world

Fired reporter kills 2 former co-workers on live TV in Virginia

189 Comments
By STEVE HELBER, PAM RAMSEY and JONATHAN DREW

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

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

189 Comments
Login to comment

But, but, but....it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people!!!!

Wake up America.

23 ( +35 / -12 )

Libs, stop already! Here we go again. I saw the video, absolutely insane, the guy was a ticking time bomb. He completely caught those people by surprise, he walked up on them, they didn't even see it coming. The guy was complaining or making an accusation that his co-workers were being racists, there is no proof of that, but the proof that they do have on this guy is that he was a floater, going from station to station, which is normal, but for this guy it was because he had a problem with people. Angry, antagonistic, had a chip on his shoulder, that was the real problem. The guy died last night in surgery, good riddance.

-30 ( +13 / -42 )

The ugly truth is white on white crime does exist. It is a growing pandemic in the white community, and if we don't call attention to this problem soon, there will be no more white people left to run the world.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

Horrible. Tragic. So sad for those victims. They woke up this morning, went to their jobs, minding their own business, and some nutcase kills 'em. Goodness gracious. There are terrible human beings on this planet.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Another ugly story from the US about another ugly man with a handgun. Time for all the usually competing narrative fallacies from the usual ideologues. But to me the one thing that resonates is again -and again and again - a madman used a handgun to murder.

16 ( +24 / -8 )

Mind numbing ! Again and again . . . . . . Bless the families and may the young victims rest in peace.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Black, gay man with a gun kills two white people = hate crime . . . .

5 ( +16 / -11 )

Guns don't people, people kill people.

I think we should arm everyone with nuclear missiles. After all, the missiles won't kill anyone, only people do that.

9 ( +19 / -10 )

Black, gay man with a gun kills two white people = hate crime . . . .

Unless the killer is a black gay man and said something like 'You damn white honkies', I don't see why it should be classified as a hate crime. Yes, another horrible horrible gun crime which no doubt bass4funk is already getting defensive about. You may enjoy having guns floating around everywhere but I'm sure glad they're not legal in Japan or in my home country - and as such shootings are much less frequent.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The guy was a ticking time bomb, either way, gun or NO gun, the guy was going to murder someone. Absolute tragedy.

-16 ( +12 / -27 )

It seems uncivilized. Every time I hear shootings, I don't feel like visiting any more, because too many.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Okay Black Lives Matters make this one spin.....

-10 ( +9 / -18 )

"Unless the killer is a black gay man and said something like 'You damn white honkies', I don't see why it should be classified as a hate crime."

According to his Facebook posts and his past grievances with his employer, the killer specifically targeted his victims for their color.

That made these shootings a hate crime . . . .

5 ( +14 / -9 )

There are bigger issues in the U.S. besides guns and homicide.

Ahh, well than that should make the families of those killed by guns feel a lot better, knowing that guns are actually a non-issues since there are other things that cause death too. What a relief.

According to his Facebook posts and his past grievances with his employer, the killer specifically targeted his victims for their color.

From what I've read, the only thing that color had to do with it was that he felt discriminated against because of his own color. That doesn't make it a hate crime.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

The U.S. Needs gun control.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

absolutely insane, the guy was a ticking time bomb. ...... Angry, antagonistic, had a chip on his shoulder, that was the real problem.

What's absolutely insane is the fact that nutters like the one you describe have no trouble at all getting their hands on a gun. (In the crazy fax the killer sent to ABC News, he wrote, "Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15...,")

A person with issues can just go out and 'put a deposit on a gun'. And people see no problem in that. That's the real problem.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-vester-flanagan-bryce-williams/index.html?iref=obinsite

Two innocent people lost their lives for no reason, just because America thinks the right to kill at will is more important than the right to be safe as you go about your daily life. And now two families are grieving because of that 'right'. I doubt that it will ease their pain to know that their loved ones were killed in cold blood to protect the right of upstanding' Merkins to go out and kill some wildlife when it pleases them.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

@Texas... surprised it hasn't been labeled an act of terrorism... shhhh... hear the hate crime rumbles... as if anyone is murdered out of love.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

basfunk

Libs, stop already! Here we go again.

Why always the labels? Do you know Church Lady?

Church Lady, a crossdressing character on several skits done by US TV show Saturday Night Live, was a sanctimonious, judgmental woman who gloried in pointing out problems in just about everything. She’d consistently blame these problems on “satan”, an imaginary character on several skits done by US TV show Saturday Night Live.

She lived a binary existence: her beliefs good / different beliefs bad. Through her narrow faith based view of the world she was able to rid herself of the possibility there might be grey areas in life. She’d sit smugly on the imaginary high horse she had created for herself and look down on those who didn’t meet her imaginary standards.

She was adept at pointing out what she thought were problems, but never able to offer solutions, just call names and judge.

To me her smug sanctimony is similar to what’s written by so many ideologues all throughout the ‘Net, each with his or her own satan to blame problems on. And there are so many possible satans.

My inner church lady says satan is an extreme ideologue.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"... the only thing that color had to do with it was that he felt discriminated against because of his own color. That doesn't make it a hate crime."

Pure nonsense. This angry, black gay liberal (he was at one time employed at a CBS-affiliated TV station) had serious issues with white people, and took out his racist anger by shooting two of them. That makes this a hate crime . . . .

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Sorry to loose a couple of young souls to a vindictive lunatic. Hate crime yes. Gun or no gun this guy would have murdered for vevenge.

With all the anti gun posts it seems you all prefer to buy band-aid instead of preventing the wound. The issue is crazy lunatics. He could have driven a SUV and plowed away at least one other person in addition to the two he murdered.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

A gay black ticking timebomb. A guy who praised Columbine & Virginia tech shootings. Clearly a wacko.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Again this shooter doesn't fit the "norm" of what we are to believe from the MSM in regards to shootings. Here was a Black man, clearly a Democrate (he wore an Obama pin in reporting elections and was chastised by his employer for doing so on the grounds of trying to remain impartial in those matters while at work), and he was gay. Again this is not what we expect as a gun toting, NRA, right wing Republican who hates Blacks and gays as we are led to belive.

This guy was messed up in the head. It is a pity that these two people lost their lives because of his actions. And for those anti-gun people out there, read the background on him on how he had to be "escorted out" of the building when they let him go 2 years ago. He didn't have a gun then, but management thought that he was enough of a threat to the well being and safety of the office that he needed help getting put out. It could have been a gun, knife or a car, this guy was going to make his point and strike vengeance on those he thought who did him wrong.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

The real problem is how many American males explode in anger and choose to kill others as a response.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

kabukilover, totally agreed.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The picture shows the last seconds of the life of a person. Then she was gone. I wonder, did she feel any pain? Were there seconds enough for her to realize what had just happened? Or just suddenly, gone. gone.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The U.S. leftwing media is already circling the wagons around this guy -- once of their own -- by making the shooter out to be a hero because he claimed, in his 32-page suicide note, to be a victim of racism . . . .

-13 ( +6 / -18 )

@Sabrage, yes! It is a problem. Some kill for sneakers! Some kill vindicating a verbal insult! Some seem to just want to hurt somebody.

A box of aspirin only masks the cause of having a headache meanwhile a more concerning issue may be present. Certainly not the solution.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

With all the anti gun posts it seems you all prefer to buy band-aid instead of preventing the wound. The issue is crazy lunatics. He could have driven a SUV and plowed away at least one other person in addition to the two he murdered.

I agree, which is why everyone needs to start being equipped with rocket launchers. If everyone had rocket launchers, no one would ever shoot rockets at anyone, because someone may shoot a rocket back at you.

Flamethrowers too. Lots and lots of flamethrowers.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

angry, black gay liberal

Christmas, New Year's Eve and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. Bet he's Jewish, too!

Perhaps our gun enthusiast friends might enlighten us on the political factors that made it so easy for Williams to acquire a single-function killing device?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

'A gay black ticking timebomb. A guy who praised Columbine & Virginia tech shootings. Clearly a wacko.'

A 'wacko' who praised other gun-toting 'wackos' was able to get his hands on a firearm. Clearly a 'wacko' situation.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

i'm not sure if gun control would have prevented this incident. unless there is a test for mental health, this wacko still would have been able to obtain a gun. until america totally restricts access to guns, then these types of incidents will continue to occur. but that ain't gonna happen with the current SCOTUS.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Live boardcasting executions?..... That reminds me the ISIS style!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

'angry, black gay liberal

Christmas, New Year's Eve and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. Bet he's Jewish, too!'

Atheist would be an even bigger cause for mouths to start salivating over at Fox. If he was known to drive a hybrid or listen to rap music, they'll be absolutely delirious.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Messed up! And our school was on lock down because of this. Prayers for the families of those who died.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i'm not sure if gun control would have prevented this incident. unless there is a test for mental health, this wacko still would have been able to obtain a gun. until america totally restricts access to guns, then these types of incidents will continue to occur. but that ain't gonna happen with the current SCOTUS

I am anti-guns, anti-murder and anti-workplace violence but know that these types of murders would still occur without guns, just less easy to do so. Remember, a man killed 7 people in Akihabara with some knives.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

US has 5 percent of world's population, but had 31 percent of its public mass shooters from 1966-2012.

I have been active in gun control campaign.

I have seen enough because I am from Colorado where there were two mass shootings. . Please question yourself before repeating NRA's quote,"Gun does not kill, but people kill." .Is it so? Actually both gun and people kill. The problem is very serious and we need to go beyond this old the buzz word. We need to change. Agree?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

A lunatic with a gun is much more dangerous than a lunatic without a gun.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

This Race Card BS has got to stop racism always was and always will be present. It's so easy to see here on JT posts between liberals and conservatives hoever it's not race, it's labels, points of view. Way too much hate exists without adding to it.

This man felt he was a victim and a target. Well, news flash, not everyone will like what we do and how we do it. We all can fall into an excuse to underperform or build anger on. Racial excuses need to end. Religious excuses need end. Gender excuses need to end! All of us are guilty of perpetuating some degree of bias one way or another. Keep an open mind and hate nothing! Hate is a very strong emotion and nothing good comes from hate.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

a. The black perpetrator is being described as mentally ill, deranged, etc. Where are those liberals whining about how only white people get that language when they commit violent crime, but blacks get described as thugs?

b. The black killer wrote a manifesto that makes it clear this was a hate crime. Why are all the liberals deflecting from this by citing gun control, unlike Charleston where it lead to a 'national conversation' about race? Why is the race angle being conveniently buried when everyone knows that if it was 2 blacks gunned down by a white man it would be the focus?

-4 ( +7 / -10 )

@gokai

Were there seconds enough for her to realize what had just happened? Or just suddenly, gone. gone.

I've watched the "first person" footage the murderer made. After the first 1-2 shots she jumps in surprise, then turns to run from him. He fires another 3+ shots at her back. She runs about 2 meters before the footage gets really shaky and you can hear a woman and the cameraman screaming as he fires off additional rounds. I'm pretty sure it wasn't an instantaneous death for her.

The footage seemed.....odd. Her clothing didn't move at all. There were no indications of "terminal effects" that should accompany pistol rounds striking her at such a short range.

@Strangerland

I think we should arm everyone with nuclear missiles. After all, the missiles won't kill anyone, only people do that.

I know you're being facetious but there is some precedent for "An armed society is a polite society." Just look at Kennesaw, Georgia. Anecdotally, my friend who visited Afghanistan in April had similar observations: he said everyone was polite because you just assumed everyone was dangerous. That white guy you insulted might claim he works for an NGO but he's probably CIA and has a pistol under his jacket. That Afghan guy you bumped into was actually a local warlord and because you didn't apologize he might come back with 10 men and shoot up the coffee shop with AKs. So everyone is very level-headed in their interactions with strangers, lest you underestimate their capacity to kill you.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Sounds like compelling TV - kind of thing we see all the time in cop shows and nutjob shows. Life imitates art?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vester L. Flanagan (or Bryce Williams) & Dylan Roof were both crazy cocktails. Mostly insane with just a twist of racism.

This conversation shouldn't be so much about racism issues in America as it should be about mental health issues in America.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This conversation shouldn't be so much about racism issues in America as it should be about mental health issues in America.

It should be about guns in America.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Oh no.....Guns don't kill people, people kill people..................but monkeys do too ... if they've got a gun.

Has anyone ever wondered how much arms are actually produced? We have only handful Arms makers in the world, and no governance on where they sell their weapons.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Very tragic. The video game-like first person filming only reinforces how screwed up this guy was..

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@lllyas,

A. Those who BlackLivesMatter(tm) have chosen to rally around -- and the liberal media chooses to report on -- all were either committing a crime or had a criminal past, aka, thugs. Notice the BLM organization never organizes rallies/protests/riots when murders are committed in predominantly urban ghettoes by blacks on blacks. They took their cue from Rev. Al and Jesse: There's no money to be made.

B. Of course this was a hate crime. But the proggies here have not yet received their talking points from the fever swamps of the far-left web sites they visit to tell them otherwise. Give them a few hours and you'll see them parroting/poaching their "thoughts" on this subject,

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

i'm not sure if gun control would have prevented this incident. unless there is a test for mental health, this wacko still would have been able to obtain a gun.

Gun control that still allows wackos to obtain weapons legally? What kind of 'control' is that?

Effective gun control keeps guns out of the hands of those with the potential to do harm with one. i.e.., the whole population.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Has anyone ever wondered how much arms are actually produced? We have only handful Arms makers in the world, and no governance on where they sell their weapons.

I am sharing some stats if you are interested in learning the facts.

Americans, Russians, Chinese and Germans are big gun exporter in global market. They are laughing to the bank. Let's wake up!

Russian weapons were exported to 56 countries, with India, China and Algeria making for almost 60 percent of total sales, said the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in its 2015 Yearbook Monday. Asia and Oceania received 66 percent of Russian arms exports during the period, while Africa accounted for 12 percent and the Middle East 10 percent.

The United States remains the leading arms exporter increasing sales by 23 percent, with the country’s share of the global arms trade at 31 percent. Ninety-four countries imported US made weaponry, with the Middle East accounting for 32 percent of the purchases. The United States and Russia made up 58 percent of the global trade in conventional arms.

Chinese sales have made a breakthrough in the last four years increasing exports by 143 percent, surpassing Germany and leaping from ninth to the third position, however, still far behind the US and Russia.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Lee Harvey Oswald had the distinction of being the first person to be murdered on live TV, in Dallas, Texas in Nov. 1963. It would be interesting to know what the body count over the last 50 years has reached.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I am anti-guns, anti-murder and anti-workplace violence but know that these types of murders would still occur without guns, just less easy to do so. Remember, a man killed 7 people in Akihabara with some knives.

Virtually all of the mass shootings covered here this summer have been with legally obtained guns so there are clearly gaps or oversights in the waiting period process. The real question is how many of those perps would have been able to get a firearm illegally which the country is obviously already awash in.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Noble - that's why everyone should have nuclear weapons. We'd then be living in a 100% safe, perfect planet. No one would ever offend anyone ever.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

The downside of "mental health checks" is if a "mental health check" is required before purchase, this would be the liberals wet dream regarding "gun" (people) control, as it would be a subjective evaluation as to who is fit to purchase and own a firearm. Remember, the Obama administration showed its hand by going on record as saying returning veterans from the Gulf region should be considered prime candidates for committing acts of domestic terrorism. I'm guessing the approval rate for those who wore a military uniform in a combat zone would be somewhere around 0%.

Liberals -- both foreign and domestic -- can shake their li'l leftists fists all they want, but my 2nd Admendment right trumps their whining and day of the week . . . .

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

my 2nd Admendment right trumps their whining and day of the week . . . .

Only legally, not morally.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

... But to me the one thing that resonates is again -and again and again - a madman used a handgun to murder.

Yeah... I mean, madmen never ever use knives to kill. No one ever gets stabbed or bludgeoned to death. Can you imagine if they did? We'd have to start banning butter and steak knives and hammers and...

It seems the usual suspects see right past the real issue here, which is the guy is a psycho and probably would've devised another modus operandi if a gun had not been available; instead they hijack this tragedy to argue politically, and their arguments, I believe, are rooted in anti-Americanism.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The downside of "mental health checks" is

that they, as you have so eloquently demonstrated, threaten your God-given right to purchase firearms.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"A box of aspirin only masks the cause of having a headache meanwhile a more concerning issue may be present. Certainly not the solution."

Yes, you are right, MarkG...Americans are mentally sick.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Time to start arming reporters?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@MarkG: With all the anti gun posts it seems you all prefer to buy band-aid instead of preventing the wound.

Call me a liberal all you want but I fail to see how the right to carry guns saved the lives of the two young workers. They sure were not given the chance to “prevent the wound” by the nut who murdered them. But yes, I know, you then would go saying that because the victims had no guns on them they were murdered so … Let’s have everybody with a gun!! Cannot believe all the non-sense written to defend this “right.”

5 ( +7 / -2 )

If only we had more guns.

If only the reporter, cameraman and interviewee had all been carrying guns, they could have stopped this maniac in his tracks.

All Americans should be carrying guns at all times... concealed handguns or preferably automatic rifles slung over the shoulder.

That's the kind of society we should be aiming for.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Time to start arming reporters?

No no, everyone. With nuclear weapons.

I can't understand why everyone isn't realizing this. It's blatantly obvious.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Man, you guys who are mentioning the Black Lives Matters movement are unbelievable. You act like racial equality has existed in America for decades. It doesn't even exist today. While it's certainly gotten better, there's still room for improvement, hence the movement. I don't agree with all of their tactics, but that doesn't mean their cause isn't real.

I guess you guys will bring up anything to avoid talking about the real issue concerning this story...

The black perpetrator is being described as mentally ill, deranged, etc. Where are those liberals whining about how only white people get that language when they commit violent crime, but blacks get described as thugs?

What do you want, a cookie? We complain when blacks or minorities who don't have mental illnesses are referred to as thugs when whites aren't. Completely different situation.

The black killer wrote a manifesto that makes it clear this was a hate crime. Why are all the liberals deflecting from this by citing gun control, unlike Charleston where it lead to a 'national conversation' about race?

I don't think it's being particularly ignored considering we know about it. But again, you assume that all things are equal, when they're not. I don't condone his actions, but obviously reactions will be different when a member of the privileged group is doing the attacking on the disadvantaged. Again, what he did was terrible, but as terrible as it was, you can still have some nuance in your thought.

Notice the BLM organization never organizes rallies/protests/riots when murders are committed in predominantly urban ghettoes by blacks on blacks.

First of all, how are you so sure they don't? Second, if you were a group primarily concerned with gaining attention for your cause, wouldn't you focus on targets guaranteed to gain media attention (hint: it's not black neigborhoods)?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns and not the crazy people.

The fact remains that the U.S. could have Japan's gun control laws (actually it couldn't, because the U.S. has open borders and unenforced immigration laws, etc.) and there would still be dangerously crazy people wandering the streets. "But they wouldn't have guns!" you say. But they would still have knives, cars, hatchets, etc., etc., and maybe guns. Meanwhile, their victims wouldn't be able to defend themselves because they were disarmed.

So keep blaming inanimate objects, irrational hoplophobes, instead of the massive lack of proper mental health care in the U.S., and watch your policies fail.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns and not the crazy people.

Exactly. That's why I'm stepping up my personal campaign for personal nuclear weapons for the masses. Let's solve this problem once and for all, and make sure every person has the capacity to reign down death on mass numbers of people all at once. It will fix everything.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

choiwaruoyaji All Americans should be carrying guns at all times... concealed handguns or preferably automatic rifles slung over the shoulder.

I personally prefer Strangerland idea, flamethrowers, more effective than guns at short distance, so provide better protection.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Rest in peace dear victims

Just a few thoughts:

-Seems strange to me that people use the word "Liberal" as if it has a negative connotation.

-I see a lot of straw being strewn about on here.

-American exceptionalism is largely to blame.

http://www.newsweek.com/study-sees-mass-shootings-exceptionally-american-problem-365260

-When the number two country has five times fewer mass shooting than you, you know you deserve that America is number one spot at least in one category. I mean, you guys literally own the category!

My apologies to US residents who have a good head on their shoulders and see the world as it should be. Put someone in charge who will get those gun laws in the books, you'll all be better for it.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I have seen arguments elsewhere that had these two been carrying guns, they would still be alive. Untrue. They would not have had time.

Strangerland's makes the excellent observation that all citizens should be given nuclear weapons by logical extension.

The other fatuous argument is that this guy would have killed whatever, using a knife or other. However there are so few mass murders worldwide using anything other than guns shows that the evidence does not support this view.

He killed because he had access to guns. He did not need a licence or go through any vetting. He bought the gun legally.

Amend the second amendment!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

'When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns'

Why did the appalling specimen choose to finish off the lion with a gun? Because a gun was the most efficient way to do it. That's why hunters use them and don't use screwdrivers, knives, frying pans or feather dusters.

According to the gun-lovers, the US is a country which seems unable to deal with people with serious mental illness. Is it a good idea to have this country absolutely awash with the most efficient tools for killing people? Is it a good idea to have a culture in which these things are not just tolerated as a necessary evil but actually loved by many? I saw TV shows and magazines in the States which border on the erotic when describing these things.

It's a vice which leaves innocent people dead.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This Race Card BS has got to stop racism always was and always will be present.

Christopher Dorner (former Black LAPD Officer) pulled this same exact card before going on his killing spree. Even sending his manifesto to Anderson Cooper @ CNN in hopes they could spin a more favorable story. Dorner wasn't a fag tho-

So quick to pull the race card. So quick to kill.

Angry, antagonistic, had a chip on his shoulder, that was the real problem. The guy died last night in surgery, good riddance

Good. Case closed.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns and not the crazy people.

Exactly. That's why I'm stepping up my personal campaign for personal nuclear weapons for the masses. Let's solve this problem once and for all, and make sure every person has the capacity to reign down death on mass numbers of people all at once. It will fix everything.

You know, you're trying to be funny and sarcastic. But I think the poster makes an excellent point! Instead of dodging it, I'd appreciate it if you dealt with his or her point in a straightforward way.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

How many more times does a tragedy like this have to happen before the US wakes up and bans civilian ownership of ALL firearms?

Those who are against gun control effectively consider such brutal murders a price worth paying for their "freedom".

It's ridiculous.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I am surprised that he even got a job, why? well he had been fired from several jobs on the grounds of constantly filling complaints, IF these bosses did there home work and asked his previous employer why he was dismissed, he properly would not have got the job. It sounds like this guy had a massive chip on his shoulder, it certainly not the way to behave by shooting your work colleagues just for the internet media fame.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I still can't believe how many nincompoops actually believe that these murders are simply a matter of gun policy in the U.S., and that they could've been prevented if a gun banning had been in place. Guns aren't the only way people get murdered people! This guy was hellbent on killing these two people. I believe he would've went after them with whatever.

Now, this doesn't mean that I support guns or that I don't realize that America has a gun crisis, I'm just saying that these murders are not a simple matter of "well, what if he couldn't get his hands on a gun in the first place." That's such a feeble-minded way to look at it.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

bass4funk: "gun or NO gun, the guy was going to murder someone"

You're right, bass! Of COURSE he could have done the very same thing, from a distance, and killed both people with a bag of potato chips. He could have suffocated them with some play-doh! He could have thrown a cup of water at them! He could have taken a waffle iron and chased them around and killed them!

Having the gun had NOTHING to do with giving him a distinct advantage, and them a completely inability to run away or fight back. No way this is a gun problem!

Another day in the US. RIP to the reporters who did not stand a chance because the man had a gun.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Can you imagine the press brouhaha if the races in this case had been reversed? That would the the only topic here, and we would not here the end of it.

But in the current constellation, that is no topic. Amazing, isn´t it.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The argument often presented is that access to guns is largely irrelevant, as these people would murder regardless.

If this is the case, and access to guns is so irrelevant, why do these people always choose guns as there first choice of weapon, as opposed to say a potato peeler?

Is it that even in their deranged state, they are aware that the gun is the most effective method of dispensing death in a short space of time. The gun is the deranged killer's first weapon of choice because of its effectiveness. Limiting access to these weapons would almost certainly reduce the ability to commit murder.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Liberals -- both foreign and domestic -- can shake their li'l leftists fists all they want, but my 2nd Admendment right trumps their whining and day of the week . . . .

You are scary... O.o

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"I am surprised that he even got a job, why? well he had been fired from several jobs on the grounds of constantly filling complaints, IF these bosses did there home work and asked his previous employer why he was dismissed, he properly would not have got the job. It sounds like this guy had a massive chip on his shoulder, it certainly not the way to behave by shooting your work colleagues just for the internet media fame."

I'm surprised he would live in America, once he noticed he was not wanted there, like millions of other blacks then all this could have been avoided.

ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/25/three-quarters-of-whites-dont-have-any-non-white-friends/

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I still can't believe how many nincompoops actually believe that these murders are simply a matter of gun policy in the U.S., and that they could've been prevented if a gun banning had been in place. Guns aren't the only way people get murdered people!

Guns make it easier to kill people quickly. Without a gun, he might have killed one person instead of two. Nobody is claiming that murders will disappear completely. Just dramatically reduced as seen in countries with strict guns laws. I can't believe how many nincompoops can't see that...

8 ( +9 / -2 )

I still can't believe how many nincompoops actually believe that these murders are simply a matter of gun policy in the U.S., and that they could've been prevented if a gun banning had been in place. Guns aren't the only way people get murdered people! This guy was hellbent on killing these two people. I believe he would've went after them with whatever.

I can't believe you can't see how removing access to guns would make it harder to kill. And when it's harder to kill, it happens less. Proof is in the pudding - look at murder statistics in countries without guns.

Of course, as some said, the US could aim for the other ideal, to become more like Afghanistan, where everyone is armed. Or we could go for what I'm pushing for - personal nuclear arms for everyone. I can't believe the NRA isn't already pushing for this.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Japantoday, please take down the offensive picture of the murderer pointing a gun at the victim. Unnecessary violation of the victim and just there for crude morbid curiosity. Show some dignity for the victim.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns and not the crazy people.

We complain about guns when a people shoot us because we're the ones getting shot. I bet if you asked the lion, he would've blamed the gun. You think the dentist stood a chance in a fair fight?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

America seems cursed by guns, so tragedy would never end as long as guns are there. What a pity!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@frontandcenter

Those who are against gun control effectively consider such brutal murders a price worth paying for their "freedom". It's ridiculous.

I like to compare firearms to alcohol instead of cars or other tools. Alcohol serves no real purpose, it's simply the most popular recreational drug in the world. With the repeal of the 18th Amendment, Americans decided that the casualties incurred through irresponsible consumption of alcohol were worth the price for their freedom to get intoxicated and enjoy themselves. And practically no one in the world would debate this "freedom".

The same goes for the continued existence of the 2nd Amendment. Americans have decided that the casualties incurred through irresponsible users of firearms are worth the price for their freedom for the recreational use firearms, occasional self-defense, and to retain the (limited) ability to possibly resist their tyrannical police state government.

88,000 deaths per year due to alcohol ( source: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-alcohol-related-deaths-years-lost-sxsw-20140313-story.html )

33,000 deaths due to firearms (source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm )

If saving lives is your priority, why not ban alcohol again? I'm sure 90% of JT's readers would scream bloody murder [pun intended] at the idea that they, as a responsible drinker who just likes to have a beer after work, should have to suffer a loss of recreational freedom to keep others from dying.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

igloobuyer: "Japantoday, please take down the offensive picture of the murderer pointing a gun at the victim."

Why? You don't like the truth of the matter?

"Unnecessary violation of the victim and just there for crude morbid curiosity. Show some dignity for the victim"

What dignity? This is merely a report of what happened. Why do you object to seeing what actually happened more than you object to what actually happened happening, or guns in general? And one more thing, I didn't even notice the picture until your post.

.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I must say this doesn't really surprise me. The day before this shooting occurred I saw some old Law & Order episode about a boy who dressed up like a ninja and shot his colleagues in the school cafeteria. The motive was revenge for bullying (apart from obvious mental defect). There was also video recording of the crime (but in this case, by a third party). Whatever people might say about the shooter and his aggressive tendencies, in his eyes he was a victim of the system. Probably had problems with recognizing what impact his actions have on others. Probably self-centered, was convinced he deserved something better from life and saw other people as an obstacle that needs to be removed. At some point he must have come to the conclusion that "If I can't have it, nobody should.". And most certainly, he remodeled his personal issues into a social manifesto.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"What dignity? This is merely a report of what happened. Why do you object to seeing what actually happened more than you object to what actually happened happening, or guns in general? And one more thing, I didn't even notice the picture until your post."

Excellent point!

actually:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOsczeWzSMc

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

He sent ABC’s newsroom a 23-page fax two hours after the 6:45 a.m. shooting that was part-manifesto, part-suicide note — calling himself a gay black man who had been mistreated by people of all races

It sounds like the rantings of our most prolific poster here in the world news section. Didn't he used to work at CBS anyway?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I like to compare firearms to alcohol instead of cars or other tools. Alcohol serves no real purpose,

Getting drunk is a very real purpose. So much so that almost every culture in the world developed a way to do so. When alcohol is used as intended, people get drunk. When guns are used as intended, things get killed. That's their sole purpose. I'd tell you to find a better comparison, but I don't think there are any.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I can't believe you can't see how removing access to guns would make it harder to kill. And when it's harder to kill, it happens less. Proof is in the pudding - look at murder statistics in countries without guns. Of course, as some said, the US could aim for the other ideal, to become more like Afghanistan, where everyone is armed. Or we could go for what I'm pushing for - personal nuclear arms for everyone. I can't believe the NRA isn't already pushing for this.

I can't believe I gotta speak to you guys in baby talk. I totally agree that a ban on guns would drastically reduce gun violence, but would it eliminate murder? I don't think so. Let's imagine this guy didn't have a gun. Who's to say he wouldn't have lunged at those people with a knife, snuck up from behind with a bludgeon, detonated a bomb, or whatever? Yes, without a gun he would've had to put more effort into the deed. But do you think his choice to kill these people was only made because it's easy to kill with a gun. Of course not! First he resolved to murder, then he went about deciding which way to do it. And yes! He opted for the quickest. This crime is not merely a matter of gun control. A child accidentally shooting it's mother in a Walmart is a case you can argue with about gun control but not this one.

And you're just being silly and passive aggressive with your call for private citizens to nuke up. It's precisely because many countries do have nukes that the chance of a nuclear war is slim. Whereas the more citizens arm themselves the chances for gun violence increase exponentially. But you already know this and believe this and that's why you're against the right to bear arms. And so am I. But I'm not gonna let that cloud my judgment.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Here's an interesting article just published about guns in the US. No doubt the gun rights crowd will trash the article and source, but then they trash anything that even remotely questions guns. They seem content with a zero sum world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html?_r=0

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It seems the usual suspects see right past the real issue here, which is the guy is a psycho and probably would've devised another modus operandi if a gun had not been available; instead they hijack this tragedy to argue politically, and their arguments, I believe, are rooted in anti-Americanism.

So... if guns had not been available, people would still get killed because the killer is a psycho who's going to kill no matter what. It's always the pro-gun folk who end up (or even start out) telling us that America is awash with nutters, psychos and mentally-unstable characters. That argument, I believe, is rooted in anti-Americanism, since it states that the difference in gun violence/murder rates between America is not easy access to guns, but the proportion of loonies in the population.

I totally agree that a ban on guns would drastically reduce gun violence, but would it eliminate murder?

Eliminate, no. Drastically reduce, yes. Wouldn't a drastic reduction be better than the murderous mayhem you have today?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@MrBum

When alcohol is used as intended, people get drunk. When guns are used as intended, things get killed. That's their >sole purpose.

For one thing, you are ignoring the "deterrence" factor. Like nuclear weapons (hat tip to Strangerland), firearms don't have to actually be used to serve a productive role.

And what matters more, the peaceful intentions of the product inventors, or the outcomes of its use? Heroin, when used as intended, shouldn't kill people. But it's still illegal because in practical usage the outcome (and 2nd and 3rd order effects of its use) is considered a net negative for societies.

We don't judge automotive safety by the metric of "Well, I didn't design the car to intentionally kill you, so if it happens to crumble like tin foil in an accident, it's totally ok." No, we judge the product on the actual effects of its use. Cars that don't meet the standard don't reach the market.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So this person was part of a well regulated Militia? Shooting two others was necessary for the security of a free state?

Just asking.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@cleo

It's always the pro-gun folk who end up (or even start out) telling us that America is awash with nutters, psychos and >mentally-unstable characters. That argument, I believe, is rooted in anti-Americanism, since it states that the >difference in gun violence/murder rates between America is not easy access to guns, but the proportion of loonies in >the population.

I'm American and I don't think that's anti-American at all. The US:

1: closed the bulk of its mental institutions in the 80's, dumping all those disturbed people into the general population

2: due to 10+ years of combat operations, we have a large number of people who have suffered psychological trauma, many of them live in distressed economic conditions, and almost none of them are being adequately cared for

3: Big Pharma benefits from the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs to treat the people from 1&2 above (as well as others in the general population). The negative side effects of these drugs, and their connection to psychotic episodes and outbursts that often result in the violence we see now, is downplayed or covered up.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

For one thing, you are ignoring the "deterrence" factor. Like nuclear weapons (hat tip to Strangerland), firearms don't have to actually be used to serve a productive role.

How has that deterrence been working out? Does the US with its loose gun laws have lower home invasion/robbery/crime rates than other countries? You'll probably say it's because the criminals also have guns, and I'll say yeah, it's because the criminals also have guns. Loose gun laws make it easier for everyone to get guns.

Heroin, when used as intended, shouldn't kill people.

Heroin, when used as intended leads to powerful addiction, which can lead to overdose and death.

No, we judge the product on the actual effects of its use. Cars that don't meet the standard don't reach the market.

Finally, something I can agree with. So why can't we judge guns under those standards? We have an excellent "before/after" example of their actual effects in Australia.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here's an article from the gun industry's lobby group about proposed legislation in Washington state in the US that could deprive gun owners of their right to own guns with ivory handles. The lobby is so powerful that any mention of any question regarding guns is met with the full force of the very rich gun industry and its followers, a crowd not that dissimilar from those in black trucks with loudspeakers in Japan.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150205/washington-ivory-regulation-bill-passes-out-of-committee-with-amendments

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Mr.Noidall

Whereas the more citizens arm themselves the chances for gun violence increase exponentially.

Exponentially is an exaggeration when you consider that the US has 300 MILLION privately owned firearms. That's something like half of all the small arms on the entire planet, and we account for far less than half of the firearm-related deaths. In our case, the slope of the curve definitely plateaus at high per capita levels of firearm ownership.

@PTownsend

No doubt the gun rights crowd will trash the article and source, but then they trash anything that even remotely >questions guns.

from the article you linked:

We need universal background checks with more rigorous screening, limits on gun purchases to one a month to >reduce trafficking, safe storage requirements, serial number markings that are more difficult to obliterate, waiting >periods to buy a handgun

I approve of all these things, and I think I'm fairly "pro gun". Or "gun pragmatic". I like living in a country with no civilian firearms (Japan), but I recognize that Pandora's Box is opened in the US and there's no realistic way to close it. So you have to look at other ways to mitigate the frequency of incidents like this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Someone above made a good point when they referred to a Law & Order episode. What many people don't confront is the fetish America has with gun culture and violence and self- destruction. Look at all the tv and movies. Nothing but sex and violence. The actual guns are just the light to a long fuse that's been dangling in the American psyche for a long time. Simply banning guns isn't going to remedy the fetish.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And what matters more, the peaceful intentions of the product inventors, or the outcomes of its use?

Firearms were created as a more efficient way to kill an enemy... they have no peaceful purpose. Their purpose is to destroy... a person, an animal, a target. They are not a deterrent, they are an example of a war of attrition: bad guy has a club, I'll get a bigger club, so bad guy gets an axe, good guy gets are pole-arm, bad guy gets a lance, good guy a musket, bad guy a rifle, etc....

Also, if America didn't glorify guns (Winchester 73, Peacemaker, Colt 45, M16) then maybe the country's psyche could begin to change, but no, guns are cool, guns are hip.

It's not the Wild West, or a frontier town where you're attacked by zombies night after night....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Noble713

I approve of all these things, and I think I'm fairly "pro gun". Or "gun pragmatic". I like living in a country with no civilian firearms (Japan), but I recognize that Pandora's Box is opened in the US and there's no realistic way to close it. So you have to look at other ways to mitigate the frequency of incidents like this.

Do you? Certainly it would help to try to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them, but the people who do the crime aren't always obvious. At least not until they are actually doing the crime, that is. The biggest problem is that the gun rights crowd will often yell "second amendment rights" to justify their ownership and use but often leave out the actual text of the second amendment (I posted it a little while ago) and just specify that the "constitutional amendment allows them the right to bear arms". If you read the amendment though, it gets a little less clear how they reached this conclusion.

At the back of it all are the biggest gun nuts; not the open carry mob, not the hidden handgun posse, not the gangs but the people who make the most money out of gun ownership - the people who sell and manufacture the damn things. The people who actually control bodies like the NRA. The people who cry the loudest whenever somebody in power starts suggesting that gun control might be a good idea.

Yes, it's true. Guns don't kill people - people kill people, but it can be argued that people with guns kill more people than people without guns.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Seriously when will America learn that guns in 2015 Need to be kept out of the hands of the public there are just too many cases of crimes of passion...planned or otherwise. Say no to the politicians and the gun lobby. It's only thru real people power that things will change.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Guns, not really the big issue. There are just too many angry people, too many people with mental problems. Best to do more, a lot more to deal with this.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

'Someone above made a good point when they referred to a Law & Order episode. What many people don't confront is the fetish America has with gun culture and violence and self- destruction. Look at all the tv and movies. Nothing but sex and violence. The actual guns are just the light to a long fuse that's been dangling in the American psyche for a long time. Simply banning guns isn't going to remedy the fetish.'

A good point and I agree this is a virus which can't be eradicated overnight. The images of children with firearms made for kiddies is sickening and warped. Unfortunately, there are many out there who actually love these things. I lived in Texas and I'll repeat my earlier point about how some of the things I saw on TV and in magazines were perverted in their glorification of devices which have the sole purpose of killing things. It was sick ( John Lennon wrote 'happiness is a warm gun' after seeing that jaw-dropping sentence on a magazine in the US - a man of course later brutally murdered by a maniac brandishing one of these filthy devices ).

I just hope, like smoking, it will gradually be seen as the vice it is and those who have it will become increasingly shunned. It sounds defeatist but there is no party in the US prepared to take this issue on. The GOP love them and the Democrats are either slightly less in love with them or powerless to do anything about them.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Bass4funk

Libs, stop already! Here we go again. I saw the video, absolutely insane, the guy was a ticking time bomb.

Yep, here we go again. Another nutter with a gun at his disposal, and wow!!! A whole lotta death. A ticking time bomb with a gun at his disposal...and BLAM, a whole lotta death.

Wake up Bass, you are in denial. Your fellow countrymen are in denial. There are nutters world wide - they just don't get guns to play with.

The lunatics are running the asylum I'm afraid. I'm with Mr Obama all the way on this one.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

This senseless crime, committed by a deranged individual, highlights the need to end all sales of ammunition for guns. There isn't another effective way to stop hot heads like this man from purchasing a firearm in the US, after which, committing carnage in the name of settling a score with a society he perceived had done him wrong. Clearly, some people take the "blame-game" to a whole nother level. Instead of learning from his past mistakes by looking inwards, and working to improve himself, he lashed out to those he felt slighted by. Truth be told, he could not contain his rage because he hated himself. He knew he was a loser.

His manifesto only proved how mentally disturbed he truly was. As an example; the very first line spoke volume of his own racisms, in which his glaring contradiction comes to light. He claimed the last straw which sent him over the edge was the church shootings in Charleston, where several black church members where cut down by a white supremacist. This act was the catalyst for his revenge killings, to which he eluded to a race war. Conversely, he later goes on to celebrate past mass shooters, like Columbine and Virginia Thec. Therefore, it's clear that in his twisted thinking, he was outraged by the church killings of black people, but, was perfectly okay with the slaughter of innocent white people? Now, if that ain't racism, I don't know what is?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Smith

What dignity? This is merely a report of what happened. Why do you object to seeing what actually happened more than you object to what actually happened happening, or guns in general?

So you're okay with having pictures of your wife or daughter the moment she died posted on the internet?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Thunderbird2

Also, if America didn't glorify guns (Winchester 73, Peacemaker, Colt 45, M16) then maybe the country's psyche could >begin to change, but no, guns are cool, guns are hip.

You are talking about a country that owes its existence to an armed insurrection. You can't detach weapons from our national psyche. Why else do you think we launch fireworks on independence day? Just listen to our national anthem.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Guns are not the problem. Guns and gun violence (murder) are the symptoms of the problem. The deep pervasive problem with the US. Please do not show yourself as a beacon or model for the rest of the world to follow. I prefer Japan just as it is: WITHOUT GUNS. Guns just make it just SOOOOO easy to murder. SOOOOOOO easy. Did I say SOOOOO easy?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Guns are not the problem. Guns and gun violence (murder) are the symptoms of the problem. The deep pervasive problem with the US. Please do not show yourself as a beacon or model for the rest of the world to follow. I prefer Japan just as it is: WITHOUT GUNS. Guns just make it just SOOOOO easy to murder. SOOOOOOO easy. Did I say SOOOOO easy?

I prefer to keep my guns and that's my right and my choice and I'm glad no one can take that right away from me.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

'You are talking about a country that owes its existence to an armed insurrection. You can't detach weapons from our national psyche. Why else do you think we launch fireworks on independence day? Just listen to our national anthem.'

Plenty of countries owe their present existence or way of life to bloody struggles with foreign powers or through internal bloodbaths. It isn't just the US. Try the lyrics to the French anthem for some serious fisticuffs - it makes the lyrics to the US anthem sound pacifist in comparison.

It doesn't follow that the country should be awash with firearms with citizens of that country drilling holes in fellow citizens on a regular basis centuries later.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Noble713: "I like to compare firearms to alcohol instead of cars or other tools. Alcohol serves no real purpose, it's simply the most popular recreational drug in the world."

Alcohol is an anti-septic and used for cleaning wounds. Guns create them.

bass4funk: "I prefer to keep my guns and that's my right and my choice and I'm glad no one can take that right away from me."

Your crowd always does, until you learn the worst way possible. Then, sadly, many still do not and you choose to blame it on something else again. It's why the US never learns. This will happen again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next after that. I do honestly hope that you never personally have to ask "Why??", but statistically speaking it's bound to happen at some point.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Jimizo

It doesn't follow that the country should be awash with firearms with citizens of that country drilling holes in fellow >citizens on a regular basis centuries later.

Well, we can agree that the citizen-on-citizen violence is out of control and unnecessary. Things have really unraveled in the past several decades (~40 years ish). But we've had a culture of gun ownership since long before then. Economic hardship, race relations, gender relations, a breakdown in family structures and personal responsibility, and the proliferation of violence in the media are all contributing factors to these murderous outbursts IMO.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Things have really unraveled in the past several decades (~40 years ish). But we've had a culture of gun ownership since long before then.

Gee, and nothing to do with technological advances in firearms since then?

Correct me if I'm wrong but a high capacity option for musket guns wasn't available when the 2nd Amendment was penned.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What many people don't confront is the fetish America has with gun culture and violence and self- destruction.

There are just too many angry people, too many people with mental problems. Best to do more, a lot more to deal with this.

I agree, mental illness, obsession with violence, anger, etc. are all problems we have to deal with in American society. But you know who else has these problems? Almost every other country on Earth. I don't even want to think about what would happen if guns were legal in Japan.

If you have any suggestions on how to solve the problems mentioned, I'd be curious to hear them. But the fact is, those problems are either too abstract or have no simple solutions. Getting rid of guns is (should be) an easy solution to comparatively concrete problem. Until we solve those other problems, what's wrong with trying something that's been proven to reduce the murder of innocent lives in other countries?

Oh right, because then we couldn't save the day (from other gun nuts) in crowded theaters, overthrow the government when they eventually become tyrannical, or just shoot stuff because Amurica gat dernnit.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Liberals -- both foreign and domestic -- can shake their li'l leftists fists all they want, but my 2nd Admendment right trumps their whining and day of the week . . . .

And which "well-regulated Militia" do you belong to?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I prefer to keep my guns and that's my right and my choice and I'm glad no one can take that right away from me.

Mee too. In fact, I'd love to see someone barge into my place (home on US soil) & try to take away firearm(s). But it wouldn't happen cause they know I would be justified to dump on them.

Can you imagine the press brouhaha if the races in this case had been reversed? That would the the only topic here, and we would not here the end of it.

@WilliB right. And there would be rioting in some cities, looting, more "Black Lives Matter" slogans/banners & more shootings aimed at police officers nationwide.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It is blatantly obvious that the easier it gets to kill people more people will get killed.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Brace yourself for copycats.

Going postal has likely just been replaced with a new meme called "going live" or "going anchor" or something, but I sure hope I am wrong.

There will also likely be a book, a movie and bill proposal at Congress. But of course, America's obsession with guns, violence and murder will scarcely be addressed directly.

So also brace yourself for deflection. I know a great many Americans highly skilled in the art.

And while all this is happening, might I recommend for your listening pleasure "Cold Dead Hand" by none other than Jim Carrey. Its my favorite country western tune by far!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

America's obsession with guns, violence and murder will scarcely be addressed directly.

That's cause the o.g. rappers and their crews (made up of theives, pimps, drug dealers and gangbangers) need their black leadership to wear the shoe, then properly address the problem directly to their communities. . . .all the way down to 5th-6th graders who are already becoming involved in the "gangsta life".

C'mon. You don't see decent law abiding US citizens in small towns shooting each other up like swiss-cheese now do you?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I agree, mental illness, obsession with violence, anger, etc. are all problems we have to deal with in American society.

check.

But you know who else has these problems? Almost every other country on Earth.

I don't think that's especially true but it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

If you have any suggestions on how to solve the problems mentioned, I'd be curious to hear them. I could make a number of suggestions off the top of my head. I'm sure you could too if you gave it some thought. But I'll bet that's not really even the biggest obstacle to starting to address the problem. Finding funding, thats where

But the fact is, those problems are either too abstract or have no simple solutions.

It's not because a problem is complex or doesn't haven't a simple solution that you don't try addressing it. Choosing to address just guns instead of the wider problem is a cop out.

Getting rid of guns is (should be) an easy solution to comparatively concrete problem.

Honestly, you really are kidding yourself there if you think there's an "easy" solution there. You do know the country is already wash with guns?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Honestly, you really are kidding yourself there if you think there's an "easy" solution there. You do know the country is already wash with guns?

He must be kidding himself. What do all these anti-gun posters here think?

That throughout the next decade the ATF will add 50,000 more agents to their department? And go knocking door to door, from coast to coast, "please surrunder your firearms"? ~ NOT gona happen. Rofl, Lmao!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

'That's cause the o.g. rappers and their crews (made up of theives, pimps, drug dealers and gangbangers) need their black leadership to wear the shoe, then properly address the problem directly to their communities. . . .all the way down to 5th-6th graders who are already becoming involved in the "gangsta life".

C'mon. You don't see decent law abiding US citizens in small towns shooting each other up like swiss-cheese now do you?'

I have also read about people who aren't black mowing people down with firearms in schools, churches, on the streets and in cinemas. The phenomenon of widespread and frequent gun violence doesn't seem to be one restricted to any particular group.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Such a terrifying thing to happen. You can't stop bad people from committing bad actions sometimes, but you can prevent them from acquiring weapons that'll help do bad things easier.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@jimizo. Ohwell. . . & s**t happens.

How many years have you lived in the US? Ever seen a ghetto? Beverly Hills? There is frequent pattern of gun violence in certain groups. Sorry no links.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I don't think that's especially true but it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

It's relevant because other comparable countries that have the same problems as the US, minus the guns, don't have gun violence on a monthly basis.

It's not because a problem is complex or doesn't haven't a simple solution that you don't try addressing it. Choosing to address just guns instead of the wider problem is a cop out.

Who said anything about ignoring those other problems? We can work on more than one thing at the same time. I think focusing on every other problem, and ignoring the most obvious and least complex one is more of a cop out. And I'll ask again, how would you go about fixing those other problems?

Honestly, you really are kidding yourself there if you think there's an "easy" solution there. You do know the country is already wash with guns?

I said should be. But we have too many people whose love of guns blinds them and a powerful gun lobby. The country is awash in guns because there's a legal market for them. It might not be an easy solution, but you have to start somewhere.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Wc626 Not long. I worked in Texas for a year ( couldn't wait to get out although I would go back to the US tomorrow if I could work in somewhere less...erm...well, I think you can guess. If you remove the gun violence in the ghettos, I think you'll still find the US still has a major problem with gun violence compared with other developed countries.

I think your use of 'frequent' displays the fact that as an American, your view of what constitutes 'frequent' gun violence or massacres is very different to other developed, and some developing, countries. S### seems to happen very frequently in the US.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have seen arguments elsewhere that had these two been carrying guns, they would still be alive. Untrue. They would not have had time.

You're right. The attacker had the element of surprise. But then, the attacker should have not been loose on the street in the first place.

No doubt the gun rights crowd will trash the article and source, but then they trash anything that even remotely questions guns.

And the hoplophobes trash anything that is remotely pro-gun. Just as you did a little later.

According to the gun-lovers, the US is a country which seems unable to deal with people with serious mental illness. Is it a good idea to have this country absolutely awash with the most efficient tools for killing people?

"Absolutely awash"? You make it sound like I have to sweep the loose guns from my driveway before I can pull my garage out of the garage every morning. How about we cut down on the crazy people on the streets first? It would reduce the street crime greatly.

Noble713 brought up the subject of alcohol. I think it's worth pointing out that we tried to ban alcohol in the U.S. Guess what happened? The same thing that would happen if we tried to ban guns. As noted earlier, the Pandora's Box has been opened. (We've also tried to ban many drugs. I bet many of those who call for gun bans would also list Breaking Bad as their favorite TV show, and never see the irony.)

Now for the standard talking points of hoplophobes:

"Guns are the most efficient way to kill people."

Exactly why I carry one for self-defense. And I've had to use it, as you all have heard countless times. For those who haven't heard it, the attacker did not have a gun. He had a strap around my neck, from behind.

And before anyone with absolutely zero experience tries to lecture me about how guns aren't effective for self-defense, I'd like to point out that if a more effective self-defense tool existed, the Secret Service would be carrying them instead of guns when protecting the POTUS. The Secret Service carries guns for defense, I carry a gun for defense. If you can't see the logic in that, then you're letting your phobia do your thinking for you.

"Guns should be banned from the general public!"

Spoken like a true tyrant.

"Gun fetishists..."

Personally, I'm not a "gun nut". I have one, yes. I carry it, yes. I've had to use it, yes. But if there was a more effective way to defend myself with, I would use that instead. You see, I'm an advocate for self-defense. The gun is merely a tool. What the hoplophobes refuse to see is that it's the best tool currently available.

I do know people who are "gun nuts", including a couple of guys who have dozens - maybe hundreds - of handguns and rifles. They might have one they carry, maybe a backup, but the rest are collector's models or commemorative editions or historical pieces locked away in safes. Try to keep that in mind when discussing how many guns there are in the U.S.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@Jimizo. I see your point. It does happen too often. It's sad. But, its the price we pay for freedom to own. Sadder, there is no solution.

I hate reading about gun violence & whackos just as much as the next person. The irony is that millions like me, who legally own guns, hate this same sort of violence.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

'Guns are the most efficient way to kill people."

Exactly why I carry one'

Thanks for backing me up on that one. Some posters here seem to think that woks, bog brushes and dental floss are just as efficient.

"Guns should be banned from the general public!"

'Spoken like a true tyrant.'

There's the crux. Most democracies in the world have very strict rules about ownership of firearms and their leaders would not hesitate for a second to affirm this idea. Do you regard these democracies as tyrannical?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Madverts

Gee, and nothing to do with technological advances in firearms since then? Correct me if I'm wrong but a high capacity option for musket guns wasn't available when the 2nd Amendment was >penned.

High-capacity magazines are really a non-issue. The overwhelming majority of murders are committed with handguns, typically with a total of less than 20 rounds fired. This incident in Virginia, for example, seems to be ~15 rounds fired.

The US went through a period where fully automatic Thompson sub-machine guns could be purchased with 50-round drum magazines. In 1926 a Thompson cost $175, the equivalent of $2300 today, roughly the same as a high-quality M4 carbine (say, from Lewis Machine Tools). The only people using $2000 high-capacity weapons in crimes are professional gangsters: Thompsons in the 20's/30's and M4s/AKs/etc. in the LA bank robbery in the late 90's.

The highest body count for a recent shooting spree was accomplished by Cho @ Virginia Tech, and he did it with two small-caliber pistols. Wiki says he had 19 magazines, so he just expected to reload frequently.

Advances in firearm technology have very little to do with firearm homicides today. Partly because select-fire and automatic weapons are heavily regulated, typically requiring a Federal Firearms License to purchase. Getting an FFL is such a process that pretty much only the most economically-secure and law-abiding citizens can get one. Imagine that, properly enforced laws actually work.

Also, people aren't using semi-auto only rifles for mass shootings....I would assume because they are not easily transported and concealed. I think small, easily-wielded weapons resonate better with amateurs. This applies to firearms and knives in a similar way: far fewer people purchase longswords or katanas compared to those who casually purchase tactical folders or even Ka-Bars.

@MrBum

Getting rid of guns is (should be) an easy solution to comparatively concrete problem.

But it's not when you are talking about 300 million weapons owned by ~35% of the population, spread across a country the size of a continent. We can't even keep South American cocaine from slipping across our borders despite 30+ years of trying, how does anyone expect to not only confiscate (undoubtedly via force) but prevent the importation OR domestic underground manufacture of small pieces of metal?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How will bludgeoning deaths be controlled? Those are not uncommon. Drunk drivers kill under the accident umbrella but they choose to drive drunk. Pressure cookers are effective and available to hating wackos.

Masking the symptoms don't cure the disease.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Masking the symptoms don't cure the disease.

But lacking a way of getting rid of the disease, the next best thing is to mask the symptoms.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The right to bear arms is so ridiculously infringed its not funny.

But some people think its the right to bear guns. Its not.

You cannot even have a bullet proof vest without special permission.

So anyway the right to bear arms should go back to being the right to bear arms. And the infringement we have now should switch to rigorous systems of registration, licensing, storage and testing of both the practical and psychological varieties as well as back ground checks. And all that should be done through the private sector, such as insurance is required on cars, but you don't get it from the government. Once someone has passed the hurdles, they should be able to bear just about any armament short of nuclear and a few other limitations, such as massive bombs.

The problem is not really the guns. Its the unpopularity of the idea of weapon owners being made to be responsible. Canada has lots of guns. But Canada has responsible owners because they were made to be so. In fact, Americans go on and on about freedom, but don't seem to know what freedom is. Their right to bear arms is being heavily infringed upon. But they think they are free, because they are allowed to be careless, reckless members of society with an unregistered loaded gun under their pillow.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I do know people who are "gun nuts", including a couple of guys who have dozens - maybe hundreds - of handguns and rifles.

Thanks OldHawk. Me too, I know a few of these cats too . . . LoL- in CA too, of all places.

On a more serious note. Nearly all these guys haved served in the US military for @least 6 yrs. have careers in Law Enforcement, Public Safety (firefighters) and or business owners. Most, not all, higher education along with their military service. Kids, some. Wives yes. Divorcees, yes.

My point, they're just regular people enjoying life. Not whackos, racist or living in some "bubble".

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

My point, they're just regular people enjoying life

The fact that they own a whack of guns shows that they're not regular people. Regular people don't do that.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Getting drunk is a very real purpose. So much so that almost every culture in the world developed a way to do so. When alcohol is used as intended, people get drunk. When guns are used as intended, things get killed. That's their sole purpose. I'd tell you to find a better comparison, but I don't think there are any.

Target shooting a very real purpose, so much so that almost every culture in the world has developed a way to do so.

When Alcohol is used for its intended purposes people lose control, the reason why you get intoxicated is because you like the effects of losing control of your impulses. The result of that is that people die, whether it be crimes of passion and or accidents.

Perhaps you can explain how the intended use of Alcohol in and of itself means that you are not saying the lives of people who die from Alcohol are not an acceptable cost so that you can get intoxicated for recreation?

When can we expect the argument of not intended to kill will by itself result in less deaths than firearms?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Regular people don't do that.

Americans do. Nevertheless, these guys are cool people. The kind that would help u fix a flat tire on the highway or invite you to their BBQ/summer party- even if you are Black, Asian, Hispanic etc. . .

Even the Blacks, Asians etc. working in those same Departments are law abiding gun owners (who'd never harm a soul) - they're just regular people too.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

It's relevant because other comparable countries that have the same problems as the US, minus the guns, don't have gun violence on a monthly basis.

No, I'm afraid not, not unless you can point to a comparable country that had a similar culture and especially similar gun culture, similar issue with violence, and then solved it simply by banning guns. Which country would that be?

Who said anything about ignoring those other problems?

It's what it sounded like you were saying: "But the fact is, those problems are either too abstract or have no simple solutions." "Until we solve those other problems, what's wrong with trying something that's been proven to reduce the murder of innocent lives in other countries?"

Problems don't resolve themselves. Also implies that banning guns is a proven, simple, easy "or should be easy(?) solution. Proven where?

We can work on more than one thing at the same time.

Good, so even the problems that are abstract and don't have simple solutions to them? Good to hear it.

I think focusing on every other problem,

Nobody said anything about focusing on every other problem, nice try, just ALSO focusing on the ones at the heart of the issue of violence, including gun violence, in America - anger, normalcy of violence, incivility, idiotic "stand your ground" laws... and not simplistic, knee-jerk just ban guns and we'll be fine - a "least complex" solution to the point of being stupid.

and ignoring the most obvious and least complex one is more of a cop out.

Obvious and least complex, doesn't make it (whatever it is) a realistic solution.

And I'll ask again, how would you go about fixing those other problems?

As I said, ideas for programs themselves aren't too difficult to come up with. I suspect the will to spend public monies would be more of an issue. But since you're going to be pissy about it, let's say programs to address anger management, programs to identify and assist people with mental issues. Expand programs to deal with bullying, domestic violence, glorification of violence, etc. Oh, and discussions about to tackle such problems. As I said I'll bet even you could think of some ideas.

So, let's hear how you would go about solving the gun violence problem. What's your obvious, easy solution? Ban guns? Would that be the plan?

I said should be.

Yes, you did in cya kind of way, sort of.

It might not be an easy solution, but you have to start somewhere.

So, what is this now not so easy but simple and concrete solution then? Ban the sale of guns and confiscate them?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

And while all this is happening, might I recommend for your listening pleasure "Cold Dead Hand" by none other than Jim Carrey. Its my favorite country western tune by far!

That's a so-so kind of suggestion. I'd prefer the Rolling Stones, "Gimee Shelter" - its my fav classic rock tune by far!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Some of us want to try to stop thing like this, others are here to tell us it's just a part of life and want us all to shrug.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

So legally try to stop it.

That throughout the next decade the ATF will add 50,000 more agents to their department? And go knocking door to door, from coast to coast, "please surrunder your firearms"? ~ NOT gona happen. Rofl, Lmao!

Rather use those extra agents for Border Patrol. And or extraction of those illegas in the US now. Get them out!

There is, after all, a legal way to achieve objectives. Look @ how LGBT got their thing.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

whack of guns shows that they're not regular people. Regular people don't do that.

If you are into the recreational sport target shooting yeah you would be considered normal for owning multiple firearms.

Nothing wrong with owning multiple firearms as a collector or as a person who enjoys the sport of target shooting.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

usa needs to learn from japan and ban guns, do you really think japan will be safe at it is now if guns were legal

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@wc626

I hate reading about gun violence & whackos just as much as the next person. The irony is that millions like me, who legally own guns, hate this same sort of violence.

I have no doubt that there are compassionate gun owners who see the ugliness caused by handguns. What sickens me most is the gun industry which has such a powerful hold over so many gun owners and which can so easily wind them up with truth-nicked fictions to keep the gun owners buying more guns using messages intended to keep fear alive. The gun makers know they can further increase sales by reminding their minions of their interpretation of their questionable rights to own guns, including automatic assault rifles. The gun makers hear the till ching-chinging after each handgun murder. Sales probably went up after this one. The loop continues.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

To paraphrase: "A nation that lives by the gun, dies by the gun".

5 ( +6 / -1 )

usa needs to learn from japan and ban guns, do you really think japan will be safe at it is now if guns were legal

Short answer is yes and no Japan doesn't ban all firearms from civilian ownership.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@MrBum"mental illness, obsession with violence, anger"

True. Deliver a truckload of firearms into a yard of asylum of mentally-ill patients and you will get a model of US society.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I predict that there will be another big massacre of innocent people in the US in the near future, perpetrated by a disturbed individual with easy access to powerful firearms.

There's nothing else to say really.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

White on white crime remains a very disturbing phenomena. Did you know a white person is nearly six times more likely to be killed by another white? Did you know that in America, more crimes are committed by white people than crimes commited by any other ethic group?

Very disturbing.

I wonder what it is about their culture that leads to such violent tendancies. Their music?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Black Sabbath"Did you know that in America, more crimes are committed by white people"

Whites fight blacks and vice versa. Too many drugs per every unstable mind and free access to firearms.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yamashi

No, no, a thousand times no! Its the specter of white on white crime that stalks my country.

Why are white people so violent, especially towards their own kind?!!? Is it their music? Perhaps. The have a very emotional way of seeing things and solving things. If it feels right, do it.

Perhaps their media. Films are full of violence.

Or perhaps their video games?

I will not rest until the plague of white on white crime is struck from my country!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Some posters here seem to think that woks, bog brushes and dental floss are just as efficient.

Only in Jackie Chan movies. ;)

Most democracies in the world have very strict rules about ownership of firearms and their leaders would not hesitate for a second to affirm this idea. Do you regard these democracies as tyrannical?

The U.S. actually has very strict rules for gun ownership (although that varies by state). Not as strict as other first-world countries, but then those countries have stricter immigration laws and no birthright citizenship, better treatment for mental patients, and a host of other differences in their laws and enforcement that affect their violent crime rates.

You cannot even have a bullet proof vest without special permission.

I think you'll find that varies by state.

The fact that they own a whack of guns shows that they're not regular people. Regular people don't do that.

Coming from you...

Some of us want to try to stop thing like this, others are here to tell us it's just a part of life and want us all to shrug.

No, others are telling you - explaining to you - that your "solution" won't work. And you refuse to listen to others' solutions, so no, you don't want to try to stop this. You just want to have your way, regardless of the actual results. Because as history has shown, when your plans fail (as they always do), you simply blame someone else. Namely, the people you refused to listen to in the first place.

usa needs to learn from japan and ban guns

Can the U.S. learn from Japan and become a series of islands with strict immigration control too? Can the U.S. learn from Japan and rein in the pharmaceutical companies that promote their pill prescriptions instead of real treatment? Can the U.S. learn from Japan and get rid of the entitlement mentality that has been fostered by the American Left for generations? Because any/all of these would go a lot further to reducing the violence problem in the U.S. than simply preventing non-criminals from owning guns.

So, nobody has a substantive answer for my question about blaming the dentist vs. blaming the gun? Okay, how about this: In the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings, JT posters droned on and on about America's racial problems, like they were some kind of experts on the subject. But here we have a black guy (who was also a homosexual, a Democrat voter, and a staunch Obama supporter, but I'll get to that later) who had some serious racism issues of his own. He shot three white people and... nothing from JT's experts on America's race relations. Even our own notorious race-baiter, who obsessed over the Martin and Brown events, is noticeably absent from this story. Where's the equality, people? Where are the condescending lectures? Where are the calls to end the hate?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

With the low opinion of America and Americans that I see expressed on this thread I wonder what all the hoopla is all about. Wouldn't the world be a better place if there was no America? I would think that, for a lot of people on this thread, Americans killing Americans would be seen as a good thing. So why all the high drama? Let them do it and then you will all be safer in your own little corner of the globe.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It seems that most Americans forget the terrible tragedy week later after it happened. Another tragedy happened again somewhere, then they cry and debate about it deeply. But after a week, they forget it and live happy as same as usual, as if nothing happened or it happened a long time ago. It seems that Americans can't change it better by themselves because death toll is same every year.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What is it going to take for America to wake up and realise they have a MAJOR problem with guns.

They ongoing deniability that comes from those people that continue to quote their Constituional rights from a document written in another place, at another time, is unbelievable. Are they going to tell me that they also continue to shave with cuthroat razors???

How long before those people realize they are simply being manipulated by the National Rifle Association because they make money every time a gun is sold?

We hear Trump speak about how he wants to make America great again. Thats totally impossible when the country has so many fools living in it that believe guns are a solution?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A whole society with PTSD?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

What is it going to take for America to wake up and realise they have a MAJOR problem with guns.

Way to not read the other comments before posting.

How long before those people realize they are simply being manipulated by the National Rifle Association because they make money every time a gun is sold?

I'd like to see your proof of that.

I've had to use a gun in self-defense. How was that manipulated by the NRA?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

As we American have made it virtually impossible for any mental case to get treatment if they don't have the money, even most medical insurance plans will not cover mental illness, or have very limited coverage at best. Legally we have made it nearly impossible to commit anyone until they commit a serious crime, even then they are more likely to go to prison, get no treatment at all, and the be let out in a few years still mentally ill. If the person is being treated with medications, there is no legal way to force the person to continue using medication.

As no one has listed him as mentally ill, he has never been treated, and up to now ever been arrested for anything serious, there is nothing in our most stringent gun control laws that would have stopped him from getting a gun and all the ammo that he wanted. If it is difficult in one state, then you just cross the state line into another state with easier rules. We also have all sorts of gun shows that do not check background on anyone. You can always buy a gun privately, event fully automatic.

ow I happen to be bipolar. I know fully well how miserable one can be, to the point that you are angry that not everyone else is not suffering. I know what it is like to start thinking how to make people suffer and to consider mass murder. And I have weapons. Thirty years ago it almost was me, thinking about going into a school and killing children.

It took twenty-three years to even get diagnosed. There is no effective mental health program, or support for poor people in most communities in the United States. I was also a Marine Vietnam War veteran with left over problems from the war as well. It became necessary for me to mostly stay away from people, so I moved out into the desert. That worked for awhile until I hit my forties and midlife. Then the pressure mounted. Then came the thoughts and gradually the thoughts of murder began to get more powerful. I talked about what I was thinking, but no one ever took any action on it.

So why didn't I end up on the six o'clock news as a mass murderer of children at some school. Shear good luck. The VA built a clinic some sixty miles away, but a driveable distance for me. For the very first time I was able to make an appointment with a psychologists for free. I told the psychologist what I was thinking. Here again I was very lucky, as he did not worry about whether my problem was war related or not as he should have done under the rules. No he scheduled me to meet a psychiatrist, and we started working through the various medications. It took nearly a year to find the right one that would balance things out, but still let me feel all of my emotions, just not let any run away from me. As a result, I am a pretty happy person have survived all sorts of traumatizing things since without cracking up. I was one of the few lucky ones.

Over a third of our vets have serious mental health issues, domestic violence and divorce are above average, this in a country where half the marriages already end in divorce.

Most of our homeless have mental health issues.

This in a country were most Americans cannot not afford to deal with mental health issues, not even our middle class. What treatment centers we have have waiting lists, often for years. 57% of our mass murders that is with four or more victims, are in private, not public, and domestic abuse related where the victims know the killer, often have had restraining orders against them. With a gun and a large magazine, even a coward can become a mass murderer and become famous with days, weeks, even months spent on every detail of his life. Guns are very easy to get in the United States but mental health care is impossible for most people.

Think about that for a bit. Anyone can become a mass murderer and get famous even. Meanwhile, I am lucky that I did not end up as one.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Your crowd always does, until you learn the worst way possible.

You libs keep saying that. I know, it's the problem of the guns, right? LOL Maybe with another tragic event Americans will give up their guns, maybe.. How about you libs give up liberalism, if you all do that, I'll turn over EVERY gun and ammunition that I own!

Then, sadly, many still do not and you choose to blame it on something else again.

No, I just don't make empty scare tactic excuses that guns are the center issue. Get off of it!

It's why the US never learns.

I wish you Europeans learn to leave us alone, if we have guns, we do, if people don't like it, people can travel or live elsewhere, but I don't see that libs or European libs can or should have any say in this.

This will happen again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next after that. I do honestly hope that you never personally have to ask "Why??", but statistically speaking it's bound to happen at some point.

Maybe, but I would hate for anyone to come and force me to give up any of my firearms.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Bass4unk: "You libs keep saying that. I know, it's the problem of the guns, right? LOL "

No, it's the idiots who support the current lack of gun laws and rm the criminals, as you do. All who support such gun laws contributed t these deaths.

"Maybe. But I would hate... "

Why? You'd shoot them? to defend your non-threatening, non-violent weapons.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When a dentist shot a lion, the world blamed the dentist and not his gun. But when crazy people shoot other people, the world blames the guns and not the crazy people.

You seem a little annoyed that nobody responded to that directly. I will by saying the comparison is faulty logic, in many many aspects, and that is why nobody bothered with it.

Its even got the facts sort of wrong, as the dentist first shot and injured the lion with a bow and arrow. Next, some were not upset that he killed the lion, but that he killed a PROTECTED lion. Next some are just against hunting of all kinds and some are not. Naturally almost all people are against murder whatever weapon is used. Then there is the problem of number of victims. People tend to point the gun out more when there are more victims, because its much harder to kill multiple people with a knife or a club. One lion? Potentially could have done that with a thrown spear. People are basically not nearly as dedicated to protecting random wildlife from harm as they are people. Cecil was not random wildlife, nor was he more than one protected lion shot for reasons of insanity or anger.

But the biggest flaw of all is acting like an insane person should have access to guns first, and we treat his mental illness only after. And deny it all you want, but since these crazy people keep getting guns, obviously, they do have access. You know and I know that if you were to personally deal with an insane person you would prefer they did not have a loaded gun as you do it. We also know that you would prefer to deal with a sane but angry person if he were not packing.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But the biggest flaw of all is acting like an insane person should have access to guns first, and we treat his mental illness only after.

That is nowhere near the argument I made. Try again.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Which country would that be?

How about Australia? Not exactly the same as the US, but they also had a large vocal population that opposed gun restrictions. While it's debated what effect it had on crime in general, we don't really hear about mass shootings over there.

It's what it sounded like you were saying

I thought "...all problems we have to deal with in American society" had me covered, but perhaps I could've been more clear.

Nobody said anything about focusing on every other problem, nice try, just ALSO focusing on the ones at the heart of the issue of violence

Actually, most on your side say "guns are not a big issue" and go on to list every other problem in America, most of which are shared by other countries. If you don't think guns are at the heart of the gun violence issue, I don't know what to say.

But since you're going to be pissy about it, let's say programs to address anger management, programs to identify and assist people with mental issues. Expand programs to deal with bullying, domestic violence, glorification of violence, etc.

Wasn't being pissy. It's just that a lot of pro-gun people (not you necessarily) tend to repeat weak arguments like cars killing people and guns for crime deterrence while completely ignoring arguments they can't counter. But yes, I agree with your methods of addressing those problems, even though they would require spending of public money (which gun advocates tend to also be against) like you said. You can work on those problems and acknowledge the guns at the same time though. A good way of dealing with the "obsession with guns" problem is not feeding it with guns.

So, let's hear how you would go about solving the gun violence problem. What's your obvious, easy solution? Ban guns? Would that be the plan?

Saying it's "easy" was a mistake. But remove guns from the equation in all of these cases of violence, and there's really no question the number of casualties would be reduced. That seems like a pretty simple concept to me.

Your side's most salient argument is that there are already too many guns, which sounds to me like avoiding an issue that's too big and complicated. How about limiting the production and sales of firearms for a start? We would probably have to implement buyback / confiscation programs as well.

We've attempted more futile endeavors, just look at the drug war. As ineffective as that was (is), think of the amount of drugs we've confiscated and the time/resources spent since we started that war and replace drugs with guns. That war failed because the suppliers have the means for producing more drugs and there's always a demand. Almost half the guns in America are made in America, so we have the means of putting a serious dent on the supply side.

We'd have to get money out of politics first though. That's the one big problem that prevents most things from getting done in America.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

That is nowhere near the argument I made.

Oh no. I know it was not your intent, but as it is the state of things in America, and you seem to be arguing to maintain the state of things with regards to guns, rejecting the successful solutions of other countries, it is, by default, your argument. All of those countries have crazy people too, and yes, they do kill with other weapons, but not as much. That is what I and others I am sure, see in your messages.

If I got any of that wrong, please explain.

Now, while I am at it I will just tell you that I think you have a point with regards to the aversion of people to label this a hate crime. I think it is, although clear proof might be somewhat lacking. But hey, that never stopped people before! The fact that he was Black and homosexual is tainting their judgment. I am firmly against bigotry and firmly pro-gay marriage. But in no way am I going to dismiss the idea that he had it in for straight, White people out of hand.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

'The U.S. actually has very strict rules for gun ownership (although that varies by state). Not as strict as other first-world countries'

I can't imagine what you'd define as lax gun laws.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

In the U.S., the reason for the increase in death from shooting is the of culture of permissiveness that treated felony convictions as a revolving door where the criminal was in and out of prison, and criminals manipulated the system with plea bargains. Ninety percent of all murders are committed by repeat offenders with lengthy criminal records. Think about it this way, more Americans have been murdered in the last five decades than were died in two wars, Korea and Vietnam. There is no longer a right or wrong, no one is responsible for their actions, everything is someone else's fault. I'm poor because of him. I'm bad because my mommy was mean to me. This Administration has done nothing but create division and create a nation of self centered gimme gimme whiney self loving drains on society.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@sfjp

I'm bad because my mommy was mean to me.

You put it very simply and sarcastically, but like it or not, that's very often the case. Violence breeds violence, a traumatic childhood produces all kinds of mental trouble later in life.

Ask any criminal psychologist.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh no. I know it was not your intent, but as it is the state of things in America, and you seem to be arguing to maintain the state of things with regards to guns, rejecting the successful solutions of other countries, it is, by default, your argument. All of those countries have crazy people too, and yes, they do kill with other weapons, but not as much. That is what I and others I am sure, see in your messages.

If I got any of that wrong, please explain.

You misunderstood my argument. Others are arguing that the U.S. should (further) restrict or even ban gun ownership as other countries have done, without also addressing such issues as mental health treatment and illegal immigration like those same other countries have done. They want to isolate the issue of gun ownership, but that cannot work. My argument is that all of the factors have to be addressed in order for gun restrictions to have a chance at a positive result. It's possible that if the other factors are addressed properly, then further gun restrictions might not be necessary. Maybe. But if the other factors are not addressed, then simplistically focusing on guns alone will not solve the problem, and will make life more dangerous for many.

Now, while I am at it I will just tell you that I think you have a point with regards to the aversion of people to label this a hate crime. I think it is, although clear proof might be somewhat lacking. But hey, that never stopped people before! The fact that he was Black and homosexual is tainting their judgment. I am firmly against bigotry and firmly pro-gay marriage. But in no way am I going to dismiss the idea that he had it in for straight, White people out of hand.

Thank you. I'm so tired of the double standards from the political correctness crowd.

You put it very simply and sarcastically, but like it or not, that's very often the case. Violence breeds violence, a traumatic childhood produces all kinds of mental trouble later in life.

Ask any criminal psychologist.

Quite true. A long-time friend has spent her life working with domestic violence victims. The pattern of violent behavior is undeniable - and staggering. The cycle needs to be broken! It's no coincidence that so many of these shooters have serious mental issues and bad childhoods.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Plenty of countries have legal fib ownership, including most countries in Europe. What they do not have is free access to any type of gun in any quantity.

Guns can exist with gun control and without gun murder

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This event is commonly referred to as "Going Postal". It's a unusual form of psychosis that is triggered over a period of time by specific events. I agree the individual in this case was probably very disgruntled but he was also aware that he was imploding.

We can't always see it coming. Police officers are very keen that any day, any routine traffic stop can go ballistic at any second. If you are a reporter you need to watch your back at all times. It's hazardous duty and you know it.

I firmly believe that guns are PART of the problem. We seriously need to restrict them. America will NOT change it's Constitution though. One might think that guns are prevalent because we fear our neighbor. However it can also be said that Americans fear their government and an armed population is NOT to be ignored.

Japanese are NOT armed and they do protest but this Government does not listen. Now if you were to arm those individuals then the Government might listen. There's a difference between losing your job and losing your life.

You simply cannot ask people you hurt to go somewhere and die quietly. Especially in America where we have access to arms.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Megumi Shakti AUG. 29, 2015 - 09:11AM JST I firmly believe that guns are PART of the problem. We seriously need to restrict them. America will NOT change it's Constitution though. One might think that guns are prevalent because we fear our neighbor. However it can also be said that Americans fear their government and an armed population is NOT to be ignored.

The enforcement of the laws are used so sparingly that there is very little risk to gun traffickers, straw buyers, corrupt gun store owners, gun thieves or individuals who lie on the background check form of ever being punished. No such focus has been placed on the laws meant to curtail the black market that supplies criminals with guns. There appears to be no comprehensive federal law enforcement strategy to use existing laws to investigate, prosecute, and eliminate the black market that supplies guns to criminals, drug dealers, kids, and gangs.

There is not one simple explanation for why most federal firearm laws are being ignored. It may be a combination of insufficient law enforcement and prosecutorial resources, a lack of political and public pressure to enforce certain firearm laws. Both political parties agree that gun laws should be vigorously enforced. But it is now absolutely clear that the support for enforcing the gun laws has not led to any increased urgency for those charged with prosecuting those law.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thank you Megumi Shaki on two main points. One is about "going postal" and the other is about guns being part of the problem, which is to say that the NRA and its 4 million paying members are a part of the problem.

"Going postage" came into being because of a series of a killings at post offices by angry ("disgruntled") employees or ex-employees. This is not just an American phenomena but it is an outstanding American phenomena.

If you have to be in the States and deal with people in their jobs you will be disturbed to see how many service workers are not only bitter but also out of their flaming minds. A salient case in point. I have stopped using one U.S. airline for that reason. I have had to deal with ground staff and flight crews who were not only nasty but also not making sense. (Their problems invariably accelerated when I was traveling with my Japanese spouse, which leads into another issue.) I have encountered not a few whacked out Immigration officers, at least one shuttle driver (scary), bank personnel, and, yes, post office workers. I tread lightly with these people. You never know if any of them are looking a reason to blow you away. Oh yes, cops are also on edge. They can kill you and get away with it.

Mental health services need to be improved and made accessible. But first gun controls need to tightened, as they been in every industrial democracy except the US.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mass murders, the killing of four or more victims in the United States, 57% are not done in public but in private and only rarely make national media comment. These are domestic violence, where the victims know the killer. many times the victims have been threatened by the killer, and many times the victims have gotten court orders for the killer to leave the alone and allowing no contact at any time, and any way. So far there is no solution to the problem in the United States.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

also addressing such issues as mental health treatment and illegal immigration like those same other countries have done.

@OldHawk Stats concerning illegal immigrants are so confusing and contradictory its unfounded to put so much emphasis on it. Regardless, I do favor policies to reduce illegal immigration so not much to talk about there.

But I don't know of any country that ever went for mental health treatment as a solution to gun crime. What exactly are you proposing the U.S. do with regard to mental health treatment that you think would reduce gun crime, and more importantly, gun deaths?

I cannot see the mental health issue as much more than a red herring frankly. I don't see mental health issues as issues that can actually be "solved" to a great extend. Most people with issues don't get "cured". Its too hard to predict who will commit heinous crimes and lock up the right people permanently. Its hard to detect who has or will have issues early enough. Lots of, if not most of, these loony shooters actually were treated at some point. To be sure, not all and probably not most gun murders are committed by people with genuine mental health issues. Besides, the issue is already addressed by laws barring the mental from buying guns. But those laws are crippled by the lack of licensing and registration systems.

Japan has plenty of people running around that seem a bit off to me. But they are not going on shooting sprees so much. And knifing sprees tend not to go very far.

It's possible that if the other factors are addressed properly, then further gun restrictions might not be necessary. Maybe.

Maybe isn't good enough. Not remotely. Its a thin maybe anyway. Its obvious the best way to keep guns out of the hands of those with mental health issues is to establish systems on the physical guns, rather than focus on the ethereal issue of mental health. As far as I know, its inner city dwellers doing most of America's murder shootings and their problems are cultural, not mental.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

1800YOULOSE

Your observation that the high rate of violent, gun related, crime in America’s inner city communities is cultural and not really a mental health issue is partly correct. But I think it is important to look at every contributing component on an issue from a cultural perspective; in an attempt to gain a better understanding of how they interact and how that interaction manifests itself. As an example, when a culture of lawlessness overlaps a culture of firearm ownership the demonstrable results are higher rates of gun crime. Likewise, when a culture of lawlessness overlaps a culture of cyber technology you’re going to get cyber-crime. And when a culture of ineffective mental health policies overlaps a culture of firearm ownership, sooner or later, you’ll see incidents like this and so many like it.

Firearm ownership is a very prominent cultural component of American society and for many Americans it is a uniquely defining characteristic of their national identity. It is a cultural tradition older than the nation itself and with very deep roots. Eliminating guns from American society may be a noble aspiration for some but for very many Americans it would something akin to heresy. Not to mention being almost impossible to achieve. So sadly or gladly, depending on your point of view, guns in America are here to stay; now the challenge becomes dealing with it at a cultural level and work for overall harm reduction. Mental health awareness and treatment is also strongly influenced by cultural forces but unfortunately that has not always been a positive thing. The cultural stigma concerning mental illness carries over into the community’s image of mental health, with the emphasis being on the mental and not the health. Turn that thinking around and get society looking at it from the perspective of good mental health just being part of good overall health and you could reduce a lot of the barriers that culture places in the way of meaningful assessment and treatment.

What exactly are you proposing the U.S. do with regard to mental health treatment that you think would reduce gun crime, and more importantly, gun deaths?

I know that your question was directed to OldHawk but I would like to share some ideas, if I may.

What I would propose would be for the US government to establish a national public health policy insuring access to basic primary care for all Americans, pre-natal to 18 years of age. Included in this care would be regular mental health evaluations. Reinforce this policy by attaching it to education, public and private, and mandating a yearly physical and mental health evaluation as a requisite of enrollment. Get people used to looking at mental health as a regular normal health thing and not as something bad and a subject to be avoided. Raising the public awareness of and de-stigmatizing mental health issues can go a long way towards enhancing the ability to identify and provide meaningful assistance to those individuals in society that are in need of help and who might otherwise go unidentified and untreated.

The positive effect of access to good primary health care on the overall quality of life in any society is well documented. The same can be said about good primary mental health. When a culture of positive attitudes about mental health overlaps a culture of firearm ownership the results will invariably be less harmful to society then what we see now. And in reality, harm reduction is probably the best we can aspire to.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's okay folks - according to Progressives only Black Lives Matter.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

another interesting fact: most of the gun victims did not carry guns.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Amok a term derived from Malay practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok

OldHawk: Even our own notorious race-baiter, who obsessed over the Martin and Brown events, is noticeably absent from this story.

If you mean yabits, he hasn't posted since December.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How about Australia? Not exactly the same as the US, but they also had a large vocal population that opposed gun restrictions. While it's debated what effect it had on crime in general, we don't really hear about mass shootings over there.

@MrBum: Mass shootings were never a big problem to begin with in Australia, they made up less than 0.03 per 100,000 in the homicide rate, in the USA it is around 0.01 to 0.02 per 100,000 are murdered in mass shooting. Reducing your death toll on average by 4 or less people each year out of a population that has grown from 17 million to well over 25 million is not that impressive. Then you also have to factor in that the shooter at Port Arthur had acquired his firearms illegally at the time and if he had attempted to acquire them legally most likely the system would have rejected him from his past documented behavior. Australia could easily reduce their death toll by 4 or less people by just simply raising the minimum drinking age to 21; imagine if the USA was bragging about how they reduced their death toll from Alcohol by 4 people for the entire year by raising the minimum drinking age. Do you think anyone would be really impressed by that figure in Australia?

Mass shootings get a lot of exposure and are sensationalized but the truth of the matter is that they are not anywhere near the threat level that people think they are.

Actually, most on your side say "guns are not a big issue" and go on to list every other problem in America, most of which are shared by other countries.

Well it isn't is it? I mean if you take all of the gun deaths it is one one hundredth of one percent of the total USA dies each year from firearms, and if you include physical wounds you are talking about a combined casualty of three one hundredths of one percent of the USA population are killed or wounded annually in the USA.

The point of listing every other problem is to show that those issue are bigger/more serious and yet the people claiming that guns are this serious of an issue don't even consider those other issues at all because they consider the numbers from those other problems to be so trivially small to not even be worth considering, and yet firearms which have an even smaller number should be considered.

If you don't think guns are at the heart of the gun violence issue, I don't know what to say.

How are you defining heart of the issue? Are you claiming it is the most significant cause of gun violence? That believe it or not is debatable, one could argue that if guns were the very heart of the issue then gun violence should be much more equally distributed among all demographics in the USA. The fact that gun violence is not anywhere near close to being evenly distributed among all demographics would suggest that there are other factors at play that have a greater impact on gun violence then just simply the gun existing.

It's just that a lot of pro-gun people (not you necessarily) tend to repeat weak arguments like cars killing people and guns for crime deterrence

The primary reason for why they bring up car deaths is because they object to what they believe is unwarranted over generalizations.

Most of the time people will claim that because guns kill this many people it is a major problem and therefore there should be a blanket bans of some type. Well if the argument is that because something kills this many people therefore it should be banned then that is a very weak argument; all you have to do show is show that cars kill the same amount of people, Alcohol kills two to two and half times as many people as firearms do on a per capita basis pretty much in the entire developed world when compared to gun deaths in the USA. Heck you could even argue that casual sex should be more heavily controlled considering STDs/STIs kill nearly the same amount of people as firearms or cars in the USA, in fact HIV alone kills more people in the USA than all homicides by every weapon type each year in the USA.

These same people who just claimed that when something kills this many people that it should be banned will back track and come up with a list of excuses for why something that kills that many people if not more people should not have a blanket ban of some type.

There is a lot of hyperbole on both sides, you have anti-gun people greatly exaggerating the threat from firearms and you have pro-gun side greatly exaggerating the likely hood of being a victim of a crime, whether it be property or violent crime.

What is it going to take for America to wake up and realise they have a MAJOR problem with guns.

@Nicholas Tee - Why is a one one hundredth of one percent of the USA population dying from firearms on an annual basis a MAJOR problem? Three one hundredths of one percent if you include those wounded.

Are they going to tell me that they also continue to shave with cuthroat razors?

Believe it or not but a lot of people around the world still do, in fact a barbershop near me advertises their use of cut-throat razors as a selling point.

How long before those people realize they are simply being manipulated by the National Rifle Association because they make money every time a gun is sold?

You give the NRA to much credit/power, the issue is more of principle. A lot of Americans believe in using violence for self-defense in principle, a firearm represents that principle. Also if they make money every time a gun is sold it is because the gun buyer has voluntarily agreed to round up to the nearest dollar the bill and have the difference between nearest dollar and the actual grand total after tax go to the NRA.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is a video on line showing a close up of the gun being fired. It shows flames out of the barrel and witness reported he saw black smoke. Bullets use smokeless powder and blanks use gunpowder. Bullets don't show flames or smoke, only blanks do. Search online and find out the other facts you are not told. ( surely in one sense this is good news ? )

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, it's the idiots who support the current lack of gun laws and rm the criminals, as you do.

Oh, please! Don't give me that BS excuse! When this sort or tragic thing happens as bad as it was, you guys on the left never miss a moment to seize the opportunity to politicize the situation. But you guys are ok with open borders, illegals murdering innocent people on the streets, crime rates and shootings out of control in the big cities, Black on Black murder rates out of control and where is the condemnation from the left?? Silence! As usual

All who support such gun laws contributed t these deaths.

As the supporters of sanctuary cities and any opposition to closing our borders down permanently!

Why? You'd shoot them? to defend your non-threatening, non-violent weapons.

No, I would shoot anyone that came to my place to hurt me or my family, I wouldn't hesitate, NOT for a second.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Did you know the father of Alison Parker has declared that he will dedicate his life to gun control? It's been in the new for quite a while.

The murderer had a history of serve mental illnesses. He should never have been allowed to own a gun. Period. A few days ago another mentally ill man murdered a deputy in Texas. Why was he allowed to have a gun? Here in Japan getting the right to own a gun is a difficult process. The result is that gun crimes here are very rare.

Alison Parker's father is right. Gun control is the issue. The clamorous enemies of gun control are as guilty of gun violence as the perpetrators.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@ Noliving

Mass shootings were never a big problem to begin with in Australia...Reducing your death toll on average by 4 or less people each year out of a population that has grown from 17 million to well over 25 million is not that impressive.

It was enough of a problem for Australian politicians, both conservative and liberal, to risk their reelections in pushing the legislation through. Also, I bet if you were one of those 4 lives saved, you'd be pretty impressed. I think saving even a single life makes it worth it, especially when you consider that most Australians don't seem to miss their guns.

I mean if you take all of the gun deaths it is one one hundredth of one percent of the total USA dies each year from firearms.

Same as above. Is a hobby or false sense of protection worth innocent lives?

Are you claiming it is the most significant cause of gun violence?

Yup. Obviously education, income levels, access to mental health care, regional culture, availability alternative forms of entertainment, etc. all play a part, but remove guns from gun violence and it becomes just violence. Violence without guns tends to result in less death.

The primary reason for why they bring up car deaths...

As mentioned in other comments, cars, alcohol, and yes even sex serve other important purposes. We've decided as a society that we can't do without them. The sole purpose of guns is to kill or injure, and countries around the world seem to be doing just great without them. You might say guns serve as crime deterrence, but US crime statistics would say otherwise.

@ bass4funk

you guys on the left never miss a moment to seize the opportunity to politicize the situation.

You probably feel this way because it happens over, and over, and over, and over… Catch my drift? Do you complain when your guys on the right politicize situations? (Another mentally ill shooter BTW.)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/01/ted-cruzs-harsh-words-for-obama-after-execution-style-murder-of-texas-deputy-from-the-top-on-down/

When is the best time to confront a problem if not when it actually occurs? Would you listen at any other time? And like Kabukilover said, many times it's the victims' families that speak out, often on deaf ears.

But you guys are ok with open borders, illegals murdering innocent people on the streets

Completely unrelated issue when you consider that illegals commit crime at a roughly the same rate as locals.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/

Also, where do you think their guns are made?

crime rates and shootings out of control in the big cities

Crime rates have never been lower in developed countries throughout the world, including in big US cities. Shootings involving guns legally owned by the mentally ill on the other hand...

Black on Black murder rates out of control and where is the condemnation from the left?

I'd say it's condemned about as much as white on white crimes and other random crimes. Are you referring to the recent coverage of cops killing unarmed blacks? I'm sure you can see why law enforcement officials shooting unarmed civilians is a scarier issue than criminals doing the same.

@ 25years in Japan

And people think bringing up gun restriction after shootings is sick...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You probably feel this way because it happens over, and over, and over, and over… Catch my drift? Do you complain when your guys on the right politicize situations? (Another mentally ill shooter BTW

Really, how so? Funny when the Tea party movement was born, EVERY liberal wanted it shunned, ostracized and condemned it! BLM movement, as despicable and vile that they are calling for frying cops and killing cops, the Dems support that wholeheartedly, but that's ok, right. Black lives matter, really? How about ALL lives matters, including cops!

When is the best time to confront a problem if not when it actually occurs? Would you listen at any other time? And like Kabukilover said, many times it's the victims' families that speak out, often on deaf ears.

But you don't have to be vile, crude, racist, vulgar, plain hateful and disrespectful to make a point.

Completely unrelated issue when you consider that illegals commit crime at a roughly the same rate as locals

Seems like you're making excuses for illegal aliens entering the country. As a Californian born and breed in the State, I'm not buying that for one minute, regardless, there should be NO reason why we can't build a wall or strengthen the border with more patrol agents and the National Guard.

Also, where do you think their guns are made?

That's beside the point.

Crime rates have never been lower in developed countries throughout the world, including in big US cities. Shootings involving guns legally owned by the mentally ill on the other hand.

Again, this is what drives me insane about the left, shootings are NOT down by illegals. This is THE central issue at what's pissing off Americans. They have NO business being here, if they want to come, they should step in line and do it legally, I have NO problem with that whatsoever!

I'd say it's condemned about as much as white on white crimes and other random crimes. Are you referring to the recent coverage of cops killing unarmed blacks?

I'm referring to 15 cops that were murdered this year in cold blood and another one 3 days ago and for absolutely NO reason. Also, look at virtually every city from LA to Chicago, Philly, almost everywhere in the Black community Black on Black crime is the highest and Hispanics 2nd. Whites are not offing themselves in record numbers like the Blacks. Everyone from Bill Cosby to Dr. Ben Carson, even Obama acknowledge that this is a huge and out of control problem.

I'm sure you can see why law enforcement officials shooting unarmed civilians is a scarier issue than criminals doing the same.

That is just complete BS!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It was enough of a problem for Australian politicians, both conservative and liberal, to risk their reelections in pushing the legislation through.

Oh please, less than 10% of the Australian population owned firearms at the time of the ban, there is no way they were risking their elections getting that legislation through.

Also, I bet if you were one of those 4 lives saved, you'd be pretty impressed.

Red herring argument. So you agree that the Australian's would not be impressed if the Americans were bragging about how they saved 4 lives or less by raising the minimum drinking age to 21?

I think saving even a single life makes it worth it, especially when you consider that most Australians don't seem to miss their guns.

No you don't, if you did you would not engage in any single activity or behavior that results in a single person's death. If I was to raise the drinking age to 60 and it saved only one life would say it was worth it? If I was to spend one trillion us dollars to save one life would you say it was worth it? If I was to ban all professional sports to save one would you agree with that?

Well considering the total number of guns today is as high as it was during Port Arthur it would suggest they are did miss their guns and gun ownership is starting to rise again in Australia....

Same as above. Is a hobby or false sense of protection worth innocent lives?

Absolutely it is! Especially on the hobby, if the only acceptable cost to enjoy the pleasures of life is zero deaths than we are all going to live very boring lives. You can't tell me that if they were to ban recreational consumption of Alcohol to protect innocent lives that you would be for it, same is true with casual sex.

Yup. Obviously education, income levels, access to mental health care, regional culture, availability alternative forms of entertainment, etc. all play a part, but remove guns from gun violence and it becomes just violence. Violence without guns tends to result in less deat

Again if guns were the biggest cause of gun violence then gun violence should be much more equally spread out across all demographics, it is obvious that there are much important/significant factors that impact the level of gun violence then just simply the gun existing.

As mentioned in other comments, cars, alcohol, and yes even sex serve other important purposes. We've decided as a society that we can't do without them.

Same is true with Firearms, so you agree that the function of recreational alcohol, hobby drinking, is worth a death rate of 20 per 100,000, or in the USA 88,000 lives? You agree that the function it plays cannot be replicated by less harmful activities/hobbies?

The sole purpose of guns is to kill or injure, and countries around the world seem to be doing just great without them. You might say guns serve as crime deterrence, but US crime statistics would say otherwise.

And yet hundreds of millions of people around the world have found other uses for them besides killing or injuring other people. How have they managed to find those other purposes and you have not? Heck Japan has found another purpose for firearms for their civilian population and that is called target shooting. Over 99.99% of gun owners in the USA kill or injure no one an annual basis, how have they managed to do that?

Which countries are those that do just fine without them? Everyone country has firearms, whether it be military, law enforcement or civilian level. Every country has firearms.

Guns definitely serve the hobby/recreation purpose very well. In fact it is safer than the hobby of recreational consumption of alcohol.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It seems that most Americans forget the terrible tragedy week later after it happened. Another tragedy happened again somewhere, then they cry and debate about it deeply. But after a week, they forget it and live happy as same as usual, as if nothing happened or it happened a long time ago. It seems that Americans can't change it better by themselves because death toll is same every year.

And that's just the way that the corporates, the lobbyists and the right wing politicians like it. I've quoted this before so many times but it is frighteningly true here; those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"A lunatic with a gun is much more dangerous than a lunatic without a gun."

Tell that to the murder victims' and the survivors in Osaka and Akihabara. I'm sure they'll completely understand.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

murder victims' families and survivors, that post ought to state...

1 ( +1 / -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