will never learn what is peace but arms business

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Rold said that the actions don't sound like his grandson. He said: "This is not in his DNA."

Guess you don't know your grandson as well as you think, and for the record it sure the hell is in his DNA!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What about metal/gun detectors at the door, which do not open if such are detected and an alarm goes off in the local police office or with the nearby police officer? Arming teachers is not the answer. Not allowing access into the school is the first line of defense.

Right, and who is going to pay the literally hundreds upon millions possibly billions of dollars to install metal/gun detectors in the doors of all the schools across America?

You also realize that if you limit access, or force people to go through checks prior to entry, you are in fact promoting a police-like state, for the sake of safety.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

America was a very different country in 1791, when there was a concern to balance a federal army with state militias.

yep main weapons were single shot muskets and pistol, far cry from the 100s rounds/p/m of todays weapons. Forefathers would have worded the constitution much differently if they could have seen these weapons would inflict on the general public in peacetime.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The founding fathers didn't write the second amendment so that one day people would be able to go on mass killing sprees, or enter schools of young people, wiping them out with mass murder using the modern deadly weapons, from anything which could ever have been imagined back in 1791.

Had someone been able to show them the future, the decision to include the second amendment would have been reversed. These tragic stories are man made and preventable but the nation lacks any real courage to deal with it. They will continue by the day, by the week, by the month, by the years.

If anyone believes gun control laws don't work you only have to look at a country like Japan. I think in the whole of 2017, there were eight gunshot deaths for the entire year. That is less than many of the mass killings.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

All this just makes me want to extend my NRA membership to "Lifetime Member". Don't tread on me.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Quote: "You're describing someone foreign to me," Rold said in a telephone interview Tuesday night. "This is not in his DNA."

Need to check with his doctor and see what exactly he has been prescribed, for what, and when.

Not holding my breath, because such information is usually covered up. ‘Nuff said.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The weapons of the second amendment should be limited to those available in 1791,  single shot muskets and pistol.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The weapons of the second amendment should be limited to those available in 1791, single shot muskets and pistol.

I oppose it.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

No one worry, it's not terrorism, the suspect is white.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I oppose it.

Then you are not an originalist; you believe the constitution is a living document and changes with the times.

How many hours of training is the minimum before teachers are qualified to carry firearms? I'm still waiting for that answer.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What eventually might happen, if the 2nd is not appealed, is that civilians might be trained as Marines or Army infantry, learning drills and counter tatics like are taught in the school of infantry. If a shooter enters a church for example, a leader would give the command to drop and close with and destroy the enemy. Everyone would be issued body armor as well.

Its interesting that the 2nd was written to guard against a tyrannical government, but its not the government that they are shooting, they are shooting each other, in the most innocent of places like churches and schools. What kind of insanity is this?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What eventually might happen, if the 2nd is not appealed, is that civilians might be trained as Marines or Army infantry, learning drills and counter tatics like are taught in the school of infantry. If a shooter enters a church for example, a leader would give the command to drop and close with and destroy the enemy. Everyone would be issued body armor as well.

How many hours of training to instill the basic reaction? How many follow up hours to keep these skills sharp enough to react to a shooter as you are teaching?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

whatever it takes. Security personnel would have to be hired if the locals wont do it. Those who are proficient in combat, like Marine and Army Rangers, react according to their excellent training.

I personally dont like guns, but no matter what my liberal or progressive views might be, you can be damn sure I aint going to be shot.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I also grew up around guns, gun racks in the house and truck, and pistols in the glove compartment. Never heard of any shootings. People had respect for life, guilt, Christian values, and self control. That whole dynamic has changed. Internet?... America is no longer a nation of grown ups but instead a bunch of spoiled children with no self control. The 2nd Amendment was for adults, not idiots.

I had a look at some figures for your country, and mass killings were certainly less frequent some decades ago than they are now. So what do you do as a nation when the laws you have no longer work to protect innocent people against these negative changes in society? You can't arm up the entire population and make the whole country into an armed camp. Surely, at the very least, you have to restrict the kind of weapons you have available to the general citizenry.

Why is that so hard to achieve?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I oppose it.

Why? in Japan you don't have a single gun. The second amendment was enabling the people to protect themselves against the government but it's the people killing each other and not the government. The second amendment is outside of the reality of the current situations. The second amendment is killing people, not protecting them.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You can't arm up the entire population and make the whole country into an armed camp. Surely, at the very least, you have to restrict the kind of weapons you have available to the general citizenry.

The reasons for such a change are hard to quantify, and believing mainstream media stats arent going to help you much except show a timeline. Personally, I feel its due to the deterioration of the checks and balances that once held such nonsense at bay. For ex. when I was growing up we got paddled (hit with a board) at school then beat once we got home. Such punishment today would be unheard of. Loners, stoners, bullying etc etc all existed, but you just dealt with it. There was no shootings. The bullying we got in those days was severe to what they experience today. Yes, we played with dangerous fire works, we did stupid things, but we held life as sacred, and to hurt another like take their life was unheard of.

At any rate, the train has done left. You either ditch the 2nd (never happen) or you arm and train responsible civilians in churches schools, malls etc. to react just as if you were in combat.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why is that so hard to achieve?

because the supreme law allows for it and the US is a country of laws; and all laws must point towards the constitution.

Its a complicated issue because, IMO, a country is what its past is, meaning you can only work with what you have. Liberal progressives would love to change the US into their making, ( no guns, social benefits for all etc) but this is impossible. Americas history is one of violence and turmoil, and through this experience, we have our country. What I mean is you have to acknowledge the past; you cant radically change it because its always there. Same applies to Japan; it appears to be a peaceful democracy but we all know they have a very violent and undemocratic past. They kind of straddle both worlds, making it work. America is not Amsterdam or Sweden. Would I like to see the 2nd Amendment changed? Yes, but I know it will never happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I correct myself....The 2nd can be changed, but its going to take a generation or two of lots of folks who get fed up. My generation who grew up around guns and safety and different values, they have a different experience than young people today; I never had to experience the PTSD and shock they are experiencing. Right now it can even be debated, unfortunately. But anything that requires a change to the constitution will require a massive social change.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then you are not an originalist; you believe the constitution is a living document and changes with the times.

That’s your belief. I believe under No circumstances that the 2nd amendment shop be ratified.

How many hours of training is the minimum before teachers are qualified to carry firearms? I'm still waiting for that answer.

That would depend, everyone is different.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The second amendment was enabling the people to protect themselves against the government

I still don’t trust liberals, but now that you said that, who is the government by definition? They are law makers and ultimately people and you are protecting yourself from people that want to do you harm.

but it's the people killing each other and not the government.

Then “those specific individuals” that are caught with hurting or killing people should be brought before justice.

The second amendment is outside of the reality of the current situations. The second amendment is killing people, not protecting them.

I absolutely don’t believe that and can make counter arguments where guns saved people, so I’m in that camp. But anyway, the Democrats will never get rid or amend the 2nd amendment. Will never happen.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

actually a recent study by LF showed that when a shooter was confronted by an armed person or persons, they always back down.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

actually a recent study by LF showed that when a shooter was confronted by an armed person or persons, they always back down.

Im skeptical.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I absolutely don’t believe that and can make counter arguments where guns saved people

Where people with guns saved people from people with guns?

But anyway, the Democrats will never get rid or amend the 2nd amendment. Will never happen.

Have they stated that they want to? Is this from the 'open borders' corner of your logic mind?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

or you arm and train responsible civilians

Yes and high school teenagers need to be armed too (as long as they are on honor roll)- should cut down on school shootings.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

But anyway, the Democrats will never get rid or amend the 2nd amendment.

You're right. And anyway, it has never been proposed.

But can I ask you what your rationale for the 2nd amendment is, besides that it is in the Bill of Rights? Just curious.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

what your rationale for the 2nd amendment

People enjoy having non-hunting guns as weapons just like kids enjoy having lollipops. Proof: The JT posters who are TrumpNRA2AWeThePeople type gladly leave their guns home when come to Japan. Also, NRA does not allow guns at their functions. Proof that NRA is a cult.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I still don’t trust liberals,

so you don't trust liberal cops, liberal firefighters, liberal doctors, liberal national Guard, liberal troopers, how about liberal farmers, liberal teachers, liberal hospitals,

How do you isolate yourself from such a large section of the society?

"Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on what many see as the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems and the separation of church and state, right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought."

Which part of that bothers you?

"The United States Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the freedoms advocated by the liberal philosophers, namely equality under the law"

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In general American's DO NOT CARE! They all are fine with the death and destruction, they DO NOT CARE about how many people get killed, they DO NOT CARE!

Their "rights" are more important than the lives of innocents!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Where people with guns saved people from people with guns?

As well as other weapons, yes.

Have they stated that they want to? Is this from the 'open borders' corner of your logic mind?

No, it’s just flat out logic, the 2nd amendment will never go away.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

so you don't trust liberal cops, liberal firefighters, liberal doctors, liberal national Guard, liberal troopers, how about liberal farmers, liberal teachers, liberal hospitals, 

Liberal politicians, take it easy, Zichi, lol.

Which part of that bothers you?

Without getting on a tangent, take your pick, from the looney AOC, Bernie ans to Biden, pretty much everything they stand for politically.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

As well as other weapons, yes.

WRONG!! Not in the Las Vegas shooting. There were armed security there. How would you protect against a M192 Machine Gun?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

TheLongTermer,

Thanks for the insights, buddy, just trying to understand things over there. Can't say I always follow why things are the way they are in the US but always helpful to get an inside view.

Have to say from a personal point of view, we've had our problems here in Australia, but I thank our lucky stars every time I read an article like this one that we don't have gun laws like yours.

Good luck with it all, because the way things are going, you're going to need it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4funk: "Every country with the exception of Japan has violence, maybe not guns, but violence, not to mention, the movies that the majority of the world likes are violent", How many school children killed by guns in the US and how many school children kill by guns in Australia? Enough said.

"Which helped save the world a few times." Tell this to the Vietnamese, the Iraqi, the Nicaraguan, the Chilean, the Guatemalans, the Bosnians, the Syrians, the Libyans....

Again, stop reading your governments propaganda and read some history.

"They won’t because they will always need our help" In the past 70 years the US has needed the help of its so-called allies (lapdogs) to support every military misadventure it has started. Without NATO and other allies, the US is a drop in the ocean, a tin pot warmonger.

Read some history!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How many school children killed by guns in the US and how many school children kill by guns in Australia? Enough said.

As I have stated, you can make the same argument for how many lives were saved by guns.

"Which helped save the world a few times." Tell this to the Vietnamese, the Iraqi, the Nicaraguan, the Chilean, the Guatemalans, the Bosnians, the Syrians, the Libyans....

WWI, WWII You think Japan and Germany are model countries now? Peaceful? As for Latin America, they have had their share of corrupt leaders even before the US ever got involved with their internal politics. You don’t see China or NK invading or attacking Japan or SK, or the Philippines...

Again, stop reading your governments propaganda and read some history.

I do, that’s why I’m telling you, nice try though.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Japan and Germany are model countries now? Peaceful?

Yes. And too bad American Indians didn't have guns to fight off the white man stealing their land. God Bless America

how many lives were saved by guns.

Really? Like in Las Vegas? And how many guns saved American Indians from the white man stealing their land?

WRONG!! Not in the Las Vegas shooting.

Sorry, I meant the Orlando shooting. There were armed security there.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

And people wonder why I still use the term 'Murican's to refer to other citizens of this country.

GAWD, GUNZ, and GREED!

Followed up by plenty of "Thoughts and prayers" checks, and the NRA's "Let's show them another propaganda article that less gun control is good!"

Don't forget to throw in the, "The shooter suffered from mental issues, and had a history of mental instability..."

'Muricans: Let's try and make abortion illegal so any children who are born can try and survive into adulthood or older if they don't get shot first. Besides, we need more meat bags to sacrifice their flesh for the corrupt corporate and elite that keep income inequality going to create more wage slaves and cannon fodder for the military.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

GAWD, GUNZ, and GREED!

Atheist, knives and income redistribution is that how to describe Europeans? Kind of a broad bush to paint, don’t you think? Lol

Followed up by plenty of "Thoughts and prayers" checks, and the NRA's "Let's show them another propaganda article that less gun control is good!" 

Well, I know it’s propaganda that liberals like to spew about guns. In Texas where I live most people have guns and this ludicrous notion that people are offing each other is as much of a fabrication as the Yeti. That would be saying like all Muslims are terrorists. Look, if you don’t like guns, I understand, but to vilify and demonize law abiding citizens is so far fetched and shows how so many people outside of the US show complete ignorance.

Don't forget to throw in the, "The shooter suffered from mental issues, and had a history of mental instability..."

Maybe he did, was he medically evaluated? Is there a record?

'Muricans: Let's try and make abortion illegal so any children who are born can try and survive into adulthood or older if they don't get shot first. Besides, we need more meat bags to sacrifice their flesh for the corrupt corporate and elite that keep income inequality going to create more wage slaves and cannon fodder for the military.

What?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Pay for the metal detectors with taxes on guns. Like, make them cost $100,000 a piece. Or do as Chris Rock said and charge $5,000 per bullet.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The supporters want the second amendment from 1791 without change but not the definition of the type of guns what were available then.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Some folks here really need to take a look at what they are advocating, arming teachers, hiring military trained security forces, putting in metal detectors, everyone getting armed, training everyone how to react in a situation like this.....

What a country the USA has become, hardly a shining light, and yet so many want to go there, because the risk is less than in their own countries.

Still, the US culture of violence is nothing to be proud of, and I sure as hell hope it never gets exported!

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Civilians have more than 100 times guns than the combined totals of the police and the military.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What a country the USA has become, hardly a shining light, and yet so many want to go there, because the risk is less than in their own countries.

The people shooting are unaware of how good they have it and instead live inside of some kind of bubble of misery they have created. Its a creation of our own making.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass4funk: "As I have stated, you can make the same argument for how many lives were saved by guns."

No, you cannot. Not at all. In fact, I bet you can't give one example of a life saved by a gun -- not one -- for every hundreds of thousands we can give for those taken by guns in your nation alone, in less than a decade.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The only people who could champion guns at this point are Russian sympathizers and trolls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Just loud bangs. A couple loud bangs and then we just saw everyone run out of the building, like nervous, like a scared run like they were looking behind,"

People aren't very articulate in their speech these days, are they?

Being from England, it absolutely baffles me why anyone would think it's a good idea for the general public to own guns. I understand the whole maintaining the balance angle, but that's an ideal from two-hundred years ago. Despite the fact that it's a very obsolete amendment, there are far safer and efficient ways to enact it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What's new in the land of the gun?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being from England, it absolutely baffles me why anyone would think it's a good idea for the general public to own guns. I understand the whole maintaining the balance angle, but that's an ideal from two-hundred years ago. Despite the fact that it's a very obsolete amendment, there are far safer and efficient ways to enact it.

Was watching MSNBC not long ago. They were discussing the current situation in Venezuela. What the MSNBC anchor said next shocked me. He said, Venezuela doesn't allow it's citizens to have guns. Maduro controls the military. The military has guns, so in effect Maduro has the power and Guaido can't fight back. Venezuela is a hell hole. It makes me happy to know facts like this :

[American] Civilians have more than 100 times guns than the combined totals of the police and the military.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I was shocked because the media slipped up for a split second and revealed something 2nd amendment supporters have been saying along. I guess MSNBC had a "Cher" moment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@crazy gaijin,

It will take a few generations and a demographic change; then guns will probably disappear. This is just how things work in the US, its very slow. In my time, the homosexual was given a less than honorable discharge from the military; now such a thing is considered a human rights violation.

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