Six people died in separate murder-suicides in Oakland and St. Clair counties over the weekend, police said Monday.In Milford, investigators said money problems are believed to have led Joe Valentino, 61, to shoot his wife, Lucille Valentino, 60, and the family dog sometime last week before turning the rifle on himself three days later in their upscale subdivision.
Their bodies were found Sunday evening when a daughter went to check on them.
On Sunday morning, Phillip Parsons, 35, killed his wife, Gina Parsons, 32, son Sean Parsons, 14, and stepson Andrew Davis, 14, at their home in rural Columbus Township in St. Clair County, then shot himself with the same large-caliber handgun, St. Clair County Sheriff Tim Donnellon said Monday.
Gina Parsons and the boys, who were from the couple's previous marriages, were shot in their beds at the ranch home on Short Road. She also had an older son who did not live at the home, the sheriff said.
These are people who had guns at home, legally. They had no previous difficulty with the law. So how can we stop incidents like these?
I'll tell you how. We start moving away from the gun-culture mentality which pervades American life. We start recognizing that guns do more harm than good. Guns are too efficient a tool for killing and for killing quickly. We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this.
What's the pro-gun response to this? They continue to say there's nothing you can do about it, there's no way to predict it. They say, not only is this the small price we must continue to pay for our "gun rights," but we should strive to increase the proliferation of weapons in the society because of all the good they do, regardless of the fact that incidents like these are guaranteed to increase.
To me that is unconscionable.
What's your opinion?
Why didn't you alert the authorities when you predicted that these 6 people were about to die?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious on how often you'll cherry pick the same-old stories, while ignoring very common stories of self defense, will somehow gain any sort of strength to your tired and dying argument.
ReplyDeleteOh in case you didn't notice (You likely didn't) you'll need to update your bookmarks on this site you'll continue to ignore:
TheArmedCitizen.com
He could have just as easily slit their throats while they were asleep, or poisoned them.
ReplyDeleteYet you focus on the gun and not the real underlying problems.
"These are people who had guns at home, legally."
ReplyDeleteThe article does not mention this at all.
"I'll tell you how. We start moving away from the gun-culture mentality which pervades American life. We start recognizing that guns do more harm than good. Guns are too efficient a tool for killing and for killing quickly. We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this."
You'd probably have an easier time getting Italy to move away from its culture of pasta.
Guns in the wrong hands do more harm than good. Guns in the right hands do more good than harm.
So tell me, without large scale confiscation, how do you propose to reduce the number of guns?
Mikeb: "So how can we stop incidents like these?
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you how. We start moving away from the gun-culture mentality which pervades American life. We start recognizing that guns do more harm than good. Guns are too efficient a tool for killing and for killing quickly. We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this.
What's the pro-gun response to this? They continue to say there's nothing you can do about it, there's no way to predict it."
I find myself wanting to agree with "We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this." So how do we do that? Your "I'll tell you how" is short on specifics and short on how it would accomplish your goal -- unless the goal is to keep almost all people from owning guns. If pro-gunowner advocates are wrong that "there's no way to predict it," how would you predict it? Some anti-gunowner advocates want to keep almost all people from owning guns because THEY say that there's no way to predict it.
kaveman: "So tell me, without large scale confiscation, how do you propose to reduce the number of guns?"
ReplyDeleteIf there is a proposal, and it fails to reduce the number of guns (as is likely), then attempts at large scale confiscation will follow.
Wait -- Britain DID have a low number of guns, yet when two of the few remaining legal gunowners committed multiple shootings, large scale confiscation was also the result.
"I'll tell you how. We start moving away from the gun-culture mentality which pervades American life. We start recognizing that guns do more harm than good. Guns are too efficient a tool for killing and for killing quickly. We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this."
ReplyDeleteI'm flabbergasted. Did Mikeb just tacitly admit that the solution is not more gun laws? Then again, I suppose we can't rule out the possibility that he would advocate "outlawing" the gun culture.
Short of that, Mike, you go ahead and do all the "Guns are bad, mmmkay?" preaching you want.
Please let us know how well that goes for you--I like a good laugh as much as anyone.
unless the goal is to keep almost all people from owning guns.
ReplyDeleteAnd that of course is EXACTLY what MikeB and his ilk want.
Speaking of broken-record MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou keep asking why we don't "Police our Own" (Which of course we do constantly)
This one made the press:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010280392_udistrictdefenders16m.html
Will you ignore it? Or better yet attempt to spin it?
I'm not sure you can prove guns do more harm than good --when it comes to their role in self-defense and the apprehension of bad guys.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that such fathers could have used pillows to smother everybody--and fallen on a knife themselves. But guns are more efficient killers, i guess, in desperate,deranged hands.
The real shame is that people are in such despair and lacking in hope --and lacking in faith in a God to whom they will account for their murders and suicides.
I think we can say that atheism is a frequent cause of such killings! Granted, some so-called believers have been known to go berserk --but if they REALLY believed, they'd fear God too much to go into eternity with this blood on their hands --without remorse and confession and repentance.
Weer'd, Thanks for that link to the Armed Citizen site.
ReplyDeleteIf guns were only being used in crimes then I would agree with you. However, you are overlooking the thousands upon thousands of defensive gun uses every year in America. I find that very shortsighted of you.
ReplyDeleteI think we can say that atheism is a frequent cause of such killings!
ReplyDeleteThat's just as inane a position as claiming that guns are a frequent cause of such killings.
Unless you think people must have strong belief in God in order to have hope, a will to live, and respect for human life...
"I'll tell you how. We start moving away from the gun-culture mentality which pervades American life. We start recognizing that guns do more harm than good. Guns are too efficient a tool for killing and for killing quickly. We need fewer guns in the homes of people like this."
ReplyDeleteGreat.
Now, are you finally going to tell us how this is to be done?
"Weer'd, Thanks for that link to the Armed Citizen site."
ReplyDeleteCan we expect some of the stories to be reprinted here?
Obviously if you think self defense is so shady/uncommon it won't hurt you to show a little honest reporting on both sides of the issue, right?
And of course not all violent crimes are committed with guns...
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr said, "you are overlooking the thousands upon thousands of defensive gun uses every year."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said that. How many would that be, thousands upon thousands, 3,000 or maybe 13,000?
Some of your more exuberant friends say 2.5 million. I think you're closer to the mark which means very simply, guns do more harm than good.
TomB asks, "Now, are you finally going to tell us how this is to be done?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say "finally" when I've answered this several times. In fact the last time, Sevesteen pointed out my redundancy. I said 1. background checks on all transfers, 2. registration of all guns, and 3. licensing of all gun owners.
Sevesteen pointed out that if we had background checks as part of number 3, we wouldn't need to specify it in number 1.
This would change the proportions of guns in the hands of bad guys to guns in the hands of good guys.
ReplyDeleteThis would change the proportions of guns in the hands of bad guys to guns in the hands of good guys.
Considering most guns used in crimes are already purchased illegally, how do you think these things will accomplish anything?
BTW, here is what "common sense gun laws" leads to (from the UK):
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
***snip***
Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.
Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.
_____________________________
Mike, that must excite you to no end...
Already have that in Massachusetts Mike. It has the highest crime in all of New England, and for a city its size Boston has some of the highest violent crime rates in all of the country.
ReplyDeleteMandatory licenses for all gun owners. All sales are done through the state (and must present license, so that's a background check right there) all guns must be registered.
Been like this for nearly 20 years. Crime has gone up, and gone up higher than the other states in the area, and gone up while the national rate has gone DOWN.
Any reason why I shouldn't simply laugh you out of the room for proposing such a lame proposal?
"Any reason why I shouldn't simply laugh you out of the room for proposing such a lame proposal?"
ReplyDeleteWeer'd Beard, the only reason I can think of is that you shouldn't be in the same room in the first place--what if whatever brain-eating disorder afflicting Mike is catching?
to Mike W. --it's not inane to notice that Stalin and Hitler and various Communist tyrants caused millions of deaths, and did not fear a God who said, "Thou shalt not murder."
ReplyDeleteChristian faith in the Bible's teachings on love and forgiveness, eternity, accountability to God --does not produce murderers --except in the presence of kooky influences such as people who claim to be Christians but don't live that way and cause harm to their children, neighbors, e.g. Sometimes single Christian parents have difficulty passing on Christian values to their children damaged by divorce, alcoholism, poverty,etc.
Though we ARE to forgive, there is room in the Bible for justice that puts evil-doers out of business --as in just wars, police actions, etc. in order to defend others.
There are sickos and psychos in every group --but Christianity is a force for wholeness and good when the Bible is studied, interpreted, and applied with faculties of reason/common sense.
Mikeb: "I said 1. background checks on all transfers, 2. registration of all guns, and 3. licensing of all gun owners.
ReplyDeleteThis would change the proportions of guns in the hands of bad guys to guns in the hands of good guys."
Of course, that does not prevent a Major Hasan. In fact, have you not posted about shooters who were "legal" UNTIL the shooting? If your 1,2,3 were enacted, those shootings would continue -- then what? The fact is that even after your 1,2,3 you and aother gun control advocates are FAR from done with gunowners.
TomB, Imprisonment for handing in a weapon is ridiculous. If that's all there is to the story, the authorities are abusing their power and distorting the spirit of the law. That's my take on it.
ReplyDeleteBarb - The guy's who blew up the Twin Towers didn't fear god either. People of all faiths commit murder, as do non-believers.
ReplyDeleteYour position is inane and has no basis whatsoever in fact.
Surely if atheism is a frequent cause of such killings, as you claim, then you have substantive proof of such. I suspect you do not.
Weer'd said, "Obviously if you think self defense is so shady/uncommon it won't hurt you to show a little honest reporting on both sides of the issue, right?"
ReplyDeleteThat sounds about right except I'm not a reporter. I write about things that interest me and the proportion of violent to defensive uses is fairly reflected on my pages. It's about 200 to 1.
And I should just take your word on that 200-1 ratio?
ReplyDeleteGive me some proof and I'll join your side.
MikeB - Why should anyone take what you write seriously if you make no attempt at objectivity?
ReplyDeleteFishyJay said, "If your 1,2,3 were enacted, those shootings would continue -- then what?"
ReplyDeleteWell, that's just it, Jay. They wouldn't continue with the frequency we have now for the simple reason some of those nuts wouldn't have the easy access they have now.
Zorro, You're a funny guy. I knew it when you changed your picture.
ReplyDelete"brain-eating disorder afflicting Mike is catching"
Mikeb: "They wouldn't continue with the frequency we have now for the simple reason some of those nuts wouldn't have the easy access they have now."
ReplyDeleteThat is quite debatable, especially because such claims are often made when discussing examples in which such laws cannot be shown to potentially have prevented them.
However, whetther such laws make some difference or fail to do so, the fact that you and other gun control advocates will still be FAR from done with gunowners guarantees their opposition to even reasonable-sounding measures.
Mike W. --If a person believes in God, and believes in Thou shalt not murder, and believes in eternal damnation for unrepentant sin --and fears disobeying this God --such a person is unlikely to murder--like a kid who does right rather than incur adult (or Godly) wrath with punishment. Kids who don't learn to obey parents are more likely than others to disobey God as well.
ReplyDeleteIf a person thinks that death ends it all --and that he hatefully and angrily wants to end it all for others --and even himself, then he is more apt to pull that trigger--than if He believes He must face a God who prohibits murder.
Granted, there have been a very few isolated cases of kooks who have pulled a trigger claiming they wanted to send their children to heaven before they got into deep sin and lost their innocence and salvation. These are believers with little knowledge --and mentally ill.
Generally, a person with faith in the Biblical God --and knowledge of that God and His justice/judgments --and knowledge of right and wrong from the Bible --and a sound mind --such a person is not going to murder and kill himself.
A bad, erroneous religion that tells people they will be rewarded for murder --that's what you had in Texas recently and on 9/11. These people aren't mentally ill per se; they are deluded by bad doctrines, a deceiving Allah.
FishyJay said, "However, whetther such laws make some difference or fail to do so, the fact that you and other gun control advocates will still be FAR from done with gunowners guarantees their opposition to even reasonable-sounding measures."
ReplyDeleteThat's the paranoia of gun owners. That's the tactics of the NRA, never give an inch or they're take a mile.
At least you admit this. Many of your friends won't even go that far, for them even the admission that they're concerned about the slippery slope is giving too much.
Mikeb: "That's the tactics of the NRA, never give an inch or they're take a mile. At least you admit this.Many of your friends won't even go that far"
ReplyDeleteYet unlike many of my friends, I DO support compromise on gun control. What's needed is some credible assurance from gun control advocates that if we give an inch, they WON'T take a mile. It doesn't come.
For years, I CONDEMNED "the tactics of the NRA." Then I tried for a middle ground on gunn control and discovered for myself that the extremism and intransigence of gun control advocates was WORSE.
I told some of this to an NRA official, who said: "I'll tell you what to say to guncontrol advocates who won't agree to compromise or won't agree not to take a mile."
"Oh boy," I thought, expecting a snappy verbal riposte. The NRA official then said: "Thank them for thier honesty." Huh?
The NRA official then said: "Every time that gun control advocates have agreed to compromise or agreed not to take a mile, they reneged or were lying." He gave many examples -- I checked them out, and he was right.
Since then, I have followed the issue even more closely, and what was said just becomes truer and truer. Amazingly enough, I STILL seek compromise, to remain true to my ideals. Yes, I will be skeptical of agreements with gun control advocates, but in reality they won't even discuss it, despite incessant pleas in their rhetoric for gunowners to compromise. Perhaps they realize that at this point too many gunowners are wise to their deceit.
Mikeb: "That's the paranoia of gun owners. That's the tactics of the NRA, never give an inch or they're take a mile. At least you admit this."
ReplyDeleteMy first response to this was general. Perhaps now I should be specific. Your proposed answer to the problem being discussed was:
Mikeb: "I said 1. background checks on all transfers, 2. registration of all guns, and 3. licensing of all gun owners.
This would change the proportions of guns in the hands of bad guys to guns in the hands of good guys."
I then said: "The fact is that even after your 1,2,3 you and aother gun control advocates are FAR from done with gunowners."
Mikeb, am I wrong? Am I being paranoid?
I also wrote: "Of course, that does not prevent a Major Hasan. In fact, have you not posted about shooters who were legal UNTIL the shooting? If your 1,2,3 were enacted, those shootings would continue -- then what?"
Mieb, am I wrong about you and other gun control advocates? When Major Hasan type incidents continue depite your 1,2,3 and when shootings by those who were legal UNTIL the shootings continue depite your 1,2,3 -- will you and other gun control advocates NOT be back with MORE restrictions upon gunowners?
FishyJay, You're probably right. As hard as it would be to outdo the NRA types in unreasonableness, the radical gun control folks may have done just that.
ReplyDeleteI go for compromise myself. I never suggested total bans on weapons nor do I plan on springing that on you once you agree to what I do propose.
Mikeb, you might turn out to be a reasonable gun control advocate.
ReplyDeleteSuch a pity that would put you in such a small minority.