Monday May 28, 2012

Gunman kills 5, then himself at Texas roller rink during party

World ( 75 )

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

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

75 Comments

Login to comment

  • -1

    johninnaha

    How come it's so easy to own a gun in the U.S.A.?

  • 1

    cleo

    How come it's so easy to own a gun in the U.S.A.?

    Something to do with 18th century militias and the yeehaw factor.

  • 0

    chewitup

    No doubt he was a legitmate gun owner right up until the millisecond he became a criminal. Now he is a criminal retroactively and for all time and is disowned by legitimate gun owners who will claim they never knew him. His info will be chucked in to the category of "criminal" for purposes of defending legimate gun owners and contrasting them with the "crimimals" for all those stilted pro-gun arguments we are going to get hammered with.

    And to turn another common talking point/tactic, I wonder how those pro-gun people would feel if it was their daughter who got gunned down?

  • -3

    BreitbartVictorious

    Something to do with 18th century militias and the yeehaw factor.

    Was that the sentiment back at the start of WW2, when hunting mags in the US ran full page ads from the British gov't begging American hunters for firearms?

  • -3

    sunhawk

    banning more types of guns and making it harder to attain the few remaining legal types of guns will not stop a shooting by a disgruntled legit gun owner. it will not stop the more committed illegitimate criminal gun owners that will find illegal means of getting a gun. all it will accomplish is that collectors and sport shooters will have to hand over their formerly legal property over to authorities for destruction. people wanting to get a gun for legit reasons of home/self defense, sport shooting, hunting might be deterred by the increased cost and legal maneuvering. ]

    money and gov't effort will be better spent in making sure that people are employed and happy.

  • -3

    Alphaape

    How come it's so easy to own a gun in the U.S.A.?

    Something to do with 18th century militias and the yeehaw factor.

    Tell taht to Norway. I guess the Viking factor is still running wild in Norway. And I guess here in Japan, since you have more stabbings than shootings, I guess the samuri spirit is alive and well still today.

  • -3

    Alphaape

    Something to do with 18th century militias and the yeehaw factor.

    Correction to my previous post.

    Tell that to Norway, where the Viking spirit must still be alive, and since there are more stabbings in Japan than shootings, I guess the samuri spirit is still alive in Nippon too.

    If a person is hell-bent on killing someone, they will use whatever is at their disposal to do it, whether it is guns, knives or bombs.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    "A man attending a birthday party at a roller rink opened fire Saturday night after an apparent spat between family members..."

    Exactly why people should not be able to bear firearms. A simple spat turns into a blood bath.

    Alphaape: "Tell that to Norway, where the Viking spirit must still be alive, and since there are more stabbings in Japan than shootings, I guess the samuri spirit is still alive in Nippon too."

    Ummm... how many years since something like what happened in Norway happened last in Norway? How many days since what happened in Texas last happened in Texas? Not only is your comparison completely off the wall and a MAJOR backfire, it's also rather tasteless.

  • 1

    cleo

    Tell that to Norway

    Yes, because the Norwegian gun laws where you need to either complete a 30-hour, 9-session course pluss a written exam to obtain a hunting licence, enroll in the hunter registry and apply to the police for approval before being able to purchase the firearm specified in the application; or enroll in a 9-hour plus sports shooting course, pass a written test, join an approved gun club and attend regularly (at least 15 times) over a period of six months before the application to purchase a competition class weapon can be made.

    That's no different to the way they do things in Texas, where basically if you put the money down, you got the gun.

    This shooting wasn't someone 'hell-bent on killing someone' - it was a spat that got out of control. If the shooter had had to go and enroll in a 30-hour hunting course and jump through all the other Norwegian hoops before he got a gun, he would have long since calmed down and probably even forgotten about the spat. And 6 people now dead would still be alive.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Alphaape: "If a person is hell-bent on killing someone, they will use whatever is at their disposal to do it, whether it is guns, knives or bombs."

    This argument always makes me chuckle. You honestly think the guy would have been able to kill the same number of people from a distance if he only had access to a tupperware container at the party instead of being able to carry a weapon created for the sole purpose of killing other people?

    Give it a rest. This was not planned -- if it were planned then yes, perhaps had he packed a knife he could have murdered a bunch of them -- it is an example of why people should not have the right to bear arms based on some outdated constitution made when militias were scared silly of the British. Had this spat broken out and the man didn't have the gun, these five would still be alive -- unless he of course bashed them to death with the tupperware or a piece of cake.

  • 2

    Tahoochi

    AlphaapeJul. 24, 2011 - 04:10PM JST

    If a person is hell-bent on killing someone, they will use whatever is at their disposal to do it, whether it is guns, knives or bombs.

    In some cases yes, but many people, even without self defense training, could potentially stop or reduce the effects of a knife coming at them, but how many people do you know who can stop a bullet? .... a bomb??? Good luck. Guns are meant for killing and nothing else.

    Also, in this particular case, it doesn't sound like the guy was "hell-bent" on killing these people from the beginning (from the time he entered the facility). It sounds like a fight escalated, then this moron suddenly remembered he had his gun on him, and so he ended the fight permanently.

  • 0

    johninnaha

    I thought the right to bear arms was so that people could club together and bring down an oppressive government, if that eventuality arose.

    Since the military nowadays has FAR more fire power than can be privately owned, this seems to be an anachronism.

  • -1

    johninnaha

    I cannot see therefore, why a person needs to have a gun in the 21st century.

    To protect himself against mountain lions and bears?

  • 1

    cleo

    I cannot see therefore, why a person needs to have a gun in the 21st century.

    To protect himself against mountain lions and bears?

    'Cos roller rinks in Texas are infested with mountain lions and bears. :-)

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Bowling for Columbine documentary was spot on..

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    anglootaku: "Bowling for Columbine documentary was spot on.."

    Yes and no. The Columbine massacre was planned, this was a simple spat that turned into a slaughter due to the outdated and quite frankly retarded gun laws of the US. Not sure you can compare, though some of Moore's points in the movie are true in this case.

  • 1

    chewitup

    Tell that to Norway

    Does Norway come close to the murder rate of Texas? Maybe it should be Norwegians telling things to Texas and for Texans for shut up and listen? Oh, but recent events show that Norway is not perfect! And as we all know, if you can't have perfection then you don't have anything of value. Far and away better is just not good enough these days!

  • 0

    Serrano

    "an apparent spat between family members"

    Oh my...

  • -3

    BreitbartVictorious

    cleo

    That's no different to the way they do things in Texas, where basically if you put the money down, you got the gun.

    You has gawn gun buyin' b'fo, in Texayass? You got yo'sef a gun?

    Me, I don't own a handgun or a rifle, but this is what I found is required down them there parts, if you is fixin to buy a gun:

    "Complete the FBI NICS background check, which is required by law. This will alert the people at the store if you have a felony conviction. In Texas, you may possess a firearm on the premises where you live after 5 years have elapsed since your prison or parole term has ended."

  • 0

    Laguna

    anglootaku: "Bowling for Columbine documentary was spot on..

    The point is not whether the massacre was planned (as in Oslo) or not (as, seemingly, in this case), it is why some countries with relatively liberal gun laws such as Norway exhibit low gun violence but others - the US - see it seemingly everyday. The point of the documentary was not the specific Columbine event but the culture behind it.

  • 2

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Idiot NRA supporters will post here and anywhere they can, GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, the biggest pile of BS!!! RIP dead Texans.

  • -1

    cleo

    BreitbartVictorious - I tried googling your quote and found some bits you missed out.

    Buy your gun from the dealer. There is no waiting period in Texas. Once you have passed the FBI NICS background check or have received your CHL (if required) you can walk out of the store that day with your gun.

    Like I said, basically, you put your money down and you get your gun. But at least they don't let jailbirds have a gun until they've been out for 5 years. So that's all right then.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    Like I said, basically, you put your money down and you get your gun. But at least they don't let jailbirds have a gun until they've been out for 5 years. So that's all right then.

    @cleo: YOu are contridicting yourself. You stated all the rigours things a person in Norway has to do to get a gun, and the person who did the shooting passed the background checks and did the training. The person in Texas who owns a gun, had to follow the laws that applied to the state and passed.

    The bottom line is that the person in Norway was going to kill, and sad to say that the person in Texas after a heated argument with family also killed.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Alphaape: "Remember Akihabra?"

    I do. I also remember he had intend to kill. This man did not -- he just got in a fight and took out his sudden rage with a gun. How can you even continue to debate this?

  • -1

    Foxie

    'Cos roller rinks in Texas are infested with mountain lions and bears. :-)

    Ah, that's where they all went. Could never understand why so many cages were empty at the zoo in Houston

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Alphaape: "The bottom line is that the person in Norway was going to kill, and sad to say that the person in Texas after a heated argument with family also killed."

    So who's contradicting whom, now? You say if someone wants to kill someone they will by any means, but you can't bring yourself to say the idiot Texan here "was going to kill", just that he "also killed". You admit the two situations have NO relation whatsoever in terms of intent, and have just literally contradicted yourself (again).

    But gun nutters will never understand until it's one of their own and they scream out 'WHY???'. I hope this never happens again, but won't be surprised to read tomorrow about another heated argument in the US leading to a shootout.

  • -3

    Alphaape

    But gun nutters will never understand until it's one of their own and they scream out 'WHY???'. I hope this never happens again, but won't be surprised to read tomorrow about another heated argument in the US leading to a shootout.

    @smithinjapan: I bet that we read that a distraught person will kill a family member here in Japan with a knife or strangling or by some other means just as likely as we will see another mass killing death in the USA.

  • 1

    cleo

    Alphaape, I'm not contradicting myself at all. Smitty has you bang to rights. The nutter in Norway planned his attack for a very long time, including jumping through all the right hoops and making all the right noises to get his firearms. The nutter in Akihabara was a very disturbed individual who planned his attack over a couple of days and used a readily-available vehicle and a knife - if he'd had access to a firearm it's likely a lot more people would have died. The nutter in Texas planned nothing - he just happened to have a readily-available gun on him when an argument got a bit heated.

    Can you seriously not see the difference?

    The person in Texas who owns a gun, had to follow the laws that applied to the state and passed.

    Oh come on. The only 'law' appears to be that there is no law; you want a gun, you pays your money and you gets your gun. It's your Gawd-given 'right'. Just so long as you haven't already proven yourself to be a murderous maniac and at least five years have passed since you last ate porridge.

  • 1

    cleo

    I bet that we read that a distraught person will kill a family member here in Japan with a knife or strangling or by some other means just as likely as we will see another mass killing death in the USA.

    Compare and contrast - a distraught person killing one other person with a knife or bare hands, vs an armed person shooting up multiple people.

    AlphaApe, what are you trying to say? That people are naturally murderous? I'll grant you that, some people are. Isn't that all the more reason for it to be a very bad idea to have people walking round carrying loaded guns that they're likely to use when they get into arguments?

  • -1

    TheQuestion

    Coward. He should have started with himself. He still would have been a coward but at the very least he'd be the only one dead.

    How many days since what happened in Texas last happened in Texas?

    The U.S is and always will be incomparable to other nations. It's history and culture is dramatically different than any in current existence for better or worse. It has a massive, extremely diverse population that carries with it the good and bad qualities of every nation they come from. Any comparison to a largely homogenous nation like Norway immediately falls flat.

    Since the military nowadays has FAR more fire power than can be privately owned, this seems to be an anachronism.

    Using that logic there is no conceivable way that lightly armed insurgents could pose any threat to the U.S in foreign theatres. And I feel the need to point out that with my destructive device permit I have access to, and own, far better weapons than they do in the Middle East.

    With the right permits you can pretty much buy anything in the states. My brothers a scrap yard owner and I went half down on a maxim gun for him to restore, it may be a century old but it still fires 450 rounds per minute...though I'm hard pressed to think of the last time an automatic was used in a crime, mostly semi-autos and hand guns.

  • 0

    cleo

    Your weak, p.c. arguments for gun control might be a wee bit more worth considering if you could get the basic facts straight.

    The basic facts are that Texas which has an economy the size of Canada also has gun 'laws' that are so liberal they might just as well not exist; and that six people are dead before their time because some nutter with a short fuse was legally allowed to wander around with a loaded pistol on his person.

    Grand Prairie, Texas, 400 km from Houston (they do km in Texas?), now has a slightly smaller population.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    breitbartvictorious: "Houston is home to 2 million people. It's no backwater. Texas has an economy the size of Canada. The shooting took place in Grand Prairie, 400 Km from Houston. Your weak, p.c. arguments for gun control might be a wee bit more worth considering if you could get the basic facts straight."

    Wow. I was unaware that stating a thought about someone was fact, but thank you for confirming. How about I change 'backwater' to 'stupid hick', would that be more 'factual' for you? Doesn't change my argument that the American laws on gun control in general are stone-aged, and particularly in Texas (actually, those ARE facts!), nor does it change what happened here.

    Come on, bud, let's talk about the topics.... if gun control were better and guns not allowed, would these people be dead because some moronic Texan got a bit upset (if he had no gun)?

  • 0

    Lizz

    "The basic facts are that Texas which has an economy the size of Canada also has gun 'laws' that are so liberal they might just as well not exist..."

    Not sure where that came from but the permit to carry a concealed weapon in Texas most likely does mandate a gun safety class in addition to a thorough background check across several government agencies. Some data shows laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms can reduce crime. Other studies show it has no effect on crime and may lead to increases in aggravated assaults, suicides, accidental firings etc. I have no idea but carrying a concealed firearm (without a permit) wasn't the factor in this case in hopefully in most states it is a felony.

  • -2

    Deplore

    Always amusing to see how eager liberals are to give up rights they don't like. I wonder why they love quoting Benjamin Franklin on, say, the Patriot Act, but never on gun rights?

  • -2

    Alphaape

    The nutter in Norway planned his attack for a very long time, including jumping through all the right hoops and making all the right noises to get his firearms.

    @cleo: So this person followed all the laws of Norway to get a gun, and when he got one he killed with it. So, I guess your argument is that we should just do away with all guns, since even if you follow all the laws and regulations to get one, you can still kill with it.

    What we don't know in the Texas story, is if the person was able to carry the gun legally (i.e. he wasn't currently a felon on probation). If that was the case, then he bought one illegally and efforts should be made to find out how and those who sold it to him should face penalties.

    But, the guy in Norway did buy his gun through the proper legal channels. So should the government officials who authorized him to buy one face charges also.

    AlphaApe, what are you trying to say? That people are naturally murderous? I'll grant you that, some people are. Isn't that all the more reason for it to be a very bad idea to have people walking round carrying loaded guns that they're likely to use when they get into arguments?

    So if someone in the area had an carry permit, do you think that they would have had the right to defend those who were being shot? Not all persons who carry guns are going to use them when arguments arise. Using your logic, all kitchens should be clear of knives because as I have posted previously, there are stabbings and kilings with sharp objects too. And they don't require a license. Just watch any episode of Cops.

    • Moderator

      Readers, the Norway massacre is not relevant to this discussion. From here on, posts that refer to Norway will be removed.

  • -1

    cleo

    we should just do away with all guns

    First sensible thing you've said all thread.

    What we don't know in the Texas story, is if the person was able to carry the gun legally

    Not that it matters. Legally or illegally, a gun is very easy to get hold of, and whether it was legal or illegal, the people he killed are still just as dead.

    if someone in the area had an carry permit, do you think that they would have had the right to defend those who were being shot?

    You really think a rink full of people shooting wildly would be a Good Thing? If lots of people are waving weapons around, how does anyone know who is the nutter and who are the good guys? You just end up with more people dead.

    Using your logic, all kitchens should be clear of knives because as I have posted previously, there are stabbings and kilings with sharp objects too.

    The last resort of the 'I want my gun at all costs' brigade. A knife in a kitchen has a legitimate, sane use. a gun in a roller rink - or anywhere else in civilised society - does not. Maybe you could use one in the garage for knocking nails in, but it's primary function is killing people.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    Not that it matters. Legally or illegally, a gun is very easy to get hold of, and whether it was legal or illegal, the people he killed are still just as dead.

    @cleo: It does matter. If I follow the rules, and have not committed a crime, then if I want to buy a gun then I can't buy one because some nut job who has broken the rules and abused his priviliges has taken away my right? I don't think so.

    The last resort of the 'I want my gun at all costs' brigade. A knife in a kitchen has a legitimate, sane use. a gun in a roller rink - or anywhere else in civilised society - does not. Maybe you could use one in the garage for knocking nails in, but it's primary function is killing people.

    I don't think it is a last resort. You didn't give an answer only just make blind statements.

    It comes down to human nature. I hate to say it, but there are some crazy people in the world. This is a tragic event, but banning guns will not stop it from happening. From the Moore movie, "Bowling for Columbine" he shows the difference between Detroit and the city across the border in Canada, Windsor I believe and the difference in the gun deaths. I can do the same in this case, compare the gun deaths in Texas, vice the gun deaths in Laredo right across the border from El Paso. Guns are illegal in Mexico, but more killings go on there than in Texas.

  • 2

    cleo

    there are some crazy people in the world

    There are indeed. Glad we can agree on this.

    If I follow the rules, and have not committed a crime, then if I want to buy a gun then I can't buy one because some nut job who has broken the rules and abused his priviliges has taken away my right? I don't think so.

    If it helps stop the crazy people getting guns, then I'm quite happy for you to go without yours. Maybe you're sane now, but how is anyone to know when you're going to go crazy, or have a tiff with your loved ones in a roller rink, or be narked that you've lost your job, or feel road rage against the bloke who cut in front of your car at the lights, or the old lady who pushed in front of you in the supermarket queue? My right to walk the streets in safety trumps your right to fondle a lethal weapon and daydream about being a cowboy.

    What they do in Texas, though, doesn't bother me. I can simply choose never to go there. It has nothing whatsoever to attract me. Feel sorry for the poor folk born and raised there who know no better, though.

    compare the gun deaths in Texas, vice the gun deaths in Laredo right across the border

    You do realise that some 90% of the guns used to kill in Mexico come from the US, across a porous border? More sensible gun laws in the US would probably save Mexican lives as well.

  • -1

    Foxie

    It is ridiculous that gun laws are so easy in the US.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    You do realise that some 90% of the guns used to kill in Mexico come from the US, across a porous border? More sensible gun laws in the US would probably save Mexican lives as well.

    @cleo: I will agree with you that guns in Mexico may come from the USA, but not on that percentage. I read that from some of the Wikileaks, many weapons are not just from the US, but other countries in Europe (Russia, Czech) and China and Columbia.

    So the guns get smuggled there and they are used.

    If it helps stop the crazy people getting guns, then I'm quite happy for you to go without yours.

    Well, I am glad that you know what's best for me. I don't smoke, and don't care for it. But to be honest, I think it is not fair that a smoker can't smoke in bar if they want to. If I don't want to be around the somke, then I will not go into the area. But to secure the rights of others, even though I don't care for their activity is pretty heavy handed.

  • 0

    cleo

    Well, I am glad that you know what's best for me.

    Not for you. For me and mine. I don't want to be afraid to walk into a public place because some quick-tempered nutter is having an argument with his wife that might turn into a bloodbath. And I'd much rather not have my lungs and bronchial tubes assaulted by a loser who can't keep his need for a tobacco dummy at home.

    there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States (William Hoover of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives speaking to the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, 7th February 2008)

  • 0

    BreitbartVictorious

    cleo

    there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States (William Hoover of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives speaking to the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, 7th February 2008)

    You might want to try a search of 'Gunwalker scandal ' or 'Operation Fast and Furious Eric Holder' .

  • 1

    johninnaha

    Gosh, what a lot of hot air!

    Let's take an instrument like a knife.

    There's an awful lot of things you can do with a knife.

    Very useful things to have around, knives.

    All kinds of things you can do with them; cut string, open packages, prepare a barbecue, and so on.

    On the other hand, there're only two things you can do with a gun:

    Threaten to kill someone or something or actually kill them.

    Nobody needs a gun.

    Shooting animals for sport is sick and should be punished with almost the same severity as killing humans.

  • 1

    chewitup

    Personally I love my guns. I just hate yours! Why? Because I most likely won't shoot myself unless I want to! You however? I have no idea when you might decide to take a shot at me! Therefore, I will gladly part with my guns so long as everyone else does too.

  • -3

    Gurukun

    Idiot NRA supporters will post here and anywhere they can, GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, the biggest pile of BS!!!

    People that say that the quote, "GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE," is the biggest pile of BS, is the biggest pile of BS!!!!!

    Nobody has yet to explain how my Desert Eagle will just start shooting on it's own and kill people.

  • -1

    Spidapig24

    Gurukun,

    You are exactly right its not the gun that walked into the roller rink and shot the people it was the nutter carrying it. In the hands of responsible people guns are very safe. In the hands of a nutter they are deadly. Funny thing is the same can be said for a knife, baseball bat or even a car. But when someone is stabbed we dont hear people screaming to ban knives now do we? In the end its the human element that is the problem not the weapon.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Spidapig24: " In the hands of responsible people guns are very safe. In the hands of a nutter they are deadly."

    So eliminate them and get rid of the threat of being 'deadly'. This was not a planned attack, so you cannot argue he would have done it 'regardless'. He got miffed, he had a gun, he wanted to put an exclamation mark on his point. You think he would have been able to do this with a baseball bat?

  • 0

    Spidapig24

    smithinjapan,

    Why penalize legitimate gun owners who arnt nutters for the sake of those that are? As l said in the hands of a nutter anything can kill. Do you want a ban on knives, cars, baseball bats, the list goes on. Yes guns make it easier but if you are a nut job you will find a way to kill someone if you cant get a gun. How hard is it to find out how to make a bomb on the net. If they cant get a gun then whats to stop them making a bomb? Guns have a place in society, some people need them for their jobs or lives (farmers, hunter etc) to blanket ban that is ridiculous. Just make it harder to get them that would be a start

  • 1

    johninnaha

    There are points on the body, apparently where a sharp blow can kill someone. There was a point in a story by Ken Follet, I believe it was, where one guy killed another guy with a ball pen in the temple. Of course, every day objects can be weapons, notably icepicks and kitchen knives.

    Killing lots of people at a distance with a knife takes a lot of skill though, but it doesn't take a lot of skill to point a gun at someone and shoot.

    AND, as I pointed out, you can also write with a ball pen, butter bread with a knife, but the only thing you can do with a gun is to short someone's life.

    "I need a gun cos he's got one. His gun is bigger than mine, so I'll have to get a bigger one. He killed my brother, so I'll torture his grandfather."

    That road don't go nowhere. At least nowhere worth going.

    And guys, dying ain't cool. It hurts. It's more pain and grief and confusion that you will ever experience which you're alive.

    Don't let people do it to other people. Don't let them do it to you and don't do it to them.

    And especially, don't do it to yourself.

  • 0

    cleo

    if you are a nut job you will find a way to kill someone if you cant get a gun. How hard is it to find out how to make a bomb on the net.

    So in this particular case, if the nutter hadn't had a gun on him when the argument started, he would have run off to google how to build a bomb? By the time he'd built it and got back, the argument would have been over and he would probably have been a lot calmer. So yes, a ban on guns would save lives.

    Not everyone who uses a gun to kill is determined to kill no matter what. The argument doesn't hold.

  • 0

    Spidapig24

    cleo,

    So in this particular case, if the nutter hadn't had a gun on him when the argument started, he would have run off to google how to build a bomb? By the time he'd built it and got back, the argument would have been over and he would probably have been a lot calmer. So yes, a ban on guns would save lives. Not everyone who uses a gun to kill is determined to kill no matter what. The argument doesn't hold.

    As l said in my post a blanket ban on guns isnt the way to go, bit make them harder to get and restrict them to those that have a need for them but to blame guns wholesale is a copout.

  • 0

    BreitbartVictorious

    Gunman identified

    http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/23/1735554/gunman-kills-5-at-texas-roller.html

  • 0

    Howdy Doody

    The sad part is that this gets in the world news here because a large number (5) was killed. There are many others killed or hurt in isolated shootings in the U.S. which aren't reported on world news outlets like this because one person dead from a gun ain't gonna be as shocking as five. For example, the following article details four shooting incidents (one of them being this story we're talking about now) happening over the weekend:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/24/shootings-this-weekendn908140.html

  • 1

    cleo

    piggy, who ever needs a gun in a roller rink? At a birthday party? Surely it should be against the law for even the most meek and mild, straight-up law abiding citizen to carry a loaded gun into a public place?

    to blame guns wholesale is a copout

    I don't blame guns. I blame the people who carry them and the people who allow them to carry them. No one needs a gun in a school, a shopping centre, a bar, all the places where these stupid people pull out their stupid guns and kill people.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States

    @cleo: If guns were banned in the USA, there would still leave that "10%" of non-US made guns (accroding to your statistics) that will fill the void, and I imagine the gun violence will still continue in Mexico.

    Also, we have a very bad problem with drug smuggling into the USA from Mexico. Don't you think those same people will begin a new trade (them along with others who seem to like to break the US laws), and we would then see an new trafficing, in illegal weapons into the USA.

    At least with the gun laws in the USA, there are provisions for background checks. In theory, those who should not own guns because of past crimes do not have the right to legitimately own a weapon. If they get one illegally, with our current system, I don't think it will be a problem for them to get one if all guns were banned.

    Not for you. For me and mine. I don't want to be afraid to walk into a public place because some quick-tempered nutter is having an argument with his wife that might turn into a bloodbath. And I'd much rather not have my lungs and bronchial tubes assaulted by a loser who can't keep his need for a tobacco dummy at home.

    @cleo: some apartments are now making it illegal for renters to smoke in them. I share your concerns about not wanting to be caught in the crossfire when someone gets in heated passion. So, if I see something that I am not really in favor for (as an example gay marriage) and I want to protect mine from being around it, it should be banned and not allowed? Where does that slippery slope end, and where does your rights trump my rights? If you live in a democracy then majority rules. I have to accept the fact that smoking is banned in some places even though it doesn't affect me. You have to accept that the majority of Americans are in favor of guns.

  • 0

    Howdy Doody

    If you live in a democracy then majority rules. I have to accept the fact that smoking is banned in some places even though it doesn't affect me. You have to accept that the majority of Americans are in favor of guns.

    Alphaape: So even if the majority of Americans owning guns feel it is their right to carry one and use it whenever they feel convenient to handle anything that angers them, before resorting to other means, it is still basically their right? But by the same reasoning, then I guess you could say that the gunman had a "right" to protect himself with a gun against those people who "angered" him, as long as he took himself out in the process. The accessibility of guns just makes it easier for weak-minded people to feel like they could solve all their problems so easily with it.

    Yes, guns don't kill, but the trigger-happy mentality that most American gun owners have of "shoot first and ask questions later" doesn't really lend itself to responsible gun ownership. It just leads to death, injury, and many more people traumatized by the experience.

  • 0

    Alphaape

    Alphaape: So even if the majority of Americans owning guns feel it is their right to carry one and use it whenever they feel convenient to handle anything that angers them, before resorting to other means, it is still basically their right?

    @Howdy Doody: No, that is not what I am saying, you are being illogical. No one has the right to go out and kill someone if they are mad. Just like I can't carry a knife over a certain length because it is considered a weapon.

  • 0

    Spidapig24

    cleo

    piggy, who ever needs a gun in a roller rink? At a birthday party? Surely it should be against the law for even the most meek and mild, straight-up law abiding citizen to carry a loaded gun into a public place?

    I agree, its limited who needs to carry guns in public. And not everyone should be allowed.

    I don't blame guns. I blame the people who carry them and the people who allow them to carry them. No one needs a gun in a school, a shopping centre, a bar, all the places where these stupid people pull out their stupid guns and kill people.

    Totally agree.

  • 0

    cleo

    its limited who needs to carry guns in public.

    Can't think of a single person who needs to carry a gun in public. Depending on the society maybe cops, though I'm far from being convinced of that - and certainly no one else.

    If guns were banned in the USA, there would still leave that "10%" of non-US made guns (accroding to your statistics) that will fill the void, and I imagine the gun violence will still continue in Mexico.

    OK, here's an analogy. Let's say I need to lose weight. I have to drop 10 stone, otherwise I'm headed for a guaranteed heart attack. So I cut all booze, chocolate, cream, sugar, fat, butter, all the stuff I love, out of my diet and eat nothing but lettuce leaves, apples and lentils. After a month I step on the scales and find I've lost 1 stone. I see that as a victory, well worth the effort and sacrifice - I'm that much closer to a healthier me. Great. I just need to stick with it a bit longer. You on the other hand, judging from your logic, would see it as a failure. I didn't lose the whole 10 stone! I still kept nibbling lettuce leaves, putting calories into my body! If there isn't an immediate 100% result, what's the point? May as well go back to the cream cakes and fried potatoes, after all they're more fun and I can wilfully ignore the heart attack until it actually hits me. Then my family can wring their hands and weep Why, Oh Why? She enjoyed life so much, what a tragedy....

    I can't carry a knife over a certain length because it is considered a weapon

    You accept that you can't carry a knife in public, but you want to be allowed to walk round with a loaded gun?

    You have to accept that the majority of Americans are in favor of guns

    Which is why the land of the 'free' will never get my tourist yen.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    You accept that you can't carry a knife in public, but you want to be allowed to walk round with a loaded gun?

    @cleo: No I don't. But I understand that it is the law and I have to abide. Just as your argument against guns, why would anyone need a 10" blade knife? Expecting to gut any wild animals that pounce out of the woods?

    Which is why the land of the 'free' will never get my tourist yen.

    That is your right not to come to America, but I imagine the 300 million citizens will not really loose any sleep over your decision.

  • 0

    cleo

    I imagine the 300 million citizens will not really loose any sleep over your decision.

    Of course they won't. They're too busy treading on eggshells trying not to upset that dude in the supermarket queue with the tic in his eye and the bulge under his jacket, and avoiding other folks' marital squabbles.

  • 1

    Howdy Doody

    There will never be justice in this kind of tragedy since the gunman killed himself. Unfortunately, the five dead people ended up being collateral damage. This kind of thing happens way too often. I have never ever heard of a case where a man goes on a "knife" rampage killing many people and then turning the knife on himself. Why is it with only guns we hear about this sort of thing happening? It's easy. A killing with a knife involves intimacy; you need to get close to someone to do it. With a gun, it's just way too easy to be several feet away and spray bullets into a crowd. Plus, I'd think it would be easier to carry a concealed gun, rather than a 10" blade (lest you get yourself cut in the process).

  • 0

    Gurukun

    Can't think of a single person who needs to carry a gun in public. Depending on the society maybe cops, though I'm far from being convinced of that - and certainly no one else.

    People that legally carry guns in public, carry guns for the same reason the cops do. For protection.

  • 0

    BreitbartVictorious

    Which is why the land of the 'free' will never get my tourist yen.

    the only sensible thing cleo has said on the subject.

  • 1

    Howdy Doody

    People that legally carry guns in public, carry guns for the same reason the cops do. For protection.

    And as an easy way to commit suicide. Many times this involves taking the lives of others with you before turning the gun on yourself.

  • 3

    cleo

    People that legally carry guns in public, carry guns for the same reason the cops do. For protection.

    1) Cops don't carry guns for protection so much as for coercion. If it were for protection the police forces of the UK, New Zealand and Norway, being 'unprotected,' would have gone the way of the dodo long ago.

    2) Who did the roller rink nutter think he was protecting himself from at a birthday party?

    If you live in the kind of sick society where people need to protect themselves with lethal force when going about their everyday lives, you've got bigger problems than carrying a gun, legal or otherwise, is ever going to solve.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    I have never ever heard of a case where a man goes on a "knife" rampage killing many people and then turning the knife on himself.

    And as an easy way to commit suicide. Many times this involves taking the lives of others with you before turning the gun on yourself.

    @Howdy Doody: I can think of several cases that have been reported on JT of people slashing family members and then offing themself (often failing), or killing themself either with the CO2 or gas method and endangering others, or the classic case of jumping off a building and landing on a bystander in the street.

    As tragic as this case is, this guy was going to kill no matter what he had at hand.

  • -2

    Alphaape

    What they do in Texas, though, doesn't bother me. I can simply choose never to go there. It has nothing whatsoever to attract me. Feel sorry for the poor folk born and raised there who know no better, though

    @cleo: Looking at the local report on the story, the shooter, the shooter and the wife were not born in Texas, or America for that matter. Hoi Ta (grandfather survivor of the shooting) and his family moved to North Texas from Vietnam nearly two decades ago in search of a better life. But now nearly all of his children are dead. The night before the boy’s mother, 29-year-old Trini Do, threatened to divorce her estranged husband, 35-year-old Tan Do.

    So the shooter wasn't born there but in Vietnam. I guess living in Texas for the past 20 years had rubbed off on him in the wrong way.

  • 0

    Nessie

    why would anyone need a 10" blade knife

    @Cleo

    Cooking. Cutting sasa for hiking. Gardening....

  • 0

    cleo

    Nessie, that was AlphaApe's question, not mine.

    Still, people don't do their cooking, hiking or gardening on the spur of the moment, in the middle of the street or al the other places that seem to be favourite shoot-em-up locations. No one needs to be walking around all the time with a 10-inch blade.

  • 0

    freakashow

    No one needs to be walking around all the time with a 10-inch blade.

    Good point. I'm sure walking around with a blade longer than 10" in your pants or on the inside jacket pocket would be more uncomfortable and dangerous than walking around with a gun hidden. Then again, I wouldn't even want to walk around with a loaded weapon of any kind. I could imagine it could get downright nasty and uncomfortable if your date and you suddenly wanted to get down and dirty, with a loaded gun in your pants or jacket pocket. I also wonder where you keep it hidden in summer. Your shorts?

  • 0

    Nessie

    @cleo

    I apologize for my misattribution.

    Still, people don't do their cooking, hiking or gardening on the spur of the moment, in the middle of the street or al the other places that seem to be favourite shoot-em-up locations. No one needs to be walking around all the time with a 10-inch blade.

    Irrelevant. Lots of people cycle to the mountains or bring knives for cooking. If I go over to a friend's to make sushi, I bring my 10" bread knife because the serrated blade is great for cutting sushi rolls. It's easy to imagine situations where one would be on a bike with something that's necessary but illegal.

  • 0

    cleo

    Nessie, you're a nice sensible young lad so I imagine if you were on your way to or from a sushi party at your friend's house your 10" bread knife would be wrapped in paper/a towel and packed safely in your bag where it couldn't cut anything it wasn't supposed to cut. You wouldn't have it literally on your person while riding your bike, would you? Same with the folk cycling up the mountains. You wouldn't be walking around all the time with the knife, would you? And if you weren't planning on slicing sushi or cooking something up in the mountains, you wouldn't need your 10" bread knife at all, would you? Makes one wonder what the roller rink nutter imagined he needed a loaded gun for at a kid's birthday party.

    • Moderator

      Back on topic please.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all