An arrest affidavit said Schenecker shot her son twice in the head "for talking back" as she drove him to soccer practice Thursday night. She drove home, went inside and shot her daughter in the back of head while the teen sat at a computer doing homework, then shot her in the face, the affidavit said.The kids never saw it coming and the neighbors thought they were just the nicest family.
Do you think mental health screening for gun owners might pick up someone like that? Do you think she would have cut their throats if there'd been no gun?
Now that she's been arrested, does 1st degree murder sound right to you?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Well we know parents will calmly drown their kids one at a time so maybe we should outlaw bathtubs or make you pass a mental health screening before buying/renting a home with a bathtub.
ReplyDeleteRemember the lady who microwaved her baby not too long ago? We need mental health screenings for microwave owners, and only the military and police should be able to use high capacity microwaves, or to use the more accurate term, high capacity lethal radioactive machines of DEATH.
ReplyDeleteBoth of you guys have a point. What we should really do is make it easier for people like these to get guns. Am I catching on? That is what you're proposing, right?
ReplyDelete@Mikeb,
ReplyDeleteEasier or harder is irrelevant. You offer no viable or proven solutions to prevent this (a parent killing their children) from happening.
I'll agree, if there were stricter gun control, there is a chance this parent would not have killed their children with a gun. However, It would appear your only focus is to try to to prevent it from happening with a firearm, without any other consideration, including the fact that a parent just killed their own children.
Is your goal to prevent a parent from killing their children, or just to make sure it doesn't happen with a firearm?
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, Now we're getting somewhere. Since the gun, as a killing tool, is unsurpassed, removing that most lethal of tools from unstable people will naturally have a positive effect on the stats. Same argument goes for suicide. The whole idea is not everyone who kills with a gun is motivated enough to do so with another less efficient tool.
ReplyDeleteMike, let's break this down to logically reason this out:
ReplyDelete"Since the gun, as a killing tool, is unsurpassed..."
I will agree it is definitely up there at the top, at least of common effective tools used for killing (we'll ignore that most gunshot victims actually survive for the moment).
"... removing that most lethal of tools from unstable people will naturally have a positive effect on the stats. Same argument goes for suicide."
Absolutely. I agree. If we prevent dangerously unstable or depressed people from having access to firearms, there would be less firearm-related crimes committed by those people, and less firearm-related suicides.
"The whole idea is not everyone who kills with a gun is motivated enough to do so with another less efficient tool."
I also believe this is true. There are very likely some unstable people that if they couldn't get access to a firearm, they would not choose to find another tool to kill somebody (assuming the attack is pre-meditated). The ease and speed at which a firearm can be utilized can also contribute to shootings where the unstable person is out of control and grabs an available firearm to vent their anger or frustrations.
If only these factors are considered, then the solution seems obvious, doesn't it?
But can we really find a good solution to these problems if we fail to consider all the rest of the factors involved?
For example, Isn't the same function that makes a firearm an effective killing tool also make it the most effective tool for self defense? How often are guns used for self defense compared to how often they are mis-used by unstable people for killing?
Will preventing access to firearms for people at risk of suicide make that big of a difference in the actual rate of suicide, or just change how those people accomplish the task?
Whatever solutions are considered, they need to be analyzed for multiple factors:
1. Is the issue big enough that it needs to be addressed?
2. Would the proposed solution actually be effective?
3. What costs, negative side effects or unintended consequences will the solutions cause?
4. Does the effectiveness of the solution justify the cost and negative side effects?
Do you really honestly consider the negative side effects of the gun control-based proposed solutions, or downplay them as irrelevant or overstated?
...Orygunner...
This is where you're wrong, Orygunner.
ReplyDelete"But can we really find a good solution to these problems if we fail to consider all the rest of the factors involved?"
We do consider the other factors. This is not an either/or deal.
"Do you really honestly consider the negative side effects of the gun control-based proposed solutions, or downplay them as irrelevant or overstated?"
Both, I seriously consider them and I downplay them as overstated.