Leonard John Egland, 37, a logistics officer at the sprawling military base south of Richmond, is believed to have killed his former wife, her boyfriend and his young son at a house in Chesterfield as well as his former mother-in-law, Barbara Reuhl, 66, in Bucks County, Pa., police said Sunday.
The soldier later committed suicide, authorities said.
The Virginia victims were not immediately identified.
This story touches on several of our favorite topics. Mental health screening and periodic check-ups should be a must for anyone who owns guns. It wouldn't identify ALL the problems, but some, don't you think.
And, of course, the problem of domestic abuse is one of our other favorites. Many of these guys could be screened out through the mental health check, but stricter standards must be enforced for disarming abusers. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that guys who kill their ex-wives are not first-time offenders? Don't you think in many cases there's violence or the threat of violence present before the divorce? With stricter standards, some of these dangerous guys can be disarmed too.
It's easy to see that the more gun-friendly a place is, the less they're interested in solving this problem. There are statistics to prove that.
Gun-rights folks often say the gun isn't the problem. My response is that's true. The problem is violence or rage or misogyny or some other mental health issue. But the availability of guns is like the gasoline you throw on a fire. And since the access to guns is something that can be effected with proper controls, that's what I'm suggesting, not as opposed to addressing all those other problems, but in addition to those efforts.
Is that clear? Please tell us your opinion. Leave a comment.
Not sure what additional efforts you want to make about domestic abusers. Any domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, or a domestic violence restraining order, is already a firearms disqualifier.
ReplyDeleteAll the gun control in the world won't do a thing for a mentally ill person with a knife, or fists, or a car, or gasoline. And yes, there are many such incidents on a daily basis in the U.S. The big error was that in the 1960s and 1970s, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill largely destroyed our mental health system.
In 1938, about half of psychotics in the U.S. were institutionalized; now it's about 5%. There's a reason that random acts of mass murder with firearms were shocking and rare until the 1980s; most seriously mentally ill people were hospitalized when they showed symptoms. As deinstitutionalization became national policy, it usually took a murder, or a violent crime that was not far back from murder, before a severely mentally ill person was hospitalized.
Also, "affected with proper controls" not "effected." Affect is the verb; effect is the noun.
ReplyDeleteWith respect, Clayton, partially, you are in error as to the correct usage of effect and affect.
ReplyDeletefrom dictionary.com, regarding the word effect:
verb (used with object)
10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
Interesting. I notice that http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx describes that use of "effect" as "rare."
ReplyDeleteI find that those who are comfortable with the customs of foreign languages tend to be more comfortable using transitive verbs.
ReplyDeleteWatch out, we may end up getting posts about how many partners homosexuals have.
ReplyDeleteOr that Michael Bellesisles used incorrect punctuation in a footnote in Arming America.
Hey Cramer,why don't you point out the Flaws in John Lott's "scholarship"?
Oh, yeah, he's one of yours. Can't scream down someone on your side.
Oh dear, Clayton,hoisted with your own petard:
ReplyDeleteAnd, effect can be used as a verb that essentially means "to bring about," or "to accomplish." For example, you could say, "Aardvark hoped to effect change within the burrow."
Watch out, we can probably make you looklike a total idiot when it comes to cite checking, Cramer.
And if I do, I will broadcast it all over the internet (and everywhere else I can) since I think you are a total piece of shit for what you did to Bellesisles.
Oh dear, Clayton,hoisted with your own petard:
ReplyDeleteAnd, effect can be used as a verb that essentially means "to bring about," or "to accomplish." For example, you could say, "Aardvark hoped to effect change within the burrow."
Watch out, we can probably make you looklike a total idiot when it comes to cite checking, Cramer.
And if I do, I will broadcast it all over the internet (and everywhere else I can) since I think you are a total piece of shit for what you did to Bellesisles.
Wow, you have to stand in awe of the grammar Nazi's wrath, and why is it that you have done nothing outside of this blog to avenge the wrong done to your pathetic little hero?
Is it because you are a pathetic sack of socialist/lawyer?
Yes, I've often had difficulty with effect and affect.
ReplyDeleteBut about Clayton's idea that nothing can be done about the mentally ill committing crimes with guns, if I understood him right, I disagree.
Licensing of gun owners is the answer. A stringent mental health background check would have to be passed as part of the licensing process, along with the usual age and clean-criminal-record requirements.
Do you think this would do nothing towards disarming some of the worst cases?
MikeB, Clayton is someone who has bee described as "such a notorious blowhard that he rated his own, not at all complimentary section in the (now long defunct) net.legends FAQ, on account of his nigh-pathological inability to refrain from endless debates about homosexuality, no matter how inappropriate the forum. His very name still prompts shudders of immense retrospective annoyance from the people who frequented Usenet at the time. He was a crank's crank, and his arrival in a discussion group was like the sudden appearance of a bloody inscription on the mantelpiece — Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin — or a group of circling buzzards: a grim herald of another formerly useful and/or amusing forum about to enter its death throes."
ReplyDeleteHey, Unhinged, Cramer's talking about you when he says:
ReplyDeleteThe big error was that in the 1960s and 1970s, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill largely destroyed our mental health system.
In 1938, about half of psychotics in the U.S. were institutionalized; now it's about 5%.
ANd I hate to tell you, the Supremes want to take your guns too!
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, Heller at 54-5
Too bad you're too far out of it to notice.
Keep thinking you're so smart--It's part of the sickness.