Man, woman dead, 2 kids shot outside Vegas day care center
ASSOCIATED PRESS
North Las Vegas authorities investigate the scene of a fatal shooting at a daycare center in North Las Vegas, Nev.
LAS VEGAS » A domestic-related shooting in front of a suburban Las Vegas day care center left a man and woman dead today and their two young children hospitalized with gunshot wounds, authorities said.
It was not clear whether the mother or father fired the shots or whether the 3-year-old girl and 4-year-old boy were intended targets, North Las Vegas police spokeswoman Ann Cavaricci said. The children were hospitalized in stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries.
Authorities have not identified the family and said it was clear what the adults’ relationship status was.
Employees were at the Kids Campus Learning Center as it opened, but no other children were around when the shooting happened around 6:10 a.m. in the front parking lot, police said. No one else was hurt at the preschool and day care, and no suspects are being sought.
The workers initially cared for the children and reported the shooting to police, Cavaricci said.
“They opened the doors and brought the children inside, called 911,” she said. “They did everything they could to make sure those kids were safe.”
The center declined to comment.
Cavaricci said the children attend daycare at the center. A child protective services agency is working to find relatives to help care for them.
Only a few employees were at work at the time of the shooting, and no other children were at the daycare at the time, Cavaricci said.
Police said they don’t believe there was an exchange of gunfire because only one weapon was recovered at the scene.
13 responses to “Man, woman dead, 2 kids shot outside Vegas day care center”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wonder if the perp CCW permit.
I wonder if the NRA would suggest that more weapons might have created a more favorable outcome. If everyone had a gun it would probably be better if they had two of more … short range, long range, and semi-automatic … Our country is second amendment drunk. I do not believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned the carnage that occurs in our communities. Weapons are to use against enemies if need be not our people in the streets. Hypothetically, I have a gun … bang you are dead. Is justice being served? In most cases I suspect not.
leino, if you’re seriously wondering what the NRA thinks, why don’t you simply ask them? That way you’ll know instead of wondering. But of course, if you already “know” to the point where nothing can be said to make a difference to you, then don’t bother.
As for what the Founding Fathers intended with the 2nd Amendment, that can answered by a little research too. And as for what carnage they could have envisioned, I would venture to say quite a lot. You might recall that they lived through the blood and suffering of the Revolution, some of them witnessing the depredations of British soldiers.
You write, “Weapons are to use against enemies if need be not our people in the streets.” Are you then saying that violent criminals and street thugs should be deterred only by less than lethal means? Should even law enforcement officers dispose of all their firearms? It may be open to criticism, but I value civilian lives as much as any police officer’s.
You continued, “Hypothetically, I have a gun … bang you are dead. Is justice being served? In most cases I suspect not.” leino, since you’re clearly not talking about state-sanctioned execution by firing squad (still a possibility in Utah and Oklahoma) it’s very obvious you’re utterly confused about the purpose of a defensive firearm. In civilian (and also police) justifiable shootings, the intent is to stop a criminal act from taking place – not to mete out justice in the legal meaning of the term. Stopping the commission of criminal acts is something firearms do very well EVEN WHEN THEY AREN’T ACTUALLY FIRED OR PRESENTED. That is precisely why the presence of police at a crime scene doesn’t always equate with shots fired. As I once suggested to another poster, “If guns are only able to deter crime when they’re actually fired, then where are all the mass graves in this country due to police shootings?” Surely police sidearms and long guns are primarily for defensive, not offensive, purposes. Such is equally true for arms borne by civilians, namely, your friends, co-workers and neighbors.
You never did answer the question, is it ok for so many children to die because of gun violence.
And, as it relates to the founding fathers, I believe that like us, they were a product of their times. Many of them had slaves, but that doesn’t make them bad, again just a product of their times. I would venture that yes, during their time an armed citizenry was important. But, the question is, is an armed citizenry as important now.
Another question, are these killings something you think support having firearms spread throughout our society?
And, sorry, my first question was related to prior discussions. I know you just attacked me, but you never did answer the question.
advertiser1, you must not have comprehended the answer to your question of April 30, 2016. To refresh your memory, your question and my response to it are reproduced below:
advertiser1 says:
April 30, 2016 at 10:25 am
Delta, it’s okay that those kids were killed by family owned firearms, right?
DeltaDag says:
April 30, 2016 at 3:22 pm
advertiser1, no, of course not, and if I’ve written anything here that remotely could be construed as approval of the killing of innocents then I’d like you to prove it. That you ask such a ridiculous question of me suggests you believe you know of such. If so, then again, prove it.
Just like your assertions that I approve of police brutality (otherwise known as excessive force) and that I side with the NRA on all things, you’ll come up empty.
Again, advertiser1, why are you so pathologically afraid of being truthful? If we passed on the street, you probably wouldn’t merit even a glance from me, so why not admit your brain was switched off when you made your silly post? If you value lies more than you value the truth, then go ahead, persist in your shuck and jive routine. I’m sure most readers here can see right through it.
Getting back to the present, it never fails to astonish me how a sensible human being can ask, as you so often do, if “is it ok for so many children to die because of gun violence.” Why in the world would you think I approve of innocent deaths due to gun violence? As my response to you above made clear, if you think I’ve written anything suggesting that, then go exercise your brain and find it.
You still haven’t had the decency or integrity to prove your earlier assertions about my approval of police brutality and my support of the NRA in all things. If you can finally admit to everyone that no such proof exists, then have the courtesy to declare that here as well.
Delta, Ok, thank you. I guess my question or point is this. You must be ok with kids dying because you fully support an armed citizenry. I mean how can you not be? Kids are dying by accident, by suicide, and of course, also by the bad guys whom gun supporters claim to need protection from.
Ultimately too, I still have to loop back to a numerical analysis, and that is, I agree that there are many circumstances where gun owners do protect themselves and others against the bad guys, but I believe there are many more examples of innocents being hurt or killed by those same gun owners. So, to paraphrase Spock, don’t the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
What is inconsistent about approving of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States AND also believing that death and injury to any innocent human being (children or otherwise) is wrong? Please point out where in the 2nd Amendment murder and mayhem are condoned. Do you think the Founding Fathers were such illogical fools?
And speaking of logic, you quoted a line from a Star Trek movie. The sentiment expressed sounds noble but in case you forgot or just plain don’t care, the United States is a republic, not some pie-in-the-sky form of pure democracy. As for the needs of the many, would you care to quantify just who the “many” are? Are they just the pool of registered voters? If so, then crass as it sounds, children (and whatever they care about or believe in) are automatically excluded.
Or, do you seriously think there should be a national referendum on civilian gun ownership with all minor children age 1 and above allowed to vote on it? Are the result from such a zany referendum the only one you’ll accept on the matter of legal gun ownership in this country?
I’m still awaiting your homework results. If you can’t find what’s not to be found, then just ‘fess up and admit it. It’s not hard at all. Unless of course your parents taught you that telling lies and refusing to admit to blatant errors were okay and consistent with YOUR family values.
Didn’t take a ouija board to predict the first couple of comments…
another shooting in a gun free zone.
It wasn’t a gun free zone. It states clearly in the article it was in front of the day care center. So it was outside a place that may have been a gun free zone (it doesn’t say the day center was a gun free zone either).
The issue isn’t “gun free zones.” It’s security. Major league football games are also “gun free zones,” but I don’t see people griping about that. The reason they don’t have shootings there is because you are searched when you go in and aren’t allowed to take in bags anymore, or they can only be so large, etc. Unlike, say, the school in my neighborhood which is also a gun free zone, but no one is searched when they go in.
the shooting occurred at the doorstep of the day care center. nevada law denotes day care centers as gun free zones. the shooting occurred in a gun free zone.
And…?