Man shoots 5 children dead, then himself near Seattle
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
29 Comments
Login to comment
0
TokyoGas
Jeez. Too many multiple homicides recently.
0
sharky1
Hate to say it, but maybe its time to get the guns. True enough that "guns don't kill people, people do", but guns make killing easier, and often embolden people to do things they would not do if it were not for a false sense of power.
0
jeancolmar
This really awful, a repeated nightmare. Guns again.
0
smithinjapan
While this is yet another gun-related incident in the same day, it's LESS an argument against guns that it is simply a case of multiple homicide. If, for example, some of the kids woke up after the first gun shot, tried to run, and were shot dead then you could make more of an argument for why guns should be banned, etc. after the second slaughter in a day (I guess it's now an hourly count? not even a daily one), but they were all killed at night, and since it seems premeditated and might have been in their sleep, it could have been done using anything. This is not the same as the guy who sniped off the three police officers this morning, or the slaughter yesterday.
Still, it cannot be denied that guns were involved, and undoubtedly made for easier targets.
This is, unlike what the Pastor said, a tragedy, and nothing but. A rotten murder, for sure, but for the family itself this is absolutely horrible. Where was the mother?? Where is she now?? What an awful thing. My heart goes out to all of them and the remaining family.
0
moonbeams
This is true. Just by being in possession of a weapon could tempt someone to use it.
For example, when I get upset, I might kick a rock while rocking down the street. I'd imagine many people do this. Now imagine the same anger with someone with a gun. We all snap at times, it's human. This guy probably snapped at something, killed his family in a rage, came aware of what he did, ran, couldn't live with the nightmare and then erased himself.
0
SuperLib
Yet again...more sympathy for the victims....
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. Some cases are exceptional. I don't think someone is going to say, "Well, I want to kill my family now, but I don't have a gun available, so I'll just take a pass and get some sleep." If you're in the mindset of killing your own family you're already in a dark place. I'm not sure if the selection of available weapons really decides if you're going to harm them or not.
0
adaydream
This is a case where no guns laws would have helped. He might have killed them with his bare hands ot whatever. But you can't regulate this. < :-)
0
SushiSake3
Superlib - "Yet again...more sympathy for the victims...."
I think a more accurate statement would have been -
"Yet again...more sympathy for **MORE **victims...."
Superlib, as I said in another post - I know you mean well, and I am not necessarily aiming this comment at you directly, more so at Americans in general, but expressing sympathy at loss of life due to gun-related killings while not backing tougher gun law restrictions is a waste of time.
You have expressed your sympathy for gun-related killings TWICE today already.
When, if ever, will you stop?
It will stop if, or when, the gun-related killings stop, and as I said, I know you mean well when you express your sympathy for the victims, but how many more times are you willing to keep on doing so?
As long as there are gun murders in the US?
Gun-related crimes will continue as long as there are guns in the possession of ordinary people who have the mindset to use them, and unless people like you push for gun laws in your country to be changed, and changed soon, by the time you hit 80 you will still be saying -
"Yet again...more sympathy for MORE victims...."
while the rest of us will still be wondering, "Well if you are so sympathetic toward so many victims, why doesn't he do something about it???"
0
SushiSake3
But of course, foreigners have, quote Superlib - "little to no understanding or perspective on gun violence in the US."
Really, I'm not quite sure what is difficult to understand about the connection between permitting ordinary people to carry arms, and the ever increasing number of gun crimes occurring in the US.
It's not rocket science.
0
likeitis
Smith and moonbeams, good comments. It might seem your opinions are contradictory, but I do not think so. As Smith says, this is not really a good case for stronger gun laws because we see cases like this happening with other weapons.
On the other hand, when you have such a weapon you are tempted to use it. But the guy could have been set off by a sword collection, as in looking at all those cool swords translating into wanting to wield them combined with the desire to kill his kids. So, removal of his cool gun might have prevented this, but it does not seem all that likely.
There is one thing though: It would have been harder to kill himself with another weapon. If it takes more testicular fortitude to kill someone else with something other than a gun, it takes even more to kill yourself. I doubt he left a suicide note, so we will forever be guessing about why he did this.
0
Mark_McCracken
Though this is sad, the problem isn't guns. Take away this man's gun and he could have easily loaded his children in a car and intentionally crashed it with the same tragic result.
0
smithinjapan
Moonbeams: I agree with you 100% on the gun thing, in that having one on you or close by might tempt people to use it -- or they just might blow up and use it -- in the heat of the moment. THAT is one of the mean reasons I am so against personal ownership of such weapons, and especially handguns that can be concealed and carried so easily.
However, as I said before, this isn't really the case in this incident, and SuperLib echoes it with his, "I want to kill my family but I don't have a gun so I guess I'll get some sleep instead (slightly paraphrased)".
The 'heat of the moment' gone out of control argument is really for another thread.
0
soothsayer
What the pro-gun lobby in this little forum seems to forget is that guns make it so easy to take a life. One pull of one little trigger and its over for the person on the other end of the barrel.
Mark Macracken's comment, "Take away this man's gun and he could have easily loaded his children in a car and intentionally crashed it with the same tragic result." is in need of some rethinking.
Mark needs to work out the logistics of both senarios to realise just how much less likely it is that the kids will die if a gun is not to hand.
Banning, or at least strict regulation of guns will reduce the death toll.
Some say that statistics can mean whatever you want them to mean, but when there are enough statistics coming at you from different angles all showing you the same thing, then it's time to tell the NRA to do the physically impossible and put their heads up their barrels. And then put strict controls on firearms.
0
smithinjapan
soothsayer: "Mark needs to work out the logistics of both senarios to realise just how much less likely it is that the kids will die if a gun is not to hand."
I'm as anti-gun as you are, but in this case I disagree that the man would not have killed his kids if he did not have a gun. As likeitis pointed out he may not have had the stones to take his OWN life without the gun, I think he was intent on killing his kids regardless, and that is because he was a sad, sick man. Take away the guns in this case and IN THIS CASE I don't think it would have made a difference in terms of 'ease'. They only would have been less likely to die without the weapon being a gun if they were trying to escape and/or fend off the attack. As of yet I haven't heard that's the case.
0
SuperLib
I'm anti-gun too and I think a lot of times crimes of instant passion or intense anger on the streets could be avoided if no gun is present....but this is a pretty unique case considering he's killing his own children. I think mental state comes into play more than gun ownership.
0
Mark_McCracken
I think we can all agree that this guy, able to kill himself and his five children was, by definition, mentally ill. Guns are not required in order to kill if someone is intent on doing so.
0
Bento
"the problem isn't guns"..(hands up those members of the NRA) correct! the problem is desperate humans with easy access to guns...a desperate man with a stick will always do less damage than one with a gun,wake up america before you manage to exterminate yourselves.Life is possible without a sidearm tucked under your pillow!
0
Mark_McCracken
It is wrong to look at this tragedy and believe that if there were no guns, that this murder/suicide would not have occurred. Mental illness was the cause of this crime.
0
Badsey
Calling someone "mentally ill" is a legal term and I don't know if he was judged mentally ill.
With the economy being bad I am expecting 2009 to be difficult for many. =more sad stories.
0
JoeBigs
The gun deaths keep coming.....Tragic real tragic.
0
sharky1
I am about as pro gun as a person can get, but I do have enough common sense to see that enough is enough. The crooks and the cops are in an arms race in the US. It is likely that most crimes committed with guns would not occur if guns were not present. To think otherwise is delusional. The fact that it takes longer to kill someone by other means gives victims more time and methods to fend off the attacker. Lets use Japan as a good example this time. No drive by shootings, murder per capita is one of the lowest rates in the world, and we know Japan is full of people with mental disorders. This comparison make a pretty strong argument for taking guns away from the general public in the US. The next argument is that then only criminals will have guns. This is a true statement because possession of a gun would make you a criminal. It would only be temporary, as law enforcement would then have the ability to get the guns from the criminals without them being able to readily rearm themselves. Any other argument for guns escapes logic at this point. //Signed: An avid gun owner//
0
likeitis
sharky1, glad to hear that a gun owner has seen the light. I advocate smarter gun control and not a ban, and what I mean by that is that there should be government recognized yet private groups who are given the authority to test and license gun owners and that all guns should be registered with them to be legal. All sales should have to pass through them to be legal. This will ensure that the government and the police gain no extra information or power. Responsible gun owners like yourself will regulate yourselves, and most likely nuts like Troyer will be weeded out, and obtaining a gun so difficult, and so repugnant to any licensed owner or law abiding salesman, that a nut like Troyer would have chosen another weapon, and maybe at least one of the kids and even Troyer himself might have survived.
0
ming26
I don't own a gun nor do I want one but people over here in the United States cry first amendment rights everytime something is mentioned about stricter laws. In fact, there are now looser laws in Michigan, where I live to be able to get a CCW and carry a handgun. I believe that it is not all about guns but more mental illness. I would think that you would have to be sick in the head to do something like this. Also, Andrea Yates killed her 5 kids in a bathtub, her weapon was her own two hands.
Back to top