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.