A central Florida woman who fatally shot her son then killed herself at a shooting range wrote in suicide notes to her boyfriend that she was trying to save her son.
"I'm so sorry," Marie Moore wrote several times. "I had to send my son to heaven and myself to Hell."
She signed two of the notes "Failed Queen."
The ill-fated mother and 20-year-old son went to the shooting range where they rented guns. Video surveillance captured the entire episode. As the boy was taking aim, the mom fatally shot him in the back of the head before turning the gun on herself.
Charles Moore, the husband and father of the victims, told police that Marie Moore had a history of mental illness and had previously attempted suicide and been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in 2002. She left two suicide notes.
"I'm sorry to do this in your place of business, but I had to save my son," one message said. "God made me a queen and I failed. I'm a fallen angel. He turned me into the anti-Christ."
Moore said she could have killed only herself but felt she had to "save" her son and do it in a public way so the world could also be saved. "Hopefully when I die, there will 1,000 years of peace."
The range requires that customers fill out a form with a series of questions, including whether they have ever been convicted of a felony or been declared mentally unstable. But it has no way to verify the information.
I remember reading that suicides are more common at shooting ranges than elsewhere. I guess in the numbed-out state we've allowed ourselves to degenerate into, a single shooting barely bakes the news anymore. The fact is there are over 100 fatal shootings per day. I say it's about time something be done.
This tragic story seems to be a combination of Christian Fundamentalism gone astray and easy access to guns. If a woman like that can fill out a form and get her hands on a gun, something is wrong. Would it be too much to require a stricter qualification process at shooting ranges? Would that infringe on people's rights?
Haven't there been suggestions along the lines of registering guns and registering shooters? Would that be a solution to prevent this type of situation? Why are common sense restrictions like that so difficult to enact? My theory is that the gun lobby crushes them before they can even get started. They do that on behalf of gun enthusiasts who believe any restrictions, even reasonable ones, would lead to a slippery slope, the bottom of which is total gun confiscation.
I believe they are mistaken about that. I believe the politicians and gun control activists who claim they don't want to take guns away from people are telling the truth. I don't believe there's a sinister conspiracy to trick gun owners into giving up their guns. I believe the gun control people when they claim they just want to find a way to minimize gun violence. But without the cooperation and assistance of the pro-gun folks, it will be very difficult and whatever improvements that are made will come at the cost of increased polarization, increased hard feelings, increased us-against-them mentality. That would be a shame.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"I remember reading that suicides are more common at shooting ranges than elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteI'm betting you can't produce that reading.
Wanna know why?
Out of curiosity, I did a little search and found a number of articles which concurred that given all the shooting ranges in the USA, there is a average of one suicide every 4 years.
ReplyDeleteThere are some ranges which seem to provide the numbers which fuel the national average.
There is one in Agoura Hills, Ca which has been the site of 7 since 1996.
"Would it be too much to require a stricter qualification process at shooting ranges?"
ReplyDeleteWhy? These kinds of things rarely happen at shooting ranges. Millions of people go to ranges in this country and don't kill themselves or anyone else.
This lady was clearly disturbed. It wasn't "access to guns" that was the problem here. Hell Mike, did you read some of what she said? She was off her rocker.
Micro - 1 suicide every 4 years is an incredibly LOW number given the number of people that shoot and the number of ranges in this country.
ReplyDeleteAs for Agoura Hills, even 7 suicides in 13 years is statistically insignificant given the number of people that have come through there in the last 13 years.
Thank you for resorting to supported facts for once, Micro.
ReplyDeleteHopefully you'll prove to have better average than a broken watch telling time!
increased us-against-them mentality
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be the mantra of the right-wing talking heads, and in particular, recently Glen Beck, who urged 'them' to take back America' before Obama takes your guns away.
My blog post today concerns the many sociopaths out there- the ones armed to the teeth- who only need some encouragement and permission to act out their aggressive fantasies, Rambo style.
Us-against-them. As if this were a sports event, or a war. Singular mindset. Narcissistic. Me, my, mine!
"I remember reading that suicides are more common at shooting ranges than elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, positively, undoubtedly, complete hogwash.
"Would it be too much to require a stricter qualification process at shooting ranges? Would that infringe on people's rights?"
How about also we force people to all be registered before they cross a bridge or enter a tall building. That would stop suicides. Maybe we could also make people register to buy any rope, neck ties, silk sheets. That would help too. And if everybody registers to buy gasoline, they can't sit in their car in an enclosed area.
People that are obvious psycho nut jobs have been killing others and themselves for years. They will continue to do so no matter what tool they use.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is there are over 100 fatal shootings per day
Over 100 fatal shooting a day means there are over 36,500 fatal shootings a day, right?
Those are your numbers, your statement.
From CDC WISQARS, do you accept them as verifiable statistics?
1999 - 2005, United States
Firearm Deaths
1999 28,874
2000 28,663
2001 29,573
2002 30,242
2003 30,136
2003 30,136
2005 30,694
In fact, looking at the data, there are only 5 years,1990 through 1994 where there are more then 36,500 firearm related deaths.
Care to guess what was big in those years and could/did contribute to the death rate? Can you say DRUGS.
So, currently there are not 100 firearm related deaths a day.
Haven't there been suggestions along the lines of registering guns and registering shooters?
Will you register as a blogger? As someone who wants to speak in public?
Will you register every computer, every camera that you own?
Sauce for the goose is good for the gander. If you apply one standard to a right, that standard should be applied to all rights.
Why are common sense restrictions like that so difficult to enact?
Because HISTORY HAS SHOWN THEY DON"T WORK. They don't reduce firearm crime, they don't reduce total CRIME.
Washington D.C. had "common sense" restrictions...did it reduce crime for them?
Chicago has had "common sense" restrictions for decades...did it stop the 508 murders last year?
I believe the gun control people when they claim they just want to find a way to minimize gun violence.
See that is where we differ MikeB. I think predatory violence is unacceptable whether or not it uses a firearm. You apparently don't care...this is shown by your lack of efforts to reduce total violent crime. You only focus on firearm related crime.
Gun owners see the big picture, we aren't focused on blaming an inanimate object; we want to reduce all violent crime.
But without the cooperation and assistance of the pro-gun folks
Cooperation has to go both ways. Show me a proposal from the anti-freedom, pro-ignorance crowd that expands my rights instead of restricting them?
You want compromise...but every proposal shows it is a one way street, we give up more and more of our rights. No thanks.
cost of increased polarization, increased hard feelings, increased us-against-them mentality.
Hard feelings, YEP. You keep accusing me and those like me of being responsible for the act of criminal scum...then tell me I shouldn't take it personally.
You keep saying that we need to take away the rights of "the GUN OWNERS" but I don't see you talking about taking away your rights....who is setting up the "us versus them" mentality?
I liked your post. It should not be to much trouble to do a background check for mental stability before using a shooting range.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out one other item.
Guns are leaving the United States in record numbers to be used in a war that is quickly entering our land. (the drug wars, which no fence will stop as long as the demand for illicet drugs in the U.S. continues)
We need to take every measure we can to ensure that only those people who have the right to gun ownership have them.
We need to also include measures to ensure that if a weapon is stolen, the owner must report the theft in a timely manner. Now that's responsible gun ownership.
"Guns are leaving the United States in record numbers to be used in a war that is quickly entering our land. (the drug wars, which no fence will stop as long as the demand for illicet drugs in the U.S. continues)"
ReplyDeleteNot true:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
The majority of the guns being used in the cartel wars right now are stolen by deserting soldiers, or bought from other nations in South America.
The Guns seized have been military weapons nearly impossible to aquire by boarder jumpers.
Of course SOME guns (mostly handguns) have been smuggled across. That number is small, hard to estimate a precentage as the Mexican govenment is not cooperating with the US BATFE as they don't want the cat out of the bag, that the majority of the guns seized ARE from America.....Colt M-16s made in Connecticut, sold to the Mexican govenment, stolen by deserters and the cartels.
Otherwise I agree with you:
"We need to take every measure we can to ensure that only those people who have the right to gun ownership have them."
Sounds like what I've been saying all along!
"We need to also include measures to ensure that if a weapon is stolen, the owner must report the theft in a timely manner."
I'm fine with that, so long as "Timely Manner" isn't some solid arbitrary timeline that simply makes a criminal out of the victim of a crime.
Certainly if I found one of my guns stolen I would report it ASAP to my local police.
But if my home was broken into on day one of a 2 week vacation, under many of the legislation I've read, I'm now a criminal for not getting home inside of the arbitrary date to discover the theft.
Daniel
ReplyDeleteIt should not be to much trouble to do a background check for mental stability before using a shooting range.
Should car rental companies have to do a background check for mental stability before renting a car?
How about equipment rental companies, places that rent chainsaws or other power tools?
What line do you draw to define mental stability? If someone has spent any time in a institution? If someone has seen a counselor or psychologist?
Where does the invasion of privacy end?
We need to take every measure we can to ensure that only those people who have the right to gun ownership have them.
And exactly who are the people who "who have the right to gun ownership">
What does the law say, what does the Constitution say?
Or should we allow people like you or MikeB decide who is allowed or not allowed to own firearms?
We need to also include measures to ensure that if a weapon is stolen, the owner must report the theft in a timely manner
Will that law include the theft of any dangerous item or just firearms?
Isn't that punishing the VICTIM for the act of a criminal?
Most gun owners keep their firearms well secured and would be aware of the theft. Unfortunately, not all, a very few, don't secure their firearms. Some have a firearm tucked away in a sock drawer or on a top shelf, nearly forgotten. That theft may not be detected for a while....should the people be punished for that?
And how does any of your suggestion work to reduce the total crime rate?
To reduce the level of total violence that our society suffer from?
The fact is simple, removing firearms, restricting firearms isn't the answer. The answer lies in addressing the poverty, the lack of education, the destruction of the family and the positive male role model in so many youths lives. It lies in the violence caused by the illegal drug trade and the War on (Some) Drugs.
It is insulting to hear you talk about "responsible gun ownership" when the problems are caused by a very small minority of the people.
Daniel Curran, Thanks for coming by to comment.
ReplyDeleteYou joined us in the middle of a heated discussion about just how much of the weaponry in the Mexican War comes from the States. The ATF themselves said 90%, but when I quoted that and sourced them you should have seen the uproar on my poor blog.
In the end, my idea is it doesn't matter if it's 90% or 20%, the point is it's too much, and something needs to be done.
The problem is, as you saw very well from Bob's response to you, many of the pro-gun crowd won't give an inch. Even the desire to determine the mental stability of people who handle guns is resisted by people like Bob.
Anyway, thanks for coming by and I hope we hear from you again.
Mike, do you really want to register people JUST to go to the range all because of ONE freak incident committed by some nut?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that's not a "reasonable restriction" i'd ever be willing to accept.
BTW thanks for stopping by my blog with well wishes. I appreciate it.
Mike W. said, "Mike, do you really want to register people JUST to go to the range all because of ONE freak incident committed by some nut?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that's not a "reasonable restriction" i'd ever be willing to accept."
Well, Mike, not because of one freak incident, no. But because of all the freak incidents. You're the one who keeps pointing out that laws only affect the law-abiding, well maybe some type of licensing for firearms use would keep many out of the game who shouldn't be playing. Many of these perpetrators are first-time offenders, they were law abiding up until the time they murdered. Psychological testing and licensing, stricter than they now have for driving cars, would screen some of them out, don't you think?
MikeB,
ReplyDeletePsychological testing and licensing, stricter than they now have for driving cars, would screen some of them out, don't you think?
Alcohol related traffic fatalities were over 16,000 in 2005.
Firearm related murders were around 12,000 in 2005.
If you are interested in keeping people from doing things they shouldn't, why not focus on that which is KILLING MORE PEOPLE???
Why should the screening for firearms be more burdensome then that for a 2,000 plus weapon known as a car?
We let 16 year old kids drive, We let college kids try (but not carry a firearm on campus), we have drive through lanes at liquor stores, convenience stores sell alcohol in to go quantities and containers.
We have more fatalities due to driving then we do to firearms. Nearly 50% more....yet we have more freedom to choice in driving.
If you want to save lives, it seems you are focusing on the wrong thing.
If MikeB had the BS restrictions we have on guns applied to his ability to drive I doubt he'd be happy and pushing for even more "reasonable restrictions."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, apply the level of prior restraint we deal with to ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT and MikeB would be screaming bloody murder about how his rights were being infringed upon.