Monday, September 7, 2009

Louisiana Man Kills his Family and Himself

Yahoo News reports on another tragic shooting which took place near Baton Rouge Louisiana.

HOLDEN, La. – A man shot his estranged wife, son and 2-year-old grandson to death and seriously wounded his pregnant daughter-in-law at their rural Louisiana home, then killed himself as police tried to pull over his car 20 minutes later, authorities said.

The pregnant woman later gave birth, about three months early, her father said.

The shootings late Saturday appeared to stem from an ongoing dispute between 50-year-old Dennis Carter Sr. and his wife, Donna Carter, who had a restraining order against him, Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office Chief of Operations Perry Rushing said Sunday.

The story as reported by the Associated Press contains what I find to be a strange attitude on the part of the authorities.

"It's very unusual to have this many victims," (Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office Chief of Operations Perry) Rushing said. "This is an anomaly by any stretch of the imagination."

"We won't ever know what happened inside that house," he said.


I thought the forensics investigators could piece it together from what's left. Maybe it's not important.

What is important is the fact that once again we have an angry man with a gun, killing his entire family, or at least most of them. We discussed this before in a post entitled Guns and Women. That's the one in which I tried to support my statement "guns are bad news for women." The support came in the form of statistics showing the shocking difference between high-gun states and low-gun states of men killing women with guns. The source of those stats was CDC WISQARS 2003, but of course the usual commenters couldn't accept that and continued to accuse me of not backing up my statements and not providing legitimate statistics. One person actually dared me to say these things to the very popular female gun bloggers, Roberta X, Tamara K, and Breda.

Well, to them and to everyone else, I say guns are bad news for women. Those three great bloggers are the exceptions to the rule. The rule is, in America, too many women are at the mercy of too many men with guns.

What's your opinion? Do you think the extremely easy access to guns in Louisiana may have been a factor in this case? Dennis Carter Sr. was clearly a prohibited person. Shouldn't we make it harder for such a person to get his hands on a gun?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

31 comments:

  1. It was a screwed up guy. He didn't just kill a woman, though, he shot his grown son, a man, as well (since there was a pregnant daughter-in-law, it was clearly an adult male).

    In general terms, I've never seen any statistics that show a difference in overall murder rates of women from domestic violence in states that tracks with gun laws (I noticed you specified "women killed with guns," so I suspect you know that as well). Even if it does, it's a relatively rare occurrence compared to violence of other kinds.

    But since the average man is much physically larger, more agressive, and has generally been raised to be more violent than the average woman, does the gun make a lot of difference? How many women do you know that you would put money on to win a physical fight with their husband/significant other? The male human is dangerous by nature.

    Instead of focusing on this very small element of American violence as a reason to disarm Americans against the other more predominant criminal violence and take away a civil liberty, perhaps we should join in a campaign to get more women to buy guns and train with them, as it is the only way they can defend themselves from men.

    Maybe something themed:

    "Ladies ... you married the guy you KNOW played football, occasionally or more often drinks, and loves to brag about the asses he kicked in High School. Do you really want to be helpless if this guy goes off the deep end? Do you read the papers?"

    I'll be waiting for your post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The support came in the form of statistics showing the shocking difference between high-gun states and low-gun states of men killing women with guns. The source of those stats was CDC WISQARS 2003,

    OK mikeb, lets go over this again since you like to bring it up. What you showed was a dataset of two points comparing murders suicides and accidents. WISQARS does not track who killed who (and you can hardly say that women committing suicide is due to men killing women with guns). So no, you didn't show that high gun states have more men killing women with guns.

    Furthermore, I rebutted your comments here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Seven posts and the comments I get from you are "nice tables." Nothing that would refute or disagree with anything I said. Why is that? Do you tacitily agree and just can't admit it? Do you hold to your position based on faith in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it? Why not provide a meaningful response that actually considers the data that I presented?

    On another train, are cars bad news for women? What about sleeping pills? What about pillows? Cars, poisoning, and suffocation kill more women each year than firearms do. Do we need to enact strict regulations on all of these?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How did he have a gun? She had a restraining order against him, which makes him prohibited from buying, transferring, possessing, or even touching a gun or ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The rule is, in America, too many women are at the mercy of too many men with guns.

    And so your answer is to make it harder for women to get firearms?

    And so your answer is to make harder for women to use tools that would equalize the disparity in strength between the sexes?

    So much for logical, intelligent thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Terrible situation, but blaming the availability of guns in this case is akin to blaming the availability of cars for drunk driving. Unfortunately, the gun was a convenient and expedient tool...but how would you propose getting rid of guns? More laws? This guy already broke a large number of them.

    I would argue that what would ACTUALLY help in our country is firearms education...I recently heard something like 1.7 firearms for every person in this country (sorry, no stats to back this up, just what I heard), and yet they're held as these near-mythical talismans by most Americans. Teach them what they REALLY are, how they behave, and enable people to understand that they're not some mysterious objects to be feared, but tools to be used.

    Enforce the laws we have, teach people about firearms safety to remove their mythical status, educate people on basic safety (and ideally reduce the number of idiotic shootings where someone finds a gun and accidentally shoots someone else), and let people know that these are TOOLS. Maybe another firearm in the hands of one of the victims may have helped, maybe not, but the perpetrator in this case still managed to get one despite breaking a number of laws...and if it hadn't been a gun, what chance would the women have had if he had brought a knife, bat, axe, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, you're focusing on the object and completely ignoring the human factor.

    You think guns are bad news for women, when in reality, men are bad news for women.

    The majority of violence between the sexes is man against woman. Even in countries where guns in private hands are uncommon, women are still beaten, beheaded, burned, stoned, doused in acid, hung, raped, mutilated, etc.

    The only difference is America makes it easier for women to fight back.

    ReplyDelete
  7. More men than women are killed with guns, but women are particularly susceptible?

    You may actually be right when you consider the class of "decent people" rather than criminals--I don't know one way or another. The problem here is what to do to reduce this. Of course I think that more women should fight back, using deadly force if necessary. If you have a protection order, you should also have a protection device, since the lack of effectiveness of the order is shown here.

    How do we make it harder for the lawless to get a gun, while not making it even less likely that their victims will survive?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Do you think the extremely easy access to guns in Louisiana may have been a factor in this case? Dennis Carter Sr. was clearly a prohibited person. Shouldn't we make it harder for such a person to get his hands on a gun?


    HOW?

    I've asked you this question before and you ignored me. Please, if you are going to go on and on about making it harder for people to get guns, please tell us how that is to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reputo said, "What you showed was a dataset of two points comparing murders suicides and accidents."

    That sentence is an example of why I didn't engage you in debate. What you wrote is unclear and inaccurate. And when you add the incredible prolixity which you tend towards, I just can't handle it. Sorry, no offense meant.

    What I showed in the post called Guns and Women is a chart taken from Hemenway's great book Private Guns Public Health. Do you have the book, by the way? Maybe it would help you understand what we're talking about.

    The chart is broken down line by line showing female and suicides, with and without guns. Obviously, in attempting to support my comment "guns are bad news for women" I was talking about the murders with guns which are almost entirely committed by men, but perhaps the suicide-with-gun line tells a tale too, without pointing a finger at men.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And when you add the incredible prolixity which you tend towards, I just can't handle it.

    So you admit that you only understand quick soundbites (however innacurate they may be) and are not to be bothered with any kind of lengthy analysis? I guess that VPC and BC are great for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So MikeB, are you claiming the ONLY factor affecting female suicide is availability of firearm?

    Poverty, education, abuse, economic hardship, marriage rates, age;NONE of those factors affect suicide?

    That is the point of "only two data points". You conveniently ignore anything else that could show greater causation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dennis Carter Sr. was clearly a prohibited person. Shouldn't we make it harder for such a person to get his hands on a gun?

    you're kidding right? He broke how many laws in by merely obtaining & possessing the firearm?

    The fact that you think another law would have stopped him is pure idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. He was in violation of several laws already, so we need to make his actions...illegaler?
    How does that work?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I seem to remember a story about a wife who shot her husband while he was loading his revolver in preparation to shoot his whole family (this was in FL, earlier this year or late last year).

    I think the problem is not one of "men with guns are bad for women", but one of "women need to be more willing to defend themselves in the face of such men".

    ReplyDelete
  15. "What's your opinion? Do you think the extremely easy access to guns in Louisiana may have been a factor in this case? Dennis Carter Sr. was clearly a prohibited person. Shouldn't we make it harder for such a person to get his hands on a gun?"

    Yeah, make it illegaler. That ought to work.

    Or, we could encourage more Southern women not to be helpless damsels, and arm themselves.

    I think I like my way better.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Well, to them and to everyone else, I say guns are bad news for women. Those three great bloggers are the exceptions to the rule. The rule is, in America, too many women are at the mercy of too many men with guns."

    Nonsense, of course, but even if it were true, the obvious solution would be to convince more women to own guns. An armed man and an armed woman are an even match. An unarmed man and an unarmed woman are not. So if you're really that worried about anyone being at the mercy of anyone else, the only solution is to arm everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your point seems to be, “Women are vulnerable, so when confronted with dangerous armed men, they stand no chance.” It seems to me that there are two possible responses to this legitimately-identified problem:

    1. Try to make the hostile world safe for vulnerable people

    2. Try to empower vulnerable people to provide for their own safety in a hostile world

    You appear to be advocating #1. Why do you believe it to be the superior course of action?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nathaniel, You're right. I advocate the first one, "1. Try to make the hostile world safe for vulnerable people."

    The way to do that in my opinion is by having fewer guns not more.

    Xrlq says it's an "obvious solution" to arm more women. That sounds good in the speaking, but in reality it's fraught with problems. You've got gun flow to the criminal world, you've got good guys who turn bad, you've got the suicides and accidents. The more guns there are the bigger those problems become.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay, so your focus is on making the world safer for people who do not want to be able to protect themselves with guns, and you view reducing the number of guns to be the way to do this; I'll assume you mean guns in civilian hands (feel free to call me out if this is a faulty assumption).

    So issue #1 you will need to overcome is that in the United States, there are close to 300 million guns in civilian hands. That is a very large number. Just stopping the growth isn't enough if you want to reduce the stockpile. Even if the population were to grow to a billion people with no more guns sold, (thereby reducing the rate of gun ownership), there will still be those 300 million existing guns. You will actually have to remove those guns from people's houses to reduce the number (your stated goal).

    What is your plan to accomplish this? If you have no plan, then your goal of actually reducing the number of guns cannot succeed.

    Beyond that, what would be an acceptably low number of guns in civilian hands for you? How many guns could the populace own before the world became unsafe, in your estimation? In other words, in your hypothetical utopia, would civilian gun ownership be banned entirely, or just restricted to certain classes and types of people?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The more guns there are the bigger those problems become.

    Interesting, because the data would indicate otherwise. Since the early 1990s, the number of guns in America has continuously increased (on a per person rate), but murders, suicides, and accidents with guns have decreased.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nathaniel, You're right. I advocate the first one, "1. Try to make the hostile world safe for vulnerable people."

    The way to do that in my opinion is by having fewer guns not more.

    Xrlq says it's an "obvious solution" to arm more women. That sounds good in the speaking, but in reality it's fraught with problems. You've got gun flow to the criminal world, you've got good guys who turn bad, you've got the suicides and accidents. The more guns there are the bigger those problems become.
    -----------------------------------
    No offense but removing guns from the world will not make women safer. We see daily in newspapers and the evening news men strangling, stabbing, choking, beating, burning women, taking the equalizer away won't make women safer, ever.
    I'm all for educating men and women that abusive behavior is wrong and even evil. We definitely need to make it clear women are no longer chattel, I would even go so far as to say most men understand that but we do have a few leftover Neanderthals, sociopaths and fundamentalists that haven't got the memo and for those people women need a tool that will even the odds, a gun is the best tool for the job. It does make a 120lb women able to defend herself against a 200lb man.
    Mike why do you hate women so much?

    ReplyDelete
  22. No answer? It should be an easy question if you've thought out your position: if we are to create a society that is safe for the vulnerable and unarmed, how many guns are acceptable for civilians to own in total?

    If, as you've stated, fewer guns will result in a safer world, then no guns at all would be the safest world, right? That seems like an appropriate logical deduction to me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nathaniel, When someone attempts suicide with a gun, they are more likely to be successful than if they use a razor or pills. That doesn't mean the problem of suicide goes away with the guns, it means the guns exacerbate the problem.

    Same with murders. If someone attempts to murder you with a gun they are more likely to succeed than if they used a knife or bat. That doesn't mean there'd be no murders if not for the evil guns. It simply means there'd be fewer.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Or, someone who chooses to commit suicide uses the most lethal option available, a gun or jumping off a tall building. Someone who is depressed and just reaching out chooses a method that is less than lethal: pills or razors. Removing the gun only transfers the most lethal method available to jumping off a tall building. Suicides will remain the same, just more people will jump than before.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So you believe that guns increase the lethality of these mistakes and errors in judgement. Again, it should be easy to explain what the logical solution for this is, right?

    The thing is, given your opinion that guns make everything worse and exacerbate the frailties and misjudgments of the average human being, the blindingly obvious "solution" is to take away the guns so these people cannot do as much damage. Many years ago when I was of that mind, that was certainly what I wanted.

    But you seem awfully hesitant to admit that you desire a world with no civilian gun ownership. Given your stated opinions, you cannot help but believe that a gun-free world would be safer, but you refuse to admit it. Curious.

    The thing is, by dancing around the issue like this, it makes people believe you are a shill and not one with genuinely well-thought-out beliefs. This is what we mean when we say that conversations with you go nowhere.

    If you asked me what my ideal society looked like (gun-wise) I would freely admit that I desire a world where anyone considering committing a violent crime faces the very real possibility of lethal return fire from heavily-armed civilians, and when the inevitable (formerly) lawful gun owner "goes rogue", he is treated in exactly the same way. I want a world where predatory violence is met with retaliatory protective violence, not passivity, surrender, or helplessness.

    So c'mon and play ball! Don't be ashamed of your opinions! Speak your mind! If you desire a gun-free world, say so and we can debate the merits, flaws, and feasibility of that idea. Otherwise our conversations will continue to go nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  26. All right, Nathaniel, you've cornered me. Here's what I propose. Total gun confiscation, using Balckwater/Xe going door to door. We start with the threepers, then we go to those snarky female bloggers, then we take care of the rest of you. (only kidding).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Haha, very funny, but what is your actual opinion? I have suggested that given your idea than fewer guns equals less violence, the only way to eliminate the gun variable from the violence equation is to eliminate the guns themselves. Again, how will you accomplish this?

    I'm just asking you to state your terms clearly and be consistent. Again, if you believe that fewer guns is the a way to reduce violence, what is your plan for bringing about a drop in the number of privately-held firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "what is your plan for bringing about a drop in the number of privately-held firearms?"

    My plan is simple. It's to convince you and the others that unreasonable opposition to all gun control initiatives is a mistake. After that, we can all put our heads together and work in a combined effort against the criminals. But as long as you guys consider someone like me the enemy, this will be impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It's to convince you and the others that unreasonable opposition to all gun control initiatives is a mistake

    Is opposition to laws that affect the law abiding more than criminals unreasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  30. We only consider you the enemy because when you advocate for disarmament you are. There have been too many cases of genocide and democide in the worlds history to believe you have peoples best interests at heart.
    Civilian disarmament never goes well for the civilian whether male or female.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mikeb - The concept of making gun control laws is absolutely ridiculous. 1) Criminals don't follow laws and 2) Criminalizing weapons takes our only defense to criminals away from the law-abiding.

    Can you please explain why Chicago, where guns are banned, outlawed, etc, has on average 82 "shots fired" calls a day and in 2008 had more gun-related deaths than all the soldiers we have lost in Iraq in 8 years? Because gun control does not work. Even if you banned guns in the WHOLE country, criminals would still be bringing in guns from other countries, just like they do for drugs.

    The War on Drugs is a joke. The War on Guns would be too.

    ReplyDelete