Devan Kalathat, 42, shot his family Sunday night at his Santa Clara townhouse, killing two adults and three children.
Kalathat killed his 11-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter. He killed his brother-in-law, sister-in-law and their 11-month-old daughter.
Kalathat's 34-year-old wife, at least so far has survived the attack but sustained multiple gunshot wounds and remains in critical condition.
"Family dynamics and personal relationships may have played a factor," Cooke told reporters Tuesday. He said Kalathat was employed as an engineer and nothing indicated he was facing "layoff or financial crisis."Investigators believe Kalathat used two .45-caliber semi-automatic pistols, both of which he owned.
Cooke said Kalathat bought one of the pistols in February and the other nearly two weeks ago -- roughly the same time his wife's brother, Poothemkandi, arrived in California from India.
Often I hear from the gun crowd that stories like this prove that the gun control laws, of which California has the best, do not work. I say two things to that. One, it might be valid if a passport and strip search were required to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. In Nevada there are among the softest gun laws in the country and it's an afternoon's drive from most of California. And two, If this Indian man was so easily able to buy guns in his home state of California, maybe the gun laws they do have are not enough.
Of course, all my ideas are based upon the much debated idea of a significant and unstoppable "gun flow." My strongest contention is that guns move from the good guys to the bad guys, as in the case of the Marshall brothers last week who had their 10 weapons stolen by escaped convicts. And, as if that weren't enough, some of the good guys themselves move over to the dark side, as in this case in California and others we've recently discussed, like this one.
The other necessary presupposition to understand my ideas is that gun availability plays a factor. A large percentage of murders and suicides are done in the heat of the moment. If guns are not available in that moment, chances are there would be less damage. When you multiply that by the staggering numbers of incidents, it's clear that the availability of weapons plays a significant part.
What's your opinion? Do you think "gun flow" either does not exist or the minimal percentages are a write-off? Do you think the theory that gun availability plays a part in the problem of gun violence is a ploy on the part of the gun control folks? Or, do you agree with me on these two ideas?
Please leave a comment.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteOnce again you show exactly how little you know (which is very considerable).
One, it might be valid if a passport and strip search were required to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. In Nevada there are among the softest gun laws in the country and it's an afternoon's drive from most of California.
It is against federal law to purchase a firearm in another state and take deliver there. You can buy a firearm from a dealer in another state, but the firearm MUST be sent to a dealer in your home state and you must pick it up from that dealer. That dealer is responsible for insuring you meet all the applicable laws.
So once again you completely mischaracterize the existing laws; on purpose or out of ignorance?
If this Indian man was so easily able to buy guns in his home state of California, maybe the gun laws they do have are not enough.
Now you are racist? I'm shocked at such behavior. Are you saying there are some "people" that shouldn't be allowed to have firearms?
Which other race do you want to ban from having firearms just because of their race?
See, the problem is once again you don't know the existing firearm laws....or you ignore them.
A large percentage of murders and suicides are done in the heat of the moment
Hey MikeB, any evidence to back up your thoughts....or are you just making it up as you go along?
What's your opinion? Do you think "gun flow" either does not exist or the minimal percentages are a write-off?
Time and time again, we've shown that the percentages are minimal. Even give wildly invalid assumptions, we are talking less then 1% a year.
Tell me what law is going to stop less then 1% of the population from deciding to break the law.
Of course MikeB acts as if a California resident can drive to Nevada, walk into a gun store, purchase as many guns as he wants and drive back to Cali.
ReplyDeleteDo you see why we call you a liar Mike?
It's not as if I can walk into any out-of-state FFL and easily commit multiple felonies (it'd be a felony for the FFL as well, as it's against Federal law)
Of course you'll still blame lax gun laws in neighboring states, despite the numerous felonies that must take place for such sales to happen. Despite multiple gun laws being broken you claim that MORE LAWS are the answer.
All of your ideas are based upon "gun flow" and you've got nothing to back those claims up with.
So basically MikeB would rather see a woman raped and beaten than have her defend herself with a firearm.
ReplyDeleteHey, where scores of laws fail, it's obvious that ONE MORE would work.
ReplyDeleteThat should be obvious to anybody who hates logic!
But, in fact scores of laws do fail.
ReplyDeletePeople do buy guns in one state and then commit crimes in another.
There are many ways to subvert and get around this silly "legal" stuff, especially when there is big bucks and little oversight.
And then, there is the inconvenient detail of illegal gun sales naywhere anytime anyplace....
Same arguments, same tired camouflage, same talent for feigned outrage which seems to be in the conservative DNA genetic code to try to compensate for the lack of a proper humor gene which the liberals seem to have hijacked.
Microdot provided my answer to Mike W. Who said anything about obtaining guns legally? It's the easy access that's the problem; it's the incredible availability. It's not a question of whether it's legal or not.
ReplyDeleteSo then you and Microdot both concede that more laws will have no impact.
ReplyDeleteMicrodot,
ReplyDeletePeople do buy guns in one state and then commit crimes in another.
Do they do that legally? What part of "it is against the law to purchase a firearm in a state you don't live in" aren't you getting?
Again, here is a clue...if they are COMMITTING CRIMES, aren't they already going to break the law? Aren't they already breaking the law?
But, in fact scores of laws do fail.
You are right, scores of laws do fail....laws against murder, laws against rape, laws against assault, laws against robbery, laws against illegally possessing firearm.
So the gun banner solution is to make another law to make breaking the previously broken laws more illegaller?
It takes a made up non-sense word to describe the non-sense you are preaching.
In the mean time, the only people inconvenienced by the laws are the average, normal law abiding folks. Their right to self defense is limited, their costs are increased, their lives are put in more jeopardy with laws that DO NOT STOP THE BEHAVIOR THAT THE LAWS ARE INTENDED TO STOP. Wow...so let's make more laws to inconvenience more law abiding folks but that you know won't stop the crooks.
England is a frakkin island nation, if gun control and bans were going to work anywhere, that would be the ideal place. And the result has been ------ an increase in gun crime.
I have any idea, let's reduce gun crime by making it a capital offense to murder people, whether or not you use a gun. That cuts down on all murders.
Let's make armed robbery/assaults a mandatory life sentence without parole. That will cut down on all robbery/assaults, with a firearm or knife or anything.
Let's make the 3rd felony committed by a person a mandatory life sentence. Of course, we need to review and reduce the number of felony crimes, but that is a different subject.
It is a novel concept...punishing those who MISUSE their rights instead of punishing everyone for the actions of the criminals.
Now, who's idea stands a better chance of reducing crime?
Microdot provided my answer to Mike W. Who said anything about obtaining child porn legally? It's the easy access that's the problem; it's the incredible availability. It's not a question of whether it's legal or not.
ReplyDeleteSay bye bye to your computer MikeB.
So Bob.S thinks that it's a bad idea to make more laws except there should be a new law to make third party illegal gun vendors complicit co perpetrators of the crime commited with the gun they sold and put them away for life, if we ever catch them, those wily bastards!
ReplyDeleteI think you are in deep murky water here and I'm not throwing a life preserver because I might be deemed complicit in saving you so you can come up with more tortured logic in your next post.
Yeah you guys just admitted EXACTLY what we've been promoting on this site forever!
ReplyDeleteRelaxation of redundant laws, a proven innefective ones, increased enforecement of existing effective laws.
An analogy for your proposals, would be a 65MPH highway where there is a problem with speeders exceeding 80MPH. So to combat criminal speeding you don't increse speed traps...but DO lower the posted limit to 25.
If that solution makes sense to you, maybe you have a logic problem!
We need more people enforcing laws like the NFA, the GCA, the Brady Bill, and the standard regulations of 01FFLs.
If you want that, I'm 100% behind you.
You want somthing other than that, you're part of the problem!
Microdot,
ReplyDeleteAre you smoking something or did I miss where I changed my position drastically?
So Bob.S thinks that it's a bad idea to make more laws except there should be a new law to make third party illegal gun vendors complicit co perpetrators of the crime commited with the gun they sold and put them away for life, if we ever catch them, those wily bastards!
So me where I suggested any such thing.
Thirdpower said, "Microdot provided my answer to Mike W. Who said anything about obtaining child porn legally? It's the easy access that's the problem; it's the incredible availability. It's not a question of whether it's legal or not.
ReplyDeleteSay bye bye to your computer MikeB."
Now, listen here Third. I guess you picked that idea up from Bob, but I want to tell you I don't like it one bit. I think you guys are attempting to associate my name with child porn which is one of the most despised and taboo activities around. Then I suppose you think by repeating to often enough you do me some damage. Whatever you're trying to do, even if you think it's a truly valuable analogy, I won't have it. I don't like your using cars and knives in all those silly comparisons, but with this you're going too far. We're talking about guns and gun issues and I'll do that till the cows come home. So, if you really need to use the child porn comparison to make your point, you have to do it somewhere else. Fair enough?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteGetting your feeling hurt?
Gee, it is only logical that there is some flow of computers and cameras from you legal owners to the criminals, right?
Isn't that the same argument you've presented over and over again for restricting "easy access" and availability of firearms?
How it is not a fair analogy?
Don't you think we find murder, rape, assault, armed robbery horrendous?
I think you guys are attempting to associate my name with child porn which is one of the most despised and taboo activities around.
Wrong again, what we are trying to do is make you THINK. Something that seems to be in short supply.
If there is a flow of computers and a flow of firearms from the legal to the illegal, don't you bear the same moral responsibility that you say we have?
If not, why not? How is it any different.
What we are trying to do is make it obvious that we don't bear responsibility for the actions of criminals...either those that use firearms or those that make child porn.
Think.
I don't like your using cars and knives in all those silly comparisons,
Then what comparison isn't silly? Give me an example that I can use to make comparisons that you won't and haven't rejected out of hand.
Everything we've tried to use for comparison has meet with a asinine statement like "Firearms are different".
We're talking about guns and gun issues and I'll do that till the cows come home.
That is the problem MikeB, we aren't talking about guns and gun issues --- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHTS ISSUES.
Talking about guns and gun issues is discussing which caliber to choose for your carry piece or the problems with a particular brand's quality control.
We are talking about our right to keep and bear arms.
We are talking about our right to self defense.
We are talking about our right to privacy about our legal purchases.
We are talking about our right to remove laws that are ineffective in preventing crime.
A weapon is a weapon. Gun, knife, car, it is all the same. It is just the same as comparing Granny apples to red apples. Some thing different color.
ReplyDeleteAlso grow a thick skin. When you take an unpopular position people will throw all kinds of things. Frankly Mike, they are not calling you a pedophile. They have been asking, if you should be held liable if your camera is stolen, and used in the production of such filth. Or if all porn should be done away with because some people make porn with kiddies.