A father who shot and killed his five children in their Washington state home before killing himself had argued with his wife over another man before the shootings, police said.
Authorities found the children, ages 7 to 16, dead in their Pierce County home Saturday afternoon, and the father, James Harrison, was found dead inside his SUV in adjacent King County, Detective Ed Troyer told CNN Radio Sunday. Police said Harrison committed suicide by shooting himself with a rifle.
Troyer said that on Friday night, Harrison and his 16-year-old daughter found his wife with another man. The couple argued, and then Harrison and his daughter returned to the family home near Tacoma without his wife, Troyer said.
I've been told that the true common denominator in these tragedies is the people. They're mentally ill or depressed or violent or criminal. I say, although that may be true enough, the thing that ties all these stories together is the fact that each of these people had too easy access to weapons.
In this story, Mr. Harrison killed himself with a rifle, and according to a local news report, "Several weapons were found in the home."
So, not only is easy access to guns the problem, the insistence upon being armed and the incessant repetition that it's our "right," is the problem. Harrison was a diesel mechanic who lived in a trailer park. His wife had some kind of low-paying job. They had five young kids and yet he was able to amass "several weapons" in addition to the rifle with which he took his own life.
Does anyone find something wrong with that? In this economic environment, how could a man like that justify owning that much weaponry? To me it's sick and I don't see any solution except the one I keep repeating. Fewer guns overall will impact upon the frequency of these tragic incidents.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
As someone else said, the only real solution would be to ban depression.
ReplyDeleteThough we all don't obviously agree on the gun issue, does it really matter what his economic situation was. Would it be different if he was wealthy or was a financial broker rather than a diesel mechanic?
As to where or why he had the guns, let's not be too quick to judge his priorities and question his economic situation as we don't know much about him. Maybe he acquired his guns before he was married or had children. They were very young children.
Gee Mike,
ReplyDeleteOnce again comment moderation...you were playing fair with my comment, weren't you?
"I say, although that may be true enough, the thing that ties all these stories together is the fact that each of these people had too easy access to weapons."
ReplyDeleteMost of the people who have been the perpetraitors of these assaults have been fellons, or otherwise prohibited by law from owning guns. Others have lived in the most gun restrictive states.
Either you aren't being honest when you say their access to weapons was "Too easy", or you're thinking of sweeping gun bans and other things that are proven failures.
What is it, and why?
Weer'd, It seems to me most of the shooters lately were proud members of your fraternity, and in most cases only betrayed their disqualification on mental health grounds with the dramatic event that made the headlines. So, no, most of them were not felons until they killed a bunch of people. This illustrates what I've been saying to you since we first met. Among your number, the lawful gun owners, you've got a signficant percentage with serious enough problems that there's no way they should own guns. If the only way to limit their getting guns is to limit your ability to get them too, then maybe that's what has to be done. As you know from following my writing all these months, I used to stop short of saying that. Unfortunately, I can't see any other way. That 2nd Amedment has to be reinterpreted. Your "right" to own guns has to be severely curtailed. I'm afraid that's the only way we're going to be able to address the runaway gun violence problem in America.
ReplyDeleteI'll argue with you when you learn to use facts.
ReplyDeleteEverything stated above was untrue.
Sorry Mike, try again!
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou are lying again and lying without any proof.
Among your number, the lawful gun owners, you've got a signficant percentage with serious enough problems that there's no way they should own guns.
Prove it is a significant percentage.
Bob said, "You are lying again and lying without any proof.
ReplyDeleteAmong your number, the lawful gun owners, you've got a significant percentage with serious enough problems that there's no way they should own guns.
Prove it is a significant percentage."
Now, Bob, as I've mentioned before, you're using the word "lying" wrong. I'm claiming something based on simple logic, logic in fact that you've agreed to in the past. Don't you remember when you agreed that gun owners are like any other large group of people. In any large group you've got alcoholics, addicts, depressives, people who have problems with anger, a bit of mental illness, etc. I'd say like any group, the percentage with one or more of these problems is probably 20% or 30% if not more. But even if it were 1%, to me it's significant. That's my opinion, and although I don't have proof, at least none other than that explanation, I say your calling it "lying" is nothing more than a personal attack. Either that or you're just fixated on that word and can't turn it off.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteMerriam Webster online defines significant as:
1: having meaning ; especially : suggestive
2 a: having or likely to have influence or effect : important also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount
b: probably caused by something other than mere chance
Now can you show where a "significant percentage" of firearm owners are violating the law?
Can you that as gun owners "you've got a signficant percentage with serious enough problems that there's no way they should own guns."??
If you can't show evidence for a statement you made, then you are lying.
You didn't say "I think" you have or "I believe".
You stated it unequivocally. You stated it as a fact, not opinion.
Next, gun owners are fairly representative of the population at large, in my opinion. I'll try to find proof later.Quick research shows about 20% of Americans own firearms.
If gun owners are representative, wouldn't that mean that a "significant percentage of the population" have severe mental issues that would make them unsafe to be around?
I mean if you can't trust someone to own a firearm, should you trust them to drive a car?
From the Dallas Morning News:
A 26-year-old Plano man driving the wrong way on the Dallas North Tollway near Harvest Hill Road died after crashing into another vehicle, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Authorities shut down southbound lanes after the accident, which occurred about 3:15 a.m. The lanes have since reopened.
Authorities say the Plano man was driving a Nissan Maxima heading south on the tollway when he U-turned and headed north on the southbound lanes. He was driving about 80 mph when his vehicle collided with a Toyota Scion traveling about 60 mph.
The Plano man died in the crash and the Scion driver was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas.
So,here is a deliberate act by someone. Much like someone makes a deliberate act with a firearm.
Here is a deliberate act with a CAR, apparently with the intention to hurt or kill someone. But such comparisons aren't valid to you, why not?
Should we trust people with cars if we can't trust them with firearms?
"That's my opinion, and although I don't have proof, at least none other than that explanation,"
ReplyDeleteBecause you know your expanation holds no water and has been refuted multiple times, that DOES make it lying.
Sorry, try again.
"If you can't show evidence for a statement you made, then you are lying."
ReplyDeleteYup, if it is a "Significant Percentage" then surely MikeB can point to substantial empirical evidence proving said claim..
No matter though, MikeB believes it's a "significant percentage" and if he believes then it MUST be true.
Listen, Mike, and you other guys. When I write the book, I'll show evidence. When I go back to school to write the PhD, I'll provide proof. For now, we're just talking and I say something is wrong with you if you insist upon evidence and stats for every statement, and without proof you call people liars. Something is wrong with that.
ReplyDeleteBesides, what's your point? Are you saying that the percentage of gun owners who go bad is negligible? Is that your point? I say significant; you say negligible?
Wouldn't that be a question of our differing opinions? Why are you guys so into the word "liar?"
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWords have meaning. You can't define the words to your own use.
Significant has a defined meaning.
If you try to say that there is a significant problem, then you need to convince that you are right. Does that make sense?
You've used that word many times, I don't think it means what you think it does.
You want us to support your position, to agree with you but you offer NOTHING TO CONVINCE US.
That is the reason for the proof. Weer'd has said it many times, I've said it several times -- CONVINCE US YOU ARE RIGHT and We'll support gun control.
But your opinion isn't enough.
When we present evidence, documented, verifiable evidence showing the numbers a negligible, we get a little testy when you call us liars. Oh, yes you do. You say the numbers are biased, that the numbers are false, that the numbers don't matter, that you don't trust the statistics or the people who produce them or the people who present them.
So, produce the evidence to CONVINCE US.
We produced the evidence to show you that Mexican drug cartels aren't getting 90% of all the weapons from the USA, Right?
Now are we lying about that?
That is the difference MikeB, you repeated, even after the evidence was shown and proven, the statements.
If you say something that you know isn't true...isn't that lying?
Until then, Ignorance is king, Eh?
ReplyDeleteLove that Smoke-Screen Mike.
Good way to cover for what you know isn't true!
"I say significant; you say negligible?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be a question of our differing opinions? "
Nope, sorry mike, it doesn't work like that. The facts prove you wrong, which is why you bitch and whine about how you shouldn't have to back up any of your claims with actual evidence (you know, since you're not writing a book...)
I say the fact that you CANNOT back up what you claim proves the invalidity of your arguments.
And yes, when you lie I will call you a liar Mike.
There are people who's opinions that letting gays marry will lead to incest bestiality, increased heterosexual devorces, and other generally bad and amoral things in society.
ReplyDeleteIs that just a different opinion, Mike, or is that WRONG?
I think you know the answer.
Mike, all I can say is look at the UK. They have no legal guns. so. . . Gun crime is up and people are being killed with guns all over. worse than here. And they have moved on to knives now too. . . . You just don't get it do you. Time to deal in facts dude
ReplyDeleteJD - MikeB doesn't deal with facts. Hell, he doesn't deal with definitions either.
ReplyDeleteSee definition of the word "significant" as an example. He wants to restrict the rights of EVERYONE because a "significant" (I.E. a tiny, barely measurable) number of people misuse guns for nefarious means.
He will of course NEVER apply that "logic" to other Constitutionally protected freedoms.