A lone gunman burst into a North Carolina nursing home Sunday morning and started "shooting everything," barging into the rooms of terrified patients, sparing some from his rampage without explanation while killing seven residents and a nurse caring for them.
Authorities said Robert Stewart also wounded three others, including the Carthage police officer who confronted him in a hallway of Pinelake Health and Rehab and stopped the brutal attack.
The local report includes some videos which give a good feel for the place: a small town about an hour from Raleigh. The police chief said it's a small town based on faith and faith will get them through. He fielded one question from the journalists about the weapons used, but naturally declined to comment, the investigation being open.
A witness told CNN affiliate WRAL that Stewart was armed with a rifle, a shotgun and other weapons.That's quite a frightening sight, more weapons than he has hands to hold them. But what about motive? The wife had some interesting comments on that.
Authorities searched Stewart's home, 2530 Glendon Carthage Road in Carthage, Sunday night. While they declined to comment on a possible motive, Stewart's ex-wife said he had violent tendencies. Sue Griffin said she was married to Stewart for 15 years.The pro-gun folks keep talking about how ridiculous it would be to "infringe" the rights of so many in order to limit the damage done by so few. The question keeps getting back to percentages. They often say it's only 1% causing problems. I seriously doubt it's that small, but does the fact that gun enthusiasts make statements like that indicate that there is a threshold beyond which even they would agree to stricter gun control?“He would get mad because of things that didn't go his way. He never really hurt me, but he would get mad and blow up,” Griffin said.
I can answer that. No, the answer is no. There is no percentage of violent or criminal gun abuse which would make the gun rights people agree to stricter controls, at least none of the gun guys I know would ever agree to such a thing. What say ye?
My own opinion is there are too many guns out there and too often some raging maniac has such easy availability to those guns that he does serious damage, like Mr. Stewart did yesterday in North Carolina. My contention is in some of these cases, had the availability been more difficult, no damage would have been done at all. Reducing the total number of guns, even though it would significantly inconvenience some people, would go a long way in correcting this situation.
What's your opinion? Have you noticed an increase in these stories lately? Is it the economy that's triggering these people, do you think?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThere is a threshold, but the damage done by firearms doesn't come near it.
Cars kill more people per year then firearms, but we don't talk about banning them. Or limiting people to only 100 horse power or requiring them to be locked up. We don't have laws preventing the private sale of cars from one person to another.
What you seem to completely ignore is that liberty is dangerous. You can't bubble wrap the world and get rid of everything or EVERYONE that may hurt someone, and further more, we should try to do that.
We've repeatedly have shown the number of people and or firearms used in crimes is an extremely small percentage, you've never given any evidence to the contrary.
Would any law be effective in dealing with such a minuscule portion of the population? No.
What you want to do is remove the tools and as England has shown, that will just force criminals to use other tools.
My contention is in some of these cases, had the availability been more difficult, no damage would have been done at all.
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and never touched a firearm in doing that crime.
Your argument has more holes in it then colander.
Reducing the total number of guns, even though it would significantly inconvenience some people, would go a long way in correcting this situation.
Mexico limits and reduces the total number of guns...and all it has done is forced the people to be unarmed in the face of criminal activity.
Tell me how gun control laws have helped in Mexico.
And on the same day:
ReplyDeletePolice: Man Fatally Stabs Sister, Decapitates 5-Year-Old On Birthday
MILTON, Massachusetts — A man on a rampage fatally stabbed his 17-year-old sister, decapitated his 5-year-old sister in front of a police officer and then turned toward his 9-year-old sister with a knife in his hand before officers shot him dead in what their chief described as "a killing field."
Yes, there are an increase in these types of stories lately. There always are when the economy goes south. Plus it makes nice flashy headlines.
Third - Clearly all of the gun control is Mass. keeps people safe... now all we need is to institute "common sense knife control."
ReplyDelete"My contention is in some of these cases, had the availability been more difficult, no damage would have been done at all."
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but we need to consider the specific access point, and the costs of narrowing or closing that access point. Recently, we've discussed the issue of storage, where society might set a standard of care to reduce the risk one person's guns from falling into the hands of an ill-intentioned third party. But this does not appear to be a case of a criminal obtaining someone else's weapons, nor does it appear to be a case of a gun sale to a person who ought not own a firearm (e.g. felon, mentally incompetent). What preventive steps can be taken to prevent a gun owner from abusing their own weapons, other than prohibiting anyone from owning firearms in the first place? "Limiting availability" is no fix where the criminal perpetrator is also the lawful owner of the firearm.
Go watch this video by Penn Jillette.
ReplyDeleteIf everybody having guns in their homes means more people die, then OK. There is a right and a wrong beyond just safety--Live free or die, give me liberty or give me death.
This is my primary argument against gun control--It isn't the guns I object to, it is the control.
That said, in practical terms, examine how these incidents play out--A nut with a variety of weapons shows up, shoots some people, and stops killing when a good guy with a gun shoots back. It doesn't seem to matter if the good guy is out-gunned, or if he's a cop, or a license holder.
Spree shooters are especially problematic--How do you keep guns away from them without making it that much harder for the good guys to fight back? Ratio is a bigger problem than flow, and a lot harder to fix.
"Limiting availability" is no fix where the criminal perpetrator is also the lawful owner of the firearm"
ReplyDeleteYup. There's no way to predict who will commit a violent crime if they've previously not broken the law.
Well, actually, I guess there is, but only if you're willing to enact prior restraints and assume that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. We could limit risks and deadly results by going down that road, but freedom is inherently risky, and I value my freedom too much for that.
Don, Those are wonderful observations with which I don't really have any problem. But, my idea is that it may be possible to diminish the incidents of the up-till-now lawful gun owners who commit these acts only by taking their guns away. There I've said it, but hear me out. It's back to the availability question. If you refuse to accept that it plays a part in these types of crimes, then there's nothing to discuss. But if you'll agree that it does, in some cases, then we can talk about how to diminish that availability. If partial bans were enforced; if increased restrictions on registration were enacted, if background checks on all purchases were required, and if any number of other laws and regulations were enforced, we might be able to cut down the total number of guns. Over some years, with significant reductions, the incidents of this type would diminish proportionately. We'd have fewer thefts of weapons as well.
ReplyDelete"But, my idea is that it may be possible to diminish the incidents of the up-till-now lawful gun owners who commit these acts only by taking their guns away. "
ReplyDeleteSo you want to take away guns from the "up-till-now lawful gun owners"?
An "up-till now lawful" person is called innocent Mike! You don't get to take away property or deny rights to innocent people because of what they "might" do in the future.
If I'm misinterpreting what you said and you actually mean taking away their guns AFTER they commit a violent act, well we already do that. We also put them in jail where they can't commit further acts of violence against the rest of us.
Would you also support taking away cameras from up-till-now lawful photographers because they might use them to proliferate child porn at some point in the future?
Mike I noticed Third made a comment similar to what I was going to. There is no need to rehash my comment, but I think it is odd that you have basically ignored what he said. Both incidents are equally tragic.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, someone with a knife can be as dangerous, if not more so, then a person with a gun. A pocket knife, something less than an inch and a half in length, used to cut the femoral artery in the leg can kill a person in less than thirty seconds. Used to shank someone several days, a stab to the liver around thirty minutes.
J.
Mike I noticed Third made a comment similar to what I was going to. There is no need to rehash my comment, but I think it is odd that you have basically ignored what he said. Both incidents are equally tragic.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, someone with a knife can be as dangerous, if not more so, then a person with a gun. A pocket knife, something less than an inch and a half in length, used to cut the femoral artery in the leg can kill a person in less than thirty seconds. Used to shank someone several days, a stab to the liver around thirty minutes.
J.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteBut, my idea is that it may be possible to diminish the incidents of the up-till-now lawful gun owners who commit these acts only by taking their guns away.
So, you not only call for ban on the possession of firearms, but you want a confiscation of firearms, is that correct?
Consider these words:
Ours is a nation of laws, guided by principles that reflect the essential goodness of the American people. Many of these values – adherence to the rule of law, equality before the law, and the applicability of Due Process – are as well-known as they are timeless
In advocating a ban on firearms and a confiscation of firearms; you declare that Americans aren't essentially good but criminals waiting to strike.
In advocating a ban and confiscation; you nullify Due Process; violating not only the 2nd amendment but the fundamental process of law in our country.
By the way, those words are from Eric Holder- our new Attorney General.
We will be fair and just in all of the things that we do.
And we will zealously protect our Constitution – indeed, the very rule of law itself – from those who would force upon us the false choice between security and liberty, between safety and justice.
What you propose MikeB, is a false choice between safety and liberty.
Again, words from Eric Holder. Do not for one minute consider that everyone will give in without a struggle as anti-freedom people like you try to strip our rights away.
It is a false choice MikeB and you darn well know it. The fact that non-firearm related violence is 9 times higher then firearm related violence is proof that our laws work. No law can stop someone intent on breaking it. No ban can prevent a mass murder. In advocating that you put yourself in a camp of people many consider to be enemies of the Constitution.
There I've said it, but hear me out. It's back to the availability question.
A question to which all evidence shows the answer to be other then availability; subjects you want talk about. Family, race, economic status, drug use, violent crime.
All, even Kellermann's flawed study, show a greater correlation and causation then availability.
If partial bans were enforced; if increased restrictions on registration were enacted, if background checks on all purchases were required, and if any number of other laws and regulations were enforced, we might be able to cut down the total number of guns.
You have eyes but you can not see; you have ears but you can not hear; you have a mind but you don't use it.
All those laws have been tried and found wanting for success; while states with "lax" gun control laws enjoy a lower homicide rate, states with high Brady Campaign scores have higher crime rates.
How do you explain that MikeB?
ver some years, with significant reductions, the incidents of this type would diminish proportionately. We'd have fewer thefts of weapons as well.
And at what price do we have safety?
England has tried this, tried significant reductions and found that the violent crime rate has soared. So has Australia.
You want to give up your rights and live in a government controlled compound feel free to do so.
Continue to advocate the forcible disarmament of society and find out how perilous of a journey that can be... and no, that is not a threat. It is a logical conclusion of your words.
Because a forcible disarmament of society will required to get people to turn in their firearms.
I will not register, I will not allow searches of my home, I will not turn in my firearms.
And yet your proposals have worked absolutely nowhere.
ReplyDeleteAccording to an employee of Peak Resources Incorporated, which operates Pinelake and five other health care facilities, all of their facilities are posted against concealed weapons.
ReplyDeleteHmm,
ReplyDeleteMike is afraid to post my comment challenging him on his ban and confiscation comment....or is it just that you haven't seen it?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteHow about this version, do you support it?
my idea is that it may be possible to diminish the incidents of the up-till-now lawful child abusers who commit these acts only by taking their children away
Or scum like Fritzl, to prevent incest, should all children be taken away?
or this version:
my idea is that it may be possible to diminish the incidents of the up-till-now lawful drunk drivers who commit these acts only by taking their cars away.
How far do you go in order to stop crimes that may occur?
Third - You mean a "Gun Free Zone" sign didn't stop a criminal from carrying a gun and using it to kill people?
ReplyDeleteImpossible! Gun Free Zones are supposed to prevent gun crimes. After all, we all know that folks willing to commit murder are always deterred by signs saying they can't have a gun.
"So, you not only call for ban on the possession of firearms, but you want a confiscation of firearms, is that correct?"
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe such drastic measures won't be necessary. At the rate that you guys are going on shooting sprees and letting your guns get stolen by escaped convicts, if we could only cut down on production and importation, in a few years we'll have the diminished levels I'm lookin' for.
What do you think?
It was very interesting to read the thrashing around, grasping for ideas and use of phrases like "your claims have as many holes in them as a colander."
ReplyDeleteThen the rationalization that a man with a pen knife could , given the time and if his victims would just hold still, make them bleed to death.
Then to take that further and perhaps inject a possible corelation, we hear of a man who decapitated and killed 2 people with a knife.
Are we to assume that this somehow negates the fact that an unstable individual with a now proven history of instability...reaq the latest reports...
he can have his small armory and no one...I repeat NO ONE is allowed to control or monitor this situation because it somehow impinges on your rights to own as many guns as you want?
Yes, you read an interview with his exwife, but the woman he was currently married to was working in the nursing home and they have had a history of 3 separations, divorce and remarriages...
He claimed he was just diagnosed with prostate cancer and weighed 300+pounds....this is a true American Trash Tragedy and it didn't have to happen.
Intellectually, you are now in the very deep end of the pool and you can't swim....
if we could only cut down on production and importation, in a few years we'll have the diminished levels I'm lookin' for.
ReplyDeleteBut what about that pesky constitution?
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteApparently his 'history of instability' is NOT proven since there was no medical diagnosis.
That bars one from owning firearms which I'm sure you know.
But facts don't really matter now do they? Much better just to throw out red herrings, ad hominems, and personal attacks. Right?
Seems MikeB is now going in the same direction.
Pretty much. MikeB openly admits he wants to reduce the number of guns by any means necessary, including cutting production, importation, and by confiscating privately owned arms.
ReplyDeletePrivate property rights? The rights of private businesses? The 4th Amendment? That whole damned Constitution thingy?
None of that's important because MikeB "feels" that the problem is too many guns and the solution is to reduce the number of guns.
You know, there was this guy once who thought Jews were the problem and if he could just reduce their number all of the country's problems would go away....
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteGee, It is not like the Ex-Wife might be bitter or anything. Everything she says should be taken as gospel right?
Then the rationalization that a man with a pen knife could , given the time and if his victims would just hold still, make them bleed to death.
Congratulations, you've joined the hyperbole club for making asinine and inane over the top statements.
Today you join the ranks of such proud members as Paul Helmke and MikeB.
A tragic crime occurred, it doesn't make it any more tragic or any more criminal because it was done with a firearm. That is why he will face 8 counts of murder. It wouldn't matter if he stabbed them, ran over them or blew them up. They died directly due to his actions. Stop blaming the mechanism.
A couple hundred million firearms and their owners didn't kill anyone today. So, why deprive them of their rights.
Someone, somewhere used a knife to hurt or kill someone; else where a car was used, deliberately to hurt or kill someone somewhere today. But millions of knives and millions of cars didn't....are you going to try to ban knives and cars for the actions of the one?
Are we to assume that this somehow negates the fact that an unstable individual with a now proven history of instability...reaq the latest reports...
he can have his small armory and no one...I repeat NO ONE is allowed to control or monitor this situation because it somehow impinges on your rights to own as many guns as you want?
Actually yes, that is how the law works, that is how freedom works. Don't want freedom, surrender your own freedom. Stop trying to deprive us of ours.
Liberty is dangerous, people can misuse their freedoms, their rights to do all sorts of bad things. It stinks but that is the choice we make when we accept freedom.
How can we not accept those consequence in our freedom?
You have the right to free speech, you chose every day, every time to exercise it responsibility. There is no requirement for a background check before you speak in public.
There is no requirement for a 3 day waiting period before you publish a blog comment.
And every day, some people will use that same freedom to do horrible things. Maybe even you, but we won't restrain you for something that you might do. What is hard to understand about that concept?
What is hard to accept about that concept as applied to firearms?
He claimed he was just diagnosed with prostate cancer and weighed 300+pounds....this is a true American Trash Tragedy and it didn't have to happen.
And another typical liberal anti-freedom pro-ignorance person starts with the personal attacks. Wow, how proud your parents must be that you descend to attacking a person for his size, his social status.
Sevesteen asked in his usual incisive way, "But what about that pesky constitution?"
ReplyDeleteI think something needs to be done about it, yes. But this is subject for an entire post which has been percolating in my brain for some time. We'll get to it.
Sevesteen asked in his usual incisive way, "But what about that pesky constitution?"
ReplyDeleteI think something needs to be done about it, yes. But this is subject for an entire post which has been percolating in my brain for some time. We'll get to it.
I was thinking "Finally!" But then I remembered it is April Fools Day.
"I think something needs to be done about it, yes."
ReplyDeleteOh I'd love to hear that one, since even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't change the fact that I have a right to keep and bear arms.
You know, Constitutional rights being inherent and inalienable and all, not to mention those pesky State Constitutions.
Amazing, I am not going to throw out a life line or try to reel you in.
ReplyDeleteHave you even bothered to read the history of this insane situation?
Even with out taking into consideration the statements of the wife...the wife who was the nurse in the nursing home at the time of the massacre...
The personal history is pretty fucking bizarre by anyones standards.
I am not even going to comment on Bob S's accuasation that I have joined his "hyperbole club?" or what ever because I questioned the statement about equating a stab wound to a particularly important vein and slowly bleeding to death to the use of a sophisticated fire arm...Bob S, if I am in the hyperbole club, then you are surely a paid up goldcard carrying member in my "hyperventalating club" and I will mail you a paper bag if you give me your address to alleviate your symptoms.
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteMy "address" is 1 Take A look around you Drive, Gun Rights Are Under Take, USA.
Sorry but point out the exact "hyperventilating statements" and I'll support my statements with real facts, figures, , laws, plans or statements. There are people in America, like MikeB, that are trying to restrict our fundamental rights.
I questioned the statement about equating a stab wound to a particularly important vein and slowly bleeding to death to the use of a sophisticated fire arm
And exactly what was said by Anon?
On a side note, someone with a knife can be as dangerous, if not more so, then a person with a gun. A pocket knife, something less than an inch and a half in length, used to cut the femoral artery in the leg can kill a person in less than thirty seconds. Used to shank someone several days, a stab to the liver around thirty minutes.
Do you disagree that someone with a knife can be as dangerous as someone with a firearm?
Do you disagree that cutting the femoral artery will cause a person to bleed out quickly?
You said:
Then the rationalization that a man with a pen knife could , given the time and if his victims would just hold still, make them bleed to death.
Which comes no where near the original statement nor the intent.
You took a comment out of context, then tried to imply that knives aren't dangerous unless someone can get the victim to hold still.
If that isn't hyperbole, what is?
Mike W. said, "Oh I'd love to hear that one, since even a repeal of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't change the fact that I have a right to keep and bear arms."
ReplyDeleteWould you mind telling me what you mean by that? I find the 2nd Amendment idea extremely fascinating and plan to write about it more in the future. Are you saying, although you guys keep referring to it, you would still do the same gun ownership activities you do now even if it didn't exist or were repealed?
Part of the argument on the bill of rights was that these rights are inherent--they aren't granted by the government, merely acknowledged. Some thought that acknowledging these rights would send the message that they are the only rights, and would improperly enable the government to infringe elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteSince I said the same thing, I'll take a shot. Hopefully MikeW will add something a little different or a different approach to the concept.
In 1760, long before the Constitution was signed....did people have a right to speak their mind freely?
Yes, there may have been laws punishing people for saying things the King or others didn't like...but the right still existed.
All the 1st amendment did was limit the power of the government.
Are you following me?
The right to privacy existed prior to the Constitution. People have a right to keep the government out of their business, out of their homes, their papers. That right exists independent of the Constitution. All the 4th amendment did was limit the power of the government.
How about the right to worship as a person chooses or not?
Does that right depend on the 1st amendment?
Again, all the 1st amendment did was limit the power of the government to specify which church or to compel people to worship at all.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right. It exists prior to the Constitution. Many early legal documents recognize this right and -again--only limit the power of the government to interfere with that right.
The Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights (at least the first 10) do not "grant" rights.
The Constitution is a remarkable document, for nearly the first time it spells out the limitations of the government and clearly establishes that anything not listed is something the PEOPLE have control over.
So the Bill or Rights does not actually GIVE rights, it guarantees them. And by that we understand it to mean that they're guaranteed not to be denied by the government.
ReplyDeleteIs that it?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't correct.
The ConstitutionLIMITS of the government infringement on our existing rights. It doesn't guarantee our rights. That is up to us.
A quote might put it in perspective:
Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
And by that we understand it to mean that they're guaranteed not to be denied by the government.
No, it means there are defined limits to how far the government can deny our rights. Someone convicted of a crime can be denied their rights. There are criminal limits on our rights.
The Constitution carefully limits how much the government can intrude on our rights.
That is why the founding fathers used such words as "shall not be infringed". They appear to want the strongest protection for some rights.
Our rights are given to us by God, if you believe, or by our inherent nature. No Government can give rights that are inherent such as free speech and right to keep and bear arms.
The government can only give rights as part of being in existence - the right to vote, the right to hold office, etc.
the BOR merely codifies limits upon the power of government. It does not "grant" rights.
ReplyDeleteThey are all negative liberties. What I mean by that is that they don't codify what I am free to do, they codify that which the government MAY NOT do.
Rights are inherent, inalienable, and pre-existing in nature. The Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers make this abundantly clear. The 9th and
10th amendments make it clear as well.
U.S. vs. Cruikshank. - An inherently racist decision, but they did get one thing right on the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDelete"this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."