Armed with a handgun, Lupoe evidently roamed room to room starting as early as Monday evening, fatally shooting his wife and five young children -- including two sets of twins.
Early Tuesday, Lupoe faxed a bitter, rambling two-page letter to a local television station blaming his employer for his actions.
Both articles make reference to the fact that this isn't the first such incident, and sadly it might not be the last. So dismal is the economy for so many, that inevitably these things happen. As evidence of this chilling theory, the LA Times mentions the very similar case which took place in Chatsworth a few months ago, which we discussed at that time. Here's part of what I said then.
Do you think he would have killed his entire family of six people with a kitchen knife if he'd had no gun? I say the availability of the gun was a factor, and although I don't preach banning guns as a solution, I would suggest that gun proponents by their philosophy alone are, if not responsible for this, at least involved in it somehow.I say the same thing today, except change the number of dead to seven.
This is an illustration of the other kind of "flow." The one often mentioned in the media is about guns moving from the U.S. to Mexico or guns moving from the legitimate gun owners to the criminal world. But this other kind of "flow" is about people. Some percentage of law abiding gun owners, for various reasons, go bad. There are closet criminals who just haven't been caught yet; there are various kinds of people unfit to have guns, drinking alcoholics, using drug addicts, untreated depressives, who with the right provocation go bad; there are the anger guys who sooner or later lose it at a traffic light. And then there are guys like these two in California who lose their job and blow the whole family away.
Gun availability plays a big part in all this. The reason I focus on the gun is because compared to kitchen knives and tire irons and baseball bats, a gun is very efficient and its availability increases the carnage.
One big question remains: how common is all this? Are we talking about the famous less than 1%? What do you think? Don't you agree that the more people who have guns, the more incidents of this nature we'll have? To me, that seems undeniable. Wouldn't you also agree that if we cut the number of guns down, we would also cut down on the numbers of these tragedies? Also undeniable, I say.
What's your opinion?
"One big question remains: how common is all this? Are we talking about the famous less than 1%? What do you think?"
ReplyDeleteYou've proven that you don't care what we think. Also you've proven that you're searching for justification of your arbitrary beliefs, not confirming a reality.
We've shown you data, we've shown you gluts of antidotes, we've shown you FBI crime statistics.
You have shown us nothing in return but your nose being turned up.
That question of "What do you think?" makes you appear open-minded. That's more than a little dishonest.
"Do you think he would have killed his entire family of six people with a kitchen knife if he'd had no gun?"
Well Andrea Yeats killed her family with a bathtub.
Amanda Hamm did it by pushing her car into a lake.
Kim De Gelder, used a knife to kill two infants and a 54 year-old daycare provider. It wasn't his family but I certainly shows the mechanics for the situation.
Adolph Hitler poisoned his children (This was just the first case to come to mind, there are countless cases of this, as children are accustomed to eating food provided by their parents, and parents in interests of proper nutrition often urge children to eat food they may not relish eating. This makes this mechanic VERY easy, likely MORE easy than a firearm as the children will come to the table and won't be aware of the sinister nature of the plot until it's too lat...if at all)
"The reason I focus on the gun is because compared to kitchen knives and tire irons and baseball bats, a gun is very efficient and its availability increases the carnage."
There's a reason why us gunnies (and the founding fathers of America) chose guns specifically as a right to protect.
Yes they have the capacity for great evil, but they have capacity for great good as well.
This of course further shows the neutrality of the tool. So in the hands of an evil person the gun allows for greater acts of evil, tho in the hands of a good person they have the capacity for greater good...and of course locked in a gun safe or museum case they do nothing at all.
So we're down to the duality of man (to tip my hat to Stanley Kubrick) And with this angle we have presented you with enough antidotes, data, and statistics to CLEARLY show that the number of lives SAVED by private firearms is AT LEAST 3x (and likely more) than lives taken.
With this angle as well you have proven yourself to be close-minded and disinterested in any facts or reason.
Lastly, the 2nd Amendment was written for a VERY specific reason. America had been created by the overthrow of a totalitarian dictator. (I'll also like to add that in even more recent days your current nation was in the grasp of a fascist dictator that needed to be overthrown by force)
There really aren't many nations in the world that haven't had a violent overthrow of a totalitarian regime. Some even thought that our President would become a dictator to avoid allowing a black liberal to take his position of power:
http://rustmeister.blogspot.com/2009/01/wow-it-didnt-happen.html
Hitler first disarmed the non-Aryans before exterminating them. This is not saying all advocates for gun control have genocide or totalitarianism on their mind. But those people are not at all uncommon in the world, and we know that when they come about they will NOT allow a disarmed population to re-arm itself.
So what's the story, Mike. Are we wasting our time on this issue? What will it take for you to accept what we say as truth?
Something tells me it'll be nothing short of a signed letter from God, written on stationary stolen from the office of Vishnu.
The second amendment as being a deterrent to a dictator is perhaps good as a lofty theoretical argument, but in reality?
ReplyDeletePlease, an organized mob of angry gun owners who aren't going to take it any more taking on a modern armed police and military?
There is a point where theoretical fantasy has to end and reality has to be considered.
I do not find that a valid defense of your right to own tactical assault weapons in our present world.
I believe that if Ervin Lupoe did not have a gun, the concept of murdering his family might have presented a bigger obstacle because he would have to deal with other methods...knives or poison, both requiring a bit more "involvement".
Granted, you can find lots of cases where people were murdered without the use of a gun, but to use them as arguments to counter the overwhelmig reality of impulse and massacres caused by "personality derangment" perpretrated with guns is pretty weak reasoning. You even had to refer to Hitler to make this point.
I am very interested in the problems caused by the over prescription and abuse of psychoactive mood altering drugs, mainly the prozac family in Western medicine as a magic bullet cure all for depressive personality disorders.
The unregulated and misuse of Prozac, which came to the market with many studies that proved it had to be used with rigid protocols has been shown to be a common factor in all of the "school massacres" of the 1980's to the present.
"The second amendment as being a deterrent to a dictator is perhaps good as a lofty theoretical argument, but in reality?
ReplyDeletePlease, an organized mob of angry gun owners who aren't going to take it any more taking on a modern armed police and military?"
Worked pretty good against the British, Has given several of the largest militaries in the world a world of trouble in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Certainly the Germans had a difficult time with the French resistance movement.
You're correct that a civilian militia will have the odds stacked against them against a full-fledged military force...but they are also not assured defeat. Do you think that isn't a consideration from a potential despot?
There was a reason why Hitler FIRST rounded up the guns THEN rounded up the Jews, Gypsies, and Gays.
"I believe that if Ervin Lupoe did not have a gun, the concept of murdering his family might have presented a bigger obstacle because he would have to deal with other methods...knives or poison, both requiring a bit more "involvement"."
Your argument would make a lot of sense if somehow acquiring knives or poisons were HARDER to acquire than a handgun in California.
The method he chose was EASILY the most involved shy of choosing to blow up his house with explosives, or using Anthrax. (Granted if his house had a natural gas line or he owned a propane tank the explosive methods would also be less involved as well)
"Granted, you can find lots of cases where people were murdered without the use of a gun, but to use them as arguments to counter the overwhelmig reality of impulse and massacres caused by "personality derangment" perpretrated with guns is pretty weak reasoning. You even had to refer to Hitler to make this point."
Godwin's Law has gone from an amusing internet meme to the refuge of a coward. Hitler is a famous example of a man murdering his family by means of poison, we both know a quick google search will result in countless cases of poisoning (hell I know that ALL instances of tampered Halloween candy were done by family members) your point is moot.
The countless cases of violence without guns shows that violence isn't going anywhere with the ban of a particular tool (also all you need to do is look at the violence in the prison systems to see that the will to do harm is the only important factor for violence)
But yet what you propose is the taking away of the very tools to STOP these acts of violence.
I find that very short-sighted.
The second amendment as being a deterrent to a dictator is perhaps good as a lofty theoretical argument, but in reality?
ReplyDelete[...]
I do not find that a valid defense of your right to own tactical assault weapons in our present world.
to be honest, i don't much care for that argument myself either. happily, it is quite superfluous; there are plenty of better ones, and our right to own modern-looking semiauto rifles (whatever words you may choose to demonize them by) is quite secure.
I believe that if Ervin Lupoe did not have a gun, [...]
...he would have been the perfect law-abiding choir boy.
and i believe you're wrong. can we go believe we'll each have another drink now? i like that belief better.
I am very interested in the problems caused by the over prescription and abuse of psychoactive mood altering drugs, mainly the prozac family in Western medicine as a magic bullet cure all for depressive personality disorders.
agreed. whenever somebody goes off the rails and does something terrible, the media always touts loudly and right away what manner of weapon they did it with; usually one has to look in the fine print three pages into the story to find out the perpetrator was also taking this, that or the other psychoactive drug, often an antidepressant. odd how that's not considered nearly as relevant; i'd think it would be more so.
"can we go believe we'll each have another drink now? i like that belief better."
ReplyDelete+1 I'll buy the first round!
BTW I'd also like to second what Microdot and Nomen have both said about the mad dash that American medicine has been pressing mood and mind-altering prescription drugs on people.
I have first-hand seen them help people greatly, and also seen them harm. I've also seen many examples of unethical prescriptions being issued.
This arena needs to be entered with a LOT more caution and much more oversight.
To be fair, I have written a lot about the over prescription and abuse of prozac. There is a lot of information available that is a serious indictment of the FDA and E.I.Lily, the company tht reaps enormous profits from Przac, the most over prescribed drug in history.
ReplyDeleteIn the rush to get the drug to the market place, all common sense was abandoned and now that it is accepted as a miracle cure for a host of mental conditions, it's prescription is almost automatic.
In most cases though, it is prescribed without the proper black box protocols regarding dosage regulation limits and supervision.
There is an interesting case to be made for the interaction of the brain in a psychotic state, prozac and video game addiction.
Now, about that drink, I'll have a vodka and prozac on the rocks, please....
Mike,
ReplyDeleteChange a few words and would you support you own statement?
But this other kind of "flow" is about people. Some percentage of men, for various reasons, go bad. There are closet rapists who just haven't been caught yet; there are various kinds of people unfit to have penises, drinking alcoholics, using drug addicts, untreated depressives, who with the right provocation go bad; there are the anger guys who sooner or later lose it at a traffic light. And then there are guys like these two in California who lose their job and rapethe whole family away.
I could change the words to just about any other crime and it would fit. Obviously anyone can be a potential criminal.
Should we take your children out of your house because you might abuse them?
This is why I accuse you of wanting to control people's ability to choose.
Life is dangerous, allowing people to have liberty makes it more dangerous but I wouldn't have it any other way.
I talk about banning cars because even you have to admit that there are more crimes, more deaths attributable to misusing cars then firearms. Speeding, drunk driving are just two.
Imagine a world where choices are taken from you. A world where all cars have governors on them to keep speed to "acceptable" limits.
Or a law requiring breathalyzers and safety interlocks.
Would this save lives? Yes, would it be the type of world you want to live in?
How about the unintended consequences of such laws and devices? Maybe you've had a drink or two when a family member needs to be rushed to the hospital...will your car start?
Will either situation completely eliminate the crimes they are designed to stop? NO.
Not one law on the books, throughout history, has stopped completely the action it proscribed.
Your "remedies" are worse then that, not only will any law designed to restrict the flow of guns to crime not stop crime but it will INCREASE crime.
That which makes it harder for the criminals to get firearms will make it almost impossible for the ordinary folks to get firearms. And the criminals will know that,
I also see the "gun restriction laws" (since you say you don't want to 'ban' guns) going the way of England.
I noticed that you didn't comment on the draconian and intrusive "knife control" measures from England.
Is that how you want America to become? I don't
Washington D.C made it difficult to purchase firearms, implemented most of the (few) ideas you've stated....and what was it murder rate compared to another city?
Washington vs Fort Worth
All crime stats per 100,000
Murder rate
Washington 29.1 FTW - 7.6
I agree with what the eloquent Weer'd and the succinct Nomen said.
By the Way, until the "law enforcement" that would be solely responsible for protecting me can demonstrate a little more competence then below, don't you think each person should be able to have the means to protect themselves....This is from gun free Chicago
Chicago police arrested a 14-year-old boy for impersonating one of their own on Saturday. The boy, who has been charged as a juvenile with impersonating an officer, walked into the Grand Crossing (3rd) District station, 7040 S. Cottage Grove Ave., dressed in a Chicago police uniform, police spokeswoman Monique Bond said. The boy, who reported for duty about 1:30 p.m., partnered with another police officer for about five hours.
The boy identified himself as an officer from another district but was detailed for the day to Grand Crossing and also was savvy enough to sign out a police radio and a ticket book, according to a source. The source also said the boy went on traffic stops with the officer he went on the street with.
Bond said the boy "did not write tickets" and said there was "no information to indicate that he [was] ever behind the wheel."
At an afternoon news conference police said the boy had no interaction with the public. But according to an ABC News report Monday morning, the boy told his mother that he went on several calls--including for domestic violence.
After his tour was over, a ranking officer became suspicious of the boy. The source said the officer discovered the teen was not a real police officer when he couldn't produce any credentials.
The source said the boy had an empty holster and a newspaper in place of a ballistic vest in his vest carrier. from chicagobreakingnews.com
From the great site secondcitycop.blogspot.com
We'd also like to point out that the mother is contesting Monique's version and the exempt version of the story:
*
"The senior officer was in full control of the squad car at all times, and the 14-year-old never interacted with the public while present with the assigned officer," said Chicago police Asst. Supt. James Jackson.
However, Brock says that is not true. She says her son told her that he went on 10 calls Saturday afternoon, including a couple domestic violence calls.
Many of our commentators back mom's story and verify the kid drove the car. For more than a little while. He also got a locker, checked out a ticket book and rode back-up on in-progress calls. There's also a number of other inconsistencies in the "official" story that are sure to be debunked in our comment section.
Remember - it's not a Rule Violation to lie to the media. It's encouraged. They even run a pool regarding it. The politically connected person who can tell the biggest whopper to the media and get it published wins the pool money for the week. Current record holder with almost 40 weeks at the top? Shortshanks.
By the way, how many murders were committed in 'gun free' Chicago last year? 508?
"Now, about that drink, I'll have a vodka and prozac on the rocks, please...."
ReplyDeleteNow that's FUNNY! : ]
Also these days most psychoactives are not prescribed with therapy and coping methods, nor is the window of effective treatment discussed.
They hand you a 'script and say "Take one of these every day until you die and you'll be fine!"
The millage varies GREATLY on that one, as we can plainly see.
Forget the drink, I wanna agrue about guns.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you guys always point out that Chicago has so many murders and D.C. compared to FTW has so many. I know these are supposedly gun-free zones, or at least they were supposed to be, but isn't it meaningless since right across the border in the next State you have lax gun laws and gun shows and private transactions all you want? So the fact that you have strict gun control laws in these cities and still get lots of crime, means nothing.
What's the point?
"right across the border in the next State you have lax gun laws and gun shows and private transactions all you want?" Nope
ReplyDeletehttp://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2008/11/proof-that-ignorance-is-no-barrier-to.html
Of course if you want to take no respect for the law into consideration why don't the criminals just buy the guns from unscrupulous cops who are paroling the streets?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to argue that criminals will go to where there are lax gun control laws to buy there weapons?
Isn't that against the law??
You do know it is against the law for someone to personally buy a firearm in another state, that it has to be shipped to a dealer in the person's home state?
Perhaps criminals will just go to another country to purchase firearms, or smuggle them in with their drugs or other contraband.
In the meantime, all the honest law abiding folks that would want to buy a firearm is prohibited by the excessive rules put in place by people like you. Rules that do not stop crime.
Remember, in Chicago, in D.C. in many places it is a crime just to have a firearm without permission.
You talk about cities in America not being successful because of lax gun control in other cities, but what about England, what about Australia?
Two island countries where strict gun control has been in place for a while, especially England but the crime rates are higher in England then America.
True, it isn't as lethal of a country, but it never has been. But total crimes are higher, violent crimes are higher, police response is a joke.
You didn't respond about the article I pointed out.....Police spending time looking at Facebook pictures. Visiting even when no crimes have been committed but real criminals are being assigned ASBO. Love that idea, Antisocial Behavior Orders--as if telling a criminal to be good is going to work.
Sorry but even if gun control would work, it won't, I don't want to live in a country like that.
I know these are supposedly gun-free zones, or at least they were supposed to be, but isn't it meaningless since right across the border in the next State you have lax gun laws and gun shows and private transactions all you want?
ReplyDeletewhat are the crime and murder rates in those gun-ful states, then? surely they must be even worse, when the local criminals there don't even have to bother crossing a state line to arm themselves?
what's that you say? it isn't so...?
Great point Nomen,
ReplyDeleteTexas has some of the most lax gun control laws around. Heck, most be those southern and south west states like Arizona, Nevada, Texas that are fueling the gun trade to Mexico.
Of course, I'm shopping in the wrong places then...because I've never seen hand grenades and huge numbers of fully automatic firearms for sale in the stores I go to.
New Hampshire has a very low crime rate (for the whole nation, not just compared to Mass) but the worst crime is in the border towns between Mass and NH.
ReplyDeleteOddly enugh the majority of this crime are Mass gangs comming into New Hampshire....even more strange, the guns they have they bring with them FROM Mass.
An Inconvenient truth, eh, Mike?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteMore information from Foxnews on this story.
Investigators found evidence of spiraling financial woes. Lupoe owed the Internal Revenue Service at least $15,000 and a check he wrote the agency for that amount had just bounced.
He also was at least one month behind on a mortgage for his home in Wilmington, near the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Jobs are scarce in the area and the real-estate market is sinking. Lupoe owed about $2,500 and a late fee, Cortez said. He also owed thousands more on a home equity line of credit.
Now was the cause of these deaths the financial pressure, the inability to handle it or the firearm?
Perhaps the government should take over planning people's finances to keep them from getting in over their heads, eh?
Lupoe, 40, and his wife Ana, 38, a Guatemala native who'd been living in the U.S. for at least 17 years, had both recently been fired from their jobs at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center West Los Angeles
Perhaps the cause was failure to assimilate into the American culture. Should we ban immigration?
Wonder what the suicide rates are for immigrants compared to natural citizens.
Kaiser Permanente spokeswoman Diana Bonta said the couple were fired after an internal investigation found they forged supervisors' signatures. They also misrepresented their income on documents provided to a nonprofit agency that provides assistance for child care, she said.
No word on why they both forged signatures, but maybe the murder-suicide was to prevent charges from being filed?
I thought this was interesting:
In his letter, Lupoe went on to suggest it was his wife's idea to end the family members' lives.
"He had one of those victim mentalities," Cortez said. "There is nothing yet that suggests his wife was a willing party."
Bob, You're starting to sound like a broken record. Plus what you keep repeating is misrepresenting what I say.
ReplyDeleteI never say the gun causes the shooting. You said, "Now was the cause of these deaths the financial pressure, the inability to handle it or the firearm?"
That's inferring that I said the deaths were caused by the firearm. What I actually said, for the hundredth time, was "I say the availability of the gun was a factor."
The factor in all these cases is the extreme level of lethality associated with a gun compared to other objects.
I'm asking you again, if you want to disagree with me, fine, but disagree with what I say and stop putting words in my mouth.
Okay Mike,
ReplyDeleteWas it a factor? I've posted research and statistics showing countries with strict gun control laws have higher suicide rates then America.
You've ignored or not responded to that.
How about addressing that "availability of firearms" in relation to Japan?
Come on, if you want me to stop sounding like a broken record..then stop sounding like one yourself.
Make it a dialog instead. If you keep posting the same thing, shouldn't I keep posting the evidence against it?
Broken record Mikeb to Broken record Bob S., There are many factors which might play a role in Japan. Gun availability is only one of them. I'd say whatever their situation with murder and suicide, if you flooded their streets with cheap guns, it would get worse. What do you think, it would improve? They'd have less violence?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the situation in reverse. A place where the country has done a good job in stigmatizing firearms, removing them from the streets.
Latest crime stats, once again from Nationmaster.com
Total crimes per 1,000 people
#6 United Kingdom: 85.5517
#8 United States: 80.0645
Now, if removing firearms was the key to reducing crime wouldn't their crime rates be lower?
You are right there are many factors so let's look at Japan.
#34 Japan: 19.177
So crime doesn't appear to be dependent on access to firearms. Japan has very limited access to firearms, like U.K. but it's crime rate is less then a fourth of England....but it's suicide rates are higher. So it appears suicide rates aren't dependent on the availability of firearms as a factor.
Perhaps Mike, it isn't the availability of firearms but WHO has availability to them and how they are used?
Maybe bad people do bad things with firearms?