Troy Ryan Bellar, 34, used a high-powered rifle with a scope to shoot his 31-year-old wife, Wendy, when she tried to leave their home, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
Two of the couple's children -- 5-month-old Zack and 7-year-old Ryan -- also were killed, but a 13-year-old got away, with the father chasing and firing after him, officials said.
What is it with these guys who decide to kill the whole family? I can't understand it. And there are so many of them - imagine the ones that don't make the national news.
This case had a bizarre twist. The eldest son, a 13-year-old, got away, in spite of the fact that dear old dad was chasing him and firing at him. In the end, Bellar turned the rifle on himself.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Bellar had a history of violence and alcohol problems. But in another strange twist, Mrs. Bellar had herself been arrested for battery domestic violence just a couple months ago.
I realize no member of a family like this could get a gun permit, but are they still allowed to have "high-powered" rifles in the house? Are they allowed to own shotguns for personal protection? Or is this another example of law-breaking people who have nothing at all to do with the legitimate gun culture?
I think it's wrong for the lawful gun owning public to disown people like this. It seems like pro-gun folks want to draw an imaginary line beyond which are all the criminals and irresponsible gun owners and this side of which is everybody else. It doesn't seem right to me to separate one group from the other especially since in many cases the line is not so clear.
What do you think? Is Troy Bellar another example of a one-time legitimate gun owner gone bad? What does it sound like to you? If he hadn't had a gun in the house, do you think this tragedy might have been avoided?
"If he hadn't had a gun in the house, do you think this tragedy might have been avoided? "
ReplyDeleteNo. He could have just as easily poisoned everyone's food, knifed everyone, or blew the house up with everyone inside.
The gun was simply the most convenient tool at the time.
Aztec, Who's being disingenious now? When a guy explodes with rage and grabs the "most convenient tool," and that tool happens to be a gun, the results are worse than if the "tool" had been something else. Of course it's possible to kill people with other means, but not as efficiently.
ReplyDeleteYou guys lose credibility when you keep denying that the availability of the most lethal tool is a factor.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWho is being disingenious now? You are, there is nothing in that story to suggest explodes with rage and grabs the "most convenient tool.
You are making things up and trying to fit your prejudice to the story.
You never address the woman who kill all of their kids. did they use the most convenient tool available? yes, Andrea Yates used a bathtub to kill her kids.
the results are worse than if the "tool" had been something elseHow are the results worse if a gun is used? Are the people more dead? Is there a moral advantage to the killer for not using a firearm?
We aren't denying availability is a factor. What we are denying is that it is the controlling factor. These people would still kill, they would still commit this horrendous crimes.
You loose credibility when you refuse to accept that it isn't the availability of the firearm that made them act this way.
I realize no member of a family like this could get a gun permit, but are they still allowed to have "high-powered" rifles in the house? Are they allowed to own shotguns for personal protection?
ReplyDeleteGun permits are a rarity in the US. Most states don't require a piece of paper to buy a gun, and frankly that's the way it should be; this is a Constitutional right we're talking about, and everybody has to undergo a background check at the time of sale anyway. Permits are just an unnecessary burden on legitimate gun ownership that do nothing to improve anybody's safety.
What that means in this case is that if either of the parents was a legally prohibited person under federal law, that wouldn't prevent them from getting a permit to buy any particular type of gun; it would flatly bar them from posessing any firearms at all.
The "high-powered rifle with a scope" was most likely a common hunting rifle (in the language of gun control, weak civilian rifles are "assault weapons", and powerful ones are "high-powered sniper rifles", just like weak civilian handguns are "Saturday night specials", and powerful ones are "big boomers" or somesuch), but that makes no difference to the law. Hunting rifle, pump shotgun, pistol, revolver--if you're a prohibited person, all guns are legally off limits, whether for hunting, recreational shooting, or personal protection.
It doesn't seem right to me to separate one group from the other especially since in many cases the line is not so clear.
I think the line is pretty clear. Do you meet one of the half-dozen or so legal criteria that we as a society have set for "people we think we can prohibit from owning guns"? Then you're on that side of the line. Don't meet those criteria? Then you're on this side.
We do the same with cars: there are certain things you can do that will disqualify you from driving. Every day, thousands of people who're legally disqualified from driving get behind the wheel anyway, often with tragic consequences. Is it incumbent on lawful drivers to take responsibility for people on "that" side of the imaginary line between them and unlawful drivers?
If he hadn't had a gun in the house, do you think this tragedy might have been avoided?
Of course it's possible, but I think it's a stretch to assume it would have been. You have a house with two violent, unstable people, both of whom are prepared to use violence to get their way and one of whom is prepared to murder his entire family and himself. I think it's unreasonable to assume that there wouldn't have been a tragedy here if murder had been just a little bit harder.
I think you may overestimate the difference between guns and other methods in cases like these and in suicides; stabbing is a very sure way of killing somebody weaker than you, and blunt objects are pretty close behind. Hanging, overdosing, and physical trauma (like jumping in front of trains or from high places) are very certain, easy ways to kill yourself. And even with a "high powered rifle with a scope", the murderer killed only two of his three children, with the third escaping on his own.
It seems more likely to me that the only place guns will routinely make a big difference is in mass murders with several adult victims (where the murderer faces more than one person he couldn't physically overpower), and in individual self defense (where we want the victim to escape a stronger attacker without injury if possible).
1999 - 2006, United States Suicide Firearm Deaths -- #134,704 Rate 5.83
ReplyDelete1999 - 2006, United States Suicide Non-Firearm Deaths - #115,982 Rate 5.02
Availability of firearms doesn't seem to impact suicide rates very much does it?
What impacts suicide rates and murder/suicide rates are the drugs that have flooded Florida for two decades - antidepressants, the most similar drugs in action we have seen to LSD or PCP. We would understand all of these killings clearly if we only understood the similarity of these drugs. I have tracked these cases,and testified in the cases for two decades and the one most common denominator is an antidepressant. (BTW they love baseball bats too.) Go to drugawareness.org to see a statement by Michael Moore that shoots the gun theory down. They do not have warnings that they will suddenly jump up load themselves and start shooting, but antidepressants have the warning they can produce this. The most popular one out there has "homicidal ideation" listed as a side effect.
ReplyDeleteWhen I testified before the FDA in 2004 I asked if they could remember back before these SSRI antidepressants when depressed people used to go off quietly and kill themselves instead of taking out everyone around them and then themselves. The term "murder/suicide" was EXTREMELY rare before the introduction of the SSRI antidepressants.
Antidepressants produce cravings for both alcohol AND illegal drugs. Because of the extremely widespread use of these drugs and the extremely dangerous withdrawal from them I fear it may already be too late for society to wake up to this nightmare and face it head on. See a new medical article on this nightmare. You can see a new medical article on this issue at: http://www.jpands.org/vol14no1/kauffman.pdf
Dr. Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness, www.drugawareness.org & www.ssristories.com
Bob said, "How are the results worse if a gun is used? Are the people more dead?"I think you know what I mean, but I'll try to explain it again just in case.
ReplyDeleteI realize a person can be killed with something other than a gun, but the gun is more efficient at doing the job.
Let's take 100 gun attacks where the victim is shot with a bullet. Compare that to 100 knife attacks where the victim is stabbed with a knife. Which do you think wins?
Let's take 100 suicide attempts with a gun and 100 using a razor blade. Which do you think are more successful?
That's why I keep saying gun availability is an important factor, it's not the only factor, but it makes the difference in some cases.
Is a gun really more efficient at killing someone?
ReplyDeleteThe deadliest school attack in the US involved no guns. The deadliest act of domestic terrorism in the US involved no guns. The deadliest act of foreign based terrorism in the US involved no guns.
So while the firearm is a popular method of killing people, those intent on killing large numbers of people tend to forgo it.
NYC has learned the hard way that curbing gun availability doesn't work. Their stabbing deaths increased by 50% resulting in a net increase in homicides from 496 in 2007 to 523 in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteTake 100 women about to to be raped but are armed with a knife and compare that with 100 women about to be raped but armed with a knife....which ones will be less likely to be raped?
Take 100 people, armed with guns walking around downtown after an enjoyable dinner and 100 people armed with just their bare hands-- which ones will are likely to be ?successfully assault/mugged/robbed?
In every one of your examples, it still depends on the actions of the PERSON. THE PERSON, THE PERSON. THE PERSON.
It isn't the knife, it isn't the firearm.
Why can't you realize that?
Take away the right of the people to have firearms, the bad guys switch to knifes or the crooks still have firearms. The bad guys still have the advantage.
Take away the right of the people to have knives, the bad guys will use clubs or illegal knives and guns. The bad guys still have the advantage.
You say you don't want to stop the good people from having firearms but every one of your ideas to reduce "availability" impacts the honest people more then the criminals.
Let's take 100 gun attacks where the victim is shot with a bullet. Compare that to 100 knife attacks where the victim is stabbed with a knife. Which do you think wins?
ReplyDeleteLet's take 100 suicide attempts with a gun and 100 using a razor blade. Which do you think are more successful?
I'll say flat out that your core premise is perfectly reasonable. You don't deny that plenty of people who murder or commit suicide with guns would still do the same if guns were removed from the equation, but you suggest that _some_ quantity of gun crimes are right on the edge, and wouldn't have happened if an absence of guns had made it a little more difficult, right? I can't disagree with that. It's almost certainly true.
The problem is that while you keep citing "rates of gun violence", the actual number of on-the-fence deaths that wouldn't happen without a gun present is a big question mark. It could be that the gun is a controlling factor in 98% of those deaths, or in 2%.
This is an important question, because taking people's guns away also causes harm. Putting aside the philosophical problems with making the weak helpless against the strong and taking away people's control over their own lives, we _do_ lose some quantity of innocent lives that are saved by legitimate self defense with guns, and by the deterrent effect that armed "victims" have on on-the-fence violent criminals.
Both these quantities (on-the-fence gun deaths and lives saved with guns) are unknown variables. It's one big question mark of a benefit to gun control, balanced against one big question mark of a cost. This is why I don't share your certainty that gun control is a worthwhile response to the tragedy of violent deaths. A reliable cost-benefit analysis is essentially impossible, so I prefer to err on the side of greater freedom, greater respect for Constitutional rights, and more individual choice on how to prepare for emergencies.
I doubt seriously that gun availability is a large part of the problem at hand. Unlike Dr. Blake-Tracy, I will not say that drugs are the whole issue as well. They play apart in the grand social and economic problems that cause violence in general. MikeB, while this is your blog, and you have rights to your own opinion, I said before, and will say again, that violence is caused by two factors. In the end, every factor that causes violence boils down to social and economic stress
ReplyDeleteThe good doctor pointed out the side effects of anti-depressants. I will not disagree, as I have heard rumors of the side effects of anti-depressants, as well as knowing that anti-depressants in a normal mind will cause violent and suicidal tendencies.
Social stress, such as feeling inadequacy, bullying, are two major reasons for violence. If we could manage to take care of social stresses, some people would not need to be on drugs to keep themselves going. People who are in abusive relationships, should have help to be sure that they are mentally balanced. If we managed that, you would have less people prone to violent acts. This of course does not take into account a certain culture. Just look at the inner cities.
Then you have the economic side of the issue. You have people who work, and cannot afford the basics of life. All of their money goes to pay bills, food, and the daily commute. They cannot afford the niceties or a means to escape. They cannot afford a vacation let alone a movie, or dinner out. After months of robbing Peter to pay Paul, it is thrown in their face about how inadequate they are. That is also a social issue. People get disheartened, they stop caring. Then we have tragedies like we do.
Any human being living, has the capacity to commit murder. It is only when the right "buttons" are pushed, and one finds themselves in a certain set of circumstances. Bob S, Micheal, Mike, Skye, you and I are all capable of taking a weapon and killing someone. It is in our nature. Some of us never find ourselves in that situation, where we are in a way that we feel we are pushed to that. Others are. Then it comes to something you hate to hear, or read. When we are pushed to that limit, we make a choice.
What Dr. Blake-Tracy says seems to touch both sides of our argument. On the one hand she says it's not the guns, it's the people, it's the side-effects of the medication. On the other hand, I presume she would agree with me that gun availability among people who are too often medicated wrongly is not a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI've never suggested that gun availability is the only factor or even as Malakh has pointed out that it's the major factor. I see it as one of the factor's that something concrete can be done about. A reduction in gun availability will improve everyone's life, directly or indirectly.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteA reduction in gun availability will improve everyone's life, directly or indirectly.What you call an improvement will impact a very limited number of people positively while negatively impacting many times more people.
You "believe" reducing availability will reduce murders -- in the mean time criminals will have unarmed victims who are easier to rape.
You "believe" reducing availability will reduce suicides -- in the mean time criminals will hesitate less to commit UNARMED crimes against people with a physical disadvantage.
Sorry but your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to deprive people of their rights.
I know, I know you say you don't want to stop good people from having firearms, but how can you reduce availability and still let good people have firearms.
ANSWER THAT PLEASE
"I know, I know you say you don't want to stop good people from having firearms, but how can you reduce availability and still let good people have firearms."
ReplyDeleteYou can't. In fact this is a fallacy I intend to go into detail about in my next post, just haven't had the time lately.
Bob says, "Sorry but your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to deprive people of their rights."Perhaps your "belief" doesn't rise to the level of proof needed to maintain that right. Perhaps that's how "rights" are changed through history.
ReplyDeleteBob also said, "I know, I know you say you don't want to stop good people from having firearms, but how can you reduce availability and still let good people have firearms."One way is to redefine what we mean by "good people." Obviously the definition we've been working with is not working. As much as you deny it, the flow of these so-called "good" gun owners over to the dark side is significant.
Ah, so there we have it mike, you openly state that when it comes to gun owners you believe in "guilty until proven innocent."
ReplyDeleteSo much for the Constitution!
No Mike W., it's not guilty until proven innocent. It's simply extrapolating from the facts we read every day and multiplying by 50 million. This means we've got a big problem and you're part of it.
ReplyDelete"we've got a big problem and you're part of it."
ReplyDeleteAs I said before MikeB - You believe in "Guilty until proven Innocent."
That's why you want to redefine what we mean by "good people." so that you can define those whom you don't like, but who have not yet committed crimes, as "bad people."
Your position is despicable Mike.
Also, care to cite your "facts we read everyday?" or your 50 million number.
ReplyDeleteI'll put money on the answer to that one.