Police said Billy Maxwell Jr., 47, shot and killed his family at their home at 314 W. Park Ave. about 8 p.m. The victims included his wife, Kathryn, and their two children - 17-year-old Connor and Cameron.
One of the victim's in-laws discovered the bodies and called 911.
Students gathered this morning at Village Christian Academy and at Snyder Memorial Baptist Church to mourn the loss of their classmates.
Friends of the family described Billy Maxwell as a good family man who was highly involved in Snyder Baptist Church and his community. Billy's on my top-five nice-guy list,'' said Neil Grant, a longtime friend. "I've never seen him angry, ill, or upset."
State Sen. Tony Rand lives on East Park Avenue, across a small park that separates the two roads.
"From everything I knew about him, he was a nice guy," Rand said.
The only thing they left out in the description was "gun owner." As often happens, the press made no mention of the gun, where it came from, whether it was legally owned, etc. This is the same press that the gun rights folks continually say is biased against them. To me it seems just the opposite.
What's your opinion? Isn't it a reasonable response to tragedies like this to suggest gun bans? How else can we deal with gun owners who show no indication of instability prior to the incident?
I don't support total gun bans, myself although I understand why some folks call for them. I think the availability of guns needs to be diminished, both to criminals and to law-abiding citizens. If the number of guns in the country were halved, the number of incidents like this would be diminished as well.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Well, replace the word gun with any other word for a tool, and see if the same reasoning applies. Woman killed by hammer, man stabbed by screw driver...
ReplyDeleteYou have no reason to reduce the number of firearms - just to reduce them. Since automobiles are killing more Americans than firearms what you want if fewer...
if I understand your reasoning.
I would like less crime, fewer laws, and far fewer criminal heroes.
"Isn't it a reasonable response to tragedies like this to suggest gun bans?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not—it's a completely irrational and unreasonable response.
Thanks for the comments, guys.
ReplyDeleteI repeat, "How else can we deal with gun owners who show no indication of instability prior to the incident?"
what was profession? Fayettville is near Fort Bragg and a Marine Air Station, could this shooting be another stress induced military killing?
ReplyDeleteMike, the answer is that you CAN'T deal with otherwise normal people who all of a sudden lose their shit and burn their house down with their family inside, or stab them, or shoot them, or do whatever it is people like that.
ReplyDeleteAn 86-year-old man used a knife in what authorities described today as a murder-suicide, fatally stabbing his 86-year-old wife in the neck before cutting his own throat.
Authorities said a local man killed his 2-year-old daughter Sunday before setting fire to their apartment and killing himself.
Authorities found two bodies at separate fire sites over the weekend in what the Sawyer County Sheriff’s Department is calling an apparent murder-suicide.
Residents of a quiet Gatineau subdivision were shocked Sunday to hear one of their neighbours stabbed his wife before turning the knife on himself.
You cannot legislate "crazy" away, and banning all the possible implements one could possibly use to commit such a crime is not reasonable, nor is it rational—it's an emotional, reactionary response that has no way of preventing such things.
Earl said, "You have no reason to reduce the number of firearms - just to reduce them."
ReplyDeleteGuav said, "You cannot legislate "crazy" away..."
I say we reduce the number of guns, in order to disarm some of the crazy folks. They'll grab knives and baseball bats, sure, but they'll do a lot less damage that way.
"I say we reduce the number of guns, in order to disarm some of the crazy folks. They'll grab knives and baseball bats, sure, but they'll do a lot less damage that way."
ReplyDeleteWell except every one of your propositions don't really have a method of getting rid of illegally held guns (you know the ones are are all ready restricted and can be confiscated by the police)
But will take away legally held guns, and the rights of people to own, use and carry them.
So you'll be disarming the good guys and leaving the criminal with bats and knives.
You see this as LESS damage? Care to explain that one?
Since we have established that we have no way of knowing WHO is going to go crazy, by what mechanism does "reducing the number of guns" (by how many, and by what process?) disarm just the people who might go crazy and leave the other 99.9% of the 60 million law-abiding gun owners alone?
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest, even if possible, has no chance of doing what you want it to do.
And the cases I listed don't seem to have done less damage without the use of firearms—in almost every case they carried out the murder/suicide successfully.
ReplyDelete"How else can we deal with gun owners who show no indication of instability prior to the incident?"
ReplyDeleteThis guy showed plenty of warning signs.
Like when he was supposed to give a lecture about an aspect of psychology and instead gave a fire and brimstone speech about the Koran and how all the infidels would have their heads cut off and burn in hell.
That should have thrown up a few red flags...which it did amongst his collegues, who then ignored them out of fear of being labled a racist.
A little research would bring your credibility somewhere above zero.
kaveman said, "A little research would bring your credibility somewhere above zero."
ReplyDeleteHas it become impossible for you to make a comment without including a nasty remark at the end?
You pointed out that the guy showed plenty of signs of instability. Well, why wasn't he prevented from doing this then? I'll tell you why. You lawful gun owners continually fail in policing your own. You are the guys who need to identify these nuts and raise the red flags, before not after the tragedy.
You fail to do this, I suppose, due to some exaggerated ideas of "individual rights," but I ask if you don't do it who will?
MikeB302000,
ReplyDeletePrevented from doing something?
By what the law?
You seem to think it that it is acceptable to violate a person's rights for something they MIGHT do?
You might go crazy and try to kill a government official.....you willing to report to jail now to stop that possibility?