On Tuesday, 39 year old Robert Beiser shot and killed his wife Teresa at her work at Legacy Metro Lab in Tualatin, before entering a bathroom and shooting and killing himself. Teresa had recently filed for divorce from her husband.
Wednesday Mukesh Suthar apparently shot his wife Varsha and son Ronak before taking his own life. Authorities have not finalized their investigation, but initial indications are this was also a murder/suicide. He had been depressed and was facing some financial stress, but friends have stated this was sudden and unexpected.
The author goes on to ask all the usual questions, why do people do this, what could possibly go through their minds. She describes very well the dilemma faced by friends and family when someone is acting strangely - should they intervene or not? Finally she comes up with the solution.
What we can do is pray for our friends and families, reach out to them if we see something unusual, and let our neighbors know we care. These are difficult times we live in, with financial crises at every level of income, and contentious political discussions that have thus far failed to resolve anything. We must remember that first and foremost, we are people, with feelings and emotions, problems and ideas, and that only together can we overcome whatever we face.
Now, I may be mistaken, but this sure sounds like that la-di-da, touchy-feely approach liberals are often accused of. In order to reduce the mass murder we need to what, "remember that first and foremost, we are people, with feelings and emotions?"
Is the fact that no mention was made of gun availability an indication that Ms. Bodner doesn't think guns are the problem. She didn't mention that the two examples cited were both men killing their wives either. I suppose she wouldn't go in for my idea about guns being bad news for women then. But, her idea that "only together can we overcome whatever we face" seems sadly inadequate.
What we need is background checks on every transfer, gun registration and gun-owner licensing. Of course, in order to do that we need politicians who can stand up to the gun lobby, perhaps Obama will do that if he makes it to a second term. Through these means, we can significantly reduce the availability of guns to the bad guys.
What's your opinion? Is it actually the gun owners who are into all this "feeling" business? Does it turn out that the gun control advocates are the ones suggesting concrete solutions while their opposition is talking about "feelings and emotions?"
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"What we need is background checks on every transfer, gun registration and gun-owner licensing."
ReplyDeleteWon't happen at the federal level. At least not for a long time.
"Of course, in order to do that we need politicians who can stand up to the gun lobby, perhaps Obama will do that if he makes it to a second term."
No. What you need is people, which neither Barack nor many anti-gun politicians have. And I don't mean people who just answer polls and do nothing else. The anti-gunners are going to need a large, vocal group on par with or exceeding the numbers of equally dedicated pro-gunners.
I don't see that happening either for a long time. And by a long time, I mean about 10-15 years.
Already have it here and in several other states.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't work.
And don't you dare play the 7-year-old card and say "Yes it does!"
The places with universal background checks and licensing have just as much crime, or more than the surrounding areas without it.
It's a failure wherever its tried.
Quit pushing lies that get people killed!
So gun owner licensing and background checks are your "concrete" solutions? So how exactly would gun-owner licensing stop this murder-suicide? Do you really believe that this derranged whacko is going to think, "hmm, I wanted to kill my children and myself but my gun is registered to me so I guess I won't now."
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is background checks on every transfer, gun registration and gun-owner licensing.
ReplyDeleteWhy both licensing and background checks on every transfer--Isn't that redundant?
How would we prevent a future repressive government from using the list to aid collecting all the guns to prevent successful revolution?
You assume that tracking all sales will prevent diversion to criminal use, but if the majority enter the criminal world due to theft or coerced straw sales, will registration help?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Sevesteen asked, "Why both licensing and background checks on every transfer--Isn't that redundant?"
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd said was, "...background checks on every transfer, gun registration and gun-owner licensing."
That's three things, 1. background checks on every transfer, 2. gun registration, and 3. gun-owner licensing
The way they would help is this. Obviously the first one would block many transfers which go directly to criminals. The "law-abiding" seller could no longer shrug his shoulders and say it's not his problem. The second and third items would further encourage gun owners to be responsible and accountable for their weapons.
If I have to be licensed to own a gun, I would assume that would come with a background check, and a mechanism for revocation. Why then do I need yet another background check for each purchase?
ReplyDeleteIf I need to have a background check for each purchase to make sure I am eligible, why then do I need a separate license?
Sevesteen, Now I get ya. With all three of those things there would be redundancy. I guess we'll have to work that our more carefully.
ReplyDeleteIf I need to have a background check for each purchase to make sure I am eligible, why then do I need a separate license?
ReplyDeleteBecause the goal of the policies MikeB wants isn't to lower gun crime or help public safety, it's to disarm American citizens. Their goal is to inconvenience us and make it as difficult and expensive as possible to own a weapon.