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.