I have no doubt that before this, this woman may have been a reasonable and sane person. But when she crossed over the line into dangerous and crazy, she had no problems whatsoever putting her hands on a gun and plenty of ammunition. WHY is this acceptable? In what universe is this ok? There is something about firearms which studies indicate, over and over, lend themselves to impulse or emotional violence more than other weapons.
Are we going to acknowledge that? Or are we going to just have more justification rhetoric from the gun loons, who may as well be sticking their thumbs in their ears while going "la la la la la la laaaaah la la la LAH! "
It is PAST time we secure firearms. It is PAST time we require some kind of test to determine emotional and psychological soundness before anyone gets near a trigger.
Other countries have the occasional mass or multiple shootings, but we have more of them per capita. Enough is enough is enough.
From MSNBC.com and the AP:
Guilford County Sheriff
Mary Ann HolderGREENSBORO, N.C. — A woman who killed her son and her niece — and shot her ex-boyfriend, another son, a nephew and a teen girl before killing herself — was bitter over an affair with the married man that ended with restraining orders filed, authorities said Monday.Mary Ann Holder, 36, left behind two notes taking responsibility for the shootings Sunday morning and apologizing for the pain she caused, Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes said.
What the note didn't explain was why Holder decided to shoot five people under the age of 18 in the head along with the man she had an affair with.
"We may never know exactly what her thoughts were and why," Barnes said.
The shootings in three different locations south of Greensboro left Holder's 17-year-old son dead on Sunday. An 8-year-old niece died Monday.
Her 14-year-old son, 17-year-old nephew, and the older son's 15-year-old girlfriend were all in critical condition Monday morning. All were shot in the head.
Holder's ex-boyfriend, 40-year-old Randall Lamb, was in stable condition with a shoulder wound, Barnes said.
The tragedy began to unfold shortly before 9 a.m. Sunday when Holder met Lamb in a parking lot. They spoke briefly before Holder shot him in the shoulder, investigators said.
Lamb called his wife and told her what happened, prompting deputies to begin looking for Holder. Officers were stationed outside her home, but a deputy spotted her car driving down the street about an hour later. The deputy said he saw a puff of smoke in the car and found Holder dead and her 14-year-old son, Zachary Smith, shot in the head, Barnes said.
The officers then went into Holder's home and found Holder's son, 17-year-old Robert Dylan Smith, dead. Smith's girlfriend, Makayla Woods was injured along with Holder's niece, Hannaleigh Suttles, and her nephew, Richard Suttles.
Holder had custody of her nephew and niece after their mother died last spring, NBC affiliate WXII12 reported Barnes as saying.
Holder used Woods' cell phone after shooting Lamb to arrange to pick up her younger son at a friend's house where he had spent the night, the sheriff said.
Authorities said Monday they were still trying to determine when the victims in Holder's home were shot and whether it happened before or after she met with Lamb. They were also trying to determine exactly when she wrote the notes.
Investigators said the notes Holder left behind indicate she was angry about how her relationship with Lamb ended. Barnes said there were restraining orders filed, which had expired.
Lamb's wife filed a restraining order against Holder, the Raleigh News & Observer reported, alleging that Holder would call and text and even send nude photos of herself to Randall Lamb.
She also planned to file an alienation of affection claim, which in North Carolina, allows someone who is cheated on to sue the person their spouse had an affair with.
"This is probably one of the worst situations I've seen in my over 30 years in law enforcement," Barnes said.
Holder had no history of mental health issues and no criminal record.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
So this woman had no record of mental illness and no criminal record, other than expired restraining orders. How would your proposals have stopped her from getting a gun, if she already had it before the orders? In other words, what this story confirms is that sometimes, people snap, and no matter what laws you pass, nothing can be done to stop that. That's life, unless you want to control and monitor the behavior of every person all the time.
ReplyDelete"We've got death. We've got drama. We've got a situation basically that no one could ever imagine would happen here,".
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
If a LEO in a state that has an annual domestic crime report that has these numbers:
There were 73 domestic violence homicides in North Carolina in 2010.
Most of these homicides were perpetrated by men, and most of the victims were women.
There were 16 children present during homicides, and 5 of these children were victims themselves.
11 of the perpetrators were under 25 years of age.
68% of the domestic violence homicides were committed using a firearm.
from here (http://www.nccadv.org/homicides.htm)
could "never imagine" such a scenario then he's braindead. WTF is it with people who know better just glibly lying their asses off?
Oh, sure I understand that the crime is horrible and the guy is probably deeply shocked by it. But why not just tell the truth? the truth being that some pissed-off, self-centered jerk decided to grab a gun and kill her own children and nieces and nephews.
I don't have to imagine this lunacy, I get to read about it, every goddamned day. And I hear from the gunzloonz that this sort of thing is unavoidable and statistically insignificant. They're stupid or their liars; likely there's a lot of overlap.
The post that was up earlier about the true cost of GSW's? You can probably add as much as a $1M dollars or more to the total for this ONE shooting spree. People who are not playing with gunz, people who are not being shot by people playing with gunz are being denied medical care for lack of public funds, in some measure, because of this sort of insanity.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteThere were seventy-three domestic violence homicides in North Carolina in 2010. The population of that state in that year was 9,535,483. Divide the one by the other, and you get 0.000008, and that's rounded off. Please define what statistical significance means to you.
GC: Actually, there was an RO in effect.
ReplyDeleteSo much for the "law-abiding citizen" canard.
BTW, stories such as this usually follow similar trajectories. The first stories will usually express shock that something like this happened--usually with phrases like "nobody saw this coming" or "no one would ever guess she was capable of this" or "she was so nice and polite."
Invariably, as the story and time progresses, we'll learn she had exhibited bizarre behavior and may have even had run ins with others and law enforcement.
GC, this woman had engaged in stalking and harassing behavior.
ReplyDeleteIf she was continuing that behavior after the restraining order expired, she shouldn't have a gun permit.
Why? Because these are the people who consistently in these news stories are the ones who snap and get violent.
If you're looking for an excuse to shrug your shoulders and say 'who could have predicted this?', THIS isn't it.
What it does show is that maybe we really really should be checking the mental health of people with guns. I don't know that this woman had no history of mental illness. I don't know that she had no other police record either. That information will presumably be forthcoming.
The report suggests this woman didn't have just A gun, but rather multiple firearms.
BTW, GC--your stats are a bit off.
ReplyDeleteIn 2010, there were 107 domestic violence homicides. Additionally, your population numbers include everyone from infants to the elderly.
Your stats also omit the fact that not every domestic violence incident results in a homicide. As Gary Kleck points out, about 15% of all GSWs are fatal.
If 68% of the domestic homicides were committed with guns, what do you plan to do about the 32% that were committed by some other method?
ReplyDeleteOr, don't those 32% count?
Last time I looked, dead was dead.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
If 68% of the domestic homicides were committed with guns, what do you plan to do about the 32% that were committed by some other method?
Or, don't those 32% count?
Last time I looked, dead was dead.
How do you justify the position that opposing firearm domestic violence equates to NOT opposing other forms of domestic violence? That is an unfounded statement, it makes no sense. And of course, it is an ugly thing to say, but then...that was your intent. To be unfair, not objective or factual, and to be ugly and inflammatory, wasn't it?
If dead is dead, reducing the 68% of firearm deaths means a whole lot more people who are alive, instead of dead.
There is a unique quality about firearm violence in several of the categories of crime and violence, that equate to the use of firearms more impulsively and more effectively in being lethal than other kinds of weapons. This appears to be particularly true of suicides and homicides.
If you wish to have your comments regarded with respect, I think you would do better to be fact based, provide citations, and not to make this kind of ugly provocative statements. You do yourself no favors for making your points.
Anon: Dead is dead. And firearms greatly increase the likelihood someone is killed.
ReplyDeleteAsk yourself: would you prefer someone attacked you with a gun as opposed to, say, a club or a knife?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteSo your position boils down to, "fuck it, who cares?"?
You have pissed and moaned about having your precious rights truncated since you arrived on this blog. How about if those were your four nieces and nephews? How about if that was your son? You and your gunzloonz friends are sociopathic narcissists. You don't give a fuck about anything but your own priorities--ever, as near as I can tell.
"How do you justify the position that opposing firearm domestic violence equates to NOT opposing other forms of domestic violence?"
ReplyDeleteExcuse me? I am not the one who brought up 68%. I am the one who inquired about the other 32%. This offends you?
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Excuse me? I am not the one who brought up 68%. I am the one who inquired about the other 32%. This offends you? "
I have opposed all forms of domestic violence; that was why I promoted domestic awareness month last month.
I oppose domestic violence of any kind, but since there is more of it with firearms than other means, that is reflected in a greater emphasis on firearm domestic violence.
But I'm sure you knew that, and were just being an asshole.
Have you stopped beating your wife Anonymous?
I never said that I didn't care about the victims. If something like that happened in my family, I'd be devastated. But as Dog Gone points out, we can't base social policy solely on emotion. Whether the numbers are seventy-three or 107, either is a small number, compared to the overall population of North Carolina. You are asking for a big change in American law and culture to solve a problem that is important to those who suffer, but is also insufficient to justify your solution.
ReplyDeleteThe woman in question had no history of mental illness. Did she buy the firearm before the restraining orders were issued? If so, she got it before she had a criminal record. As is typical, that detail wasn't in the news article. Who knows what a psychological evaluation would have shown. I have my doubts as to their validity, and I certainly oppose them for any purpose more serious than a party game. The point is that she likely obtained the weapon at a time in which she wouldn't have tripped any of the alarms that you want.
My position is that she could have turned on the gas at night and blown up the house. She could have poisoned everyone's dinner. She could have rammed the victims' car. When someone snaps, there are many ways in which that person can cause mayhem.
And Jadegold, would I rather be attacked with a club or a knife, as opposed to a gun? What kind of question is that? None is an attractive possibility. I'd rather not be attacked at all, but if I am, I want to have the tool to defend myself.
"I have opposed all forms of domestic violence; that was why I promoted domestic awareness month last month.
ReplyDeleteI oppose domestic violence of any kind, but since there is more of it with firearms than other means, that is reflected in a greater emphasis on firearm domestic violence."
Really? Most domestic violence involves firearms? Do you have any statistics or research to back up that claim. As a big time supporter who promotes awareness surely you must.
However, I'm thinking your comments are just sloppy and indolent thinking or writing.
Are you confused between domestic violence and domestic violence homicides?
Which one is it that you promote awareness of?
These stories make me very mad. Then reading the pro-gun justifying and rationalizing bullshit makes me even madder.
ReplyDeleteThe first fucking thing Greg said was,"So this woman had no record of mental illness." Well how are we supposed to know that if there are no mental health checks in place.
As Jadegold mentioned, these people who "just snap" almost always demonstrate erratic behavior beforehand. We see it in hindsight, what the hells wrong with trying to identifying it in time?
"My position is that she could have turned on the gas at night and blown up the house. She could have poisoned everyone's dinner. She could have rammed the victims' car. When someone snaps, there are many ways in which that person can cause mayhem."
ReplyDeleteSure, she could have done any of those things. The gun was quicker and to hand.
I think we need a neologism, "Gunzpoligist". That term would describe people, such as Greg Camp, who never, ever see the gun itself as the problem or, even, any part of the problem.
A woman gets pissed off, gets one of her gunz and shoots six people--in the head--before killing herself and you say that she could have done it any number of ways, in order to preserve your delusional belief that teh gunz are just one of the tools used to commit homicides in the U.S.
It's an unsupported assertion on your part. Guns, particularly handguns, account for the lions share of domestic violence murders in this country, as well as suicides. Grow the fuck up.
Anonymoron:
"Really? Most domestic violence involves firearms? Do you have any statistics or research to back up that claim. As a big time supporter who promotes awareness surely you must."
I don't believe that dog gone conflated most domestic violence with most domestic violence gun deaths--nice try, no cigar. You just handed your own ass to her. Whether 32% of all domestic violence involves weapons other than gunz is unknowable, as we don't have the stats on ALL domestic violence, much of it goes unreported.
We do have the stats on gun deaths that result from domestic violence--very different thing from what you're trying to conflate. There may in fact be 100 times as many attacks with weapons other than firearms--that is the opposite of supporting evidence for your warped views. Kay,thnx,bye.
Dog Gone should be telling all of you that you're acting on your feelings, rather than thinking, but she only criticizes her opponents. Don't worry, I understand. That's human nature.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not the tool; it's the person. In a world of freedom, we have to accept the consequences of freedom. If you want a police run and shrink controlled state, feel free to try getting that. The rest of us will object, naturally.
Greg Camp said...
ReplyDeleteDog Gone should be telling all of you that you're acting on your feelings, rather than thinking, but she only criticizes her opponents. Don't worry, I understand. That's human nature.
No, you are wrong. Cases in point, I just disagreed with blog owner MikeB, correcting what he posted on Republican job legislation in Congress.
I also recently disagreed, and supported it with a cite, with Laci on the topic of the comparative cost of illegal street purchases of guns versus legal purchase costs.
You'd like to dodge the fact that I am critical of you and some of your co-ideologues only on the basis of emotion.
Bullshit.
In point of fact, I am quite specific about factual objective measurements by which your arguments fail, and the analysis of why your attempts at logic and critical thinking is a failure.
Here is another case in point:
The problem is not the tool; it's the person. In a world of freedom, we have to accept the consequences of freedom.
It is the person having access to a deadly weapon - not the euphemism 'tool', it is a specific KIND of thing - that is the problem. With many guns and many people having guns, we have many of the wrong people having guns.
YOU object to restricting those many wrong people from having guns. People who are criminals, people who are crazy or unstable, people who are stalkers or domestic violence abusers, people who are chronic abusers of substances like alcohol or hard drugs which reduce normal inhibitory judgment that controls behavior.
Bad argument, failed critical thinking, since clearly, restricting firearms consistently equates to reducing firearm violence. Your argument fails on the intellectual dishonesty of your trying to play games with the meaning of the words you use.
A firearm is distinctly different from say, a plastic spoon used in the kitchen; one is a lethal weapon, one is not; both are tools. You are trying to hide behind the word tool, and it is wrong, and you are bad at critical thinking for trying that dishonest stratagem.
Your arguments ARE emotional rather than rational; they boil down to 'it doesn't matter how bad the results of having more guns is, because we wants our guns, our guns make us feel stronger/safer/ tougher/ in control."
You use the term freedom as a buzz word; when people are not safe from gun violence we are not more free, we are less free.
You make contorted interpretations and arguments which require people to disregard objective facts - objective facts about history, objective facts about judicial decisions, objective facts about crime statistics.
You cherry pick, and you do it badly. You do NOT engage in critical thinking, and you do not make well reasoned, well supported arguments. This is not about values, it is about fact, and reasoned argument based on fact.
THAT is what we are objecting to, particularly Laci and myself, who have engaged you the most here. No matter how fast you try to tap dance your way around it, you can't get away from it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2apM0DAe1g
"My position is that she could have turned on the gas at night and blown up the house. She could have poisoned everyone's dinner. She could have rammed the victims' car. When someone snaps, there are many ways in which that person can cause mayhem."
ReplyDeleteThat is crap. NO, she couldn't have injured or killed the people she did in those ways.
She couldn't have shot her ex-boyfriend by blowing up the house or poison. Nor could she have done that to her son found in the backseat of her car.
What careful analytical studies show over and over and over is that when guns are not available, fewer people try suicide and far fewer succeed or even attempt either homicide or suicide.
You are being factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest again Greg.
To add to what democommie wrote here:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that dog gone conflated most domestic violence with most domestic violence gun deaths--nice try, no cigar. You just handed your own ass to her. Whether 32% of all domestic violence involves weapons other than gunz is unknowable, as we don't have the stats on ALL domestic violence, much of it goes unreported.
An example in point, which has parallels in other sources, 40% of the families of law enforcement officers were the victims of domestic abuse, most of them relating to firearms. That is not domestic abuse fatalities or attempted domestic abuse homicides, that is domestic abuse, which includes threats of firearm violence as well as actual firearm violence.
So, anonymous - do YOU have any stats that show me wrong?
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm
ReplyDeleteFrom the Violence policy Center:
"Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year. During this period, intimate-partner violence comprised 22 percent of all violent crimes against women. Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide. Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun."
According to them, firearms are used only in a small percentage of domestic abuse incidents.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't want mentally ill or chemically induced wackos having guns. How can we keep them from being armed, without at the same time preventing the rest of us from having guns? That's my objection. You're glib about mental health screenings, but my observation of mental health professionals over the years leaves me doubting that they really know what they're talking about. Their pronouncements look much more like sermons from the pulpit than scientific statements. I don't accept a system in which any agent of the government has discretion over me. I want a system that has objective and limited standards.
I keep telling you that I see the same facts that you see. You want fewer deaths, and so do I. You claim that the evidence from other nations proves that they have solved the problem of gun violence. That may be, but I don't accept their solution. That's not a lack of critical thinking; that's a difference in what I see as important. I may show you a few numbers, but numbers aren't fundamental to my argument. You can't understand how someone could think in different terms, but human beings aren't elementary particles and can't be captured by purely statistical arguments.
GC, I'm not convinced the choice is as you described it when you wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't want mentally ill or chemically induced wackos having guns. How can we keep them from being armed, without at the same time preventing the rest of us from having guns?"
I think we can limit firearms fairly stringently to keep them out of the hands of those who should not qualify for access to firearms. That would go hand in hand with registration of all firearms transfers, background checks for all such transfers, and far more stringent requirements for storage security. It would require a properly complete and up to date NCIS, and it would require some kind of individual access to a police data base - much like the BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) data base we have here in MN, used by employers who have to perform background checks prior to new hires. All of that is legal, all of that is minimally burdensome, and minimal in cost.
I'd add drug testing and some sort of mental health screening to the mix, as well as an eyesight test requirement similar to the one for a drivers license.
If there is some mental health care professional who goes crazy with this kind of 'power' as you fear, then it would be easy enough to build in an appeals or review process to any borderline denials of a permit / license to protect against that.
But unless you are concerned about passing that kind of testing threshold, that should not prohibit you from gun ownership.
GC then wrote:
How can we keep them from being armed, without at the same time preventing the rest of us from having guns? That's my objection.
and
I don't accept a system in which any agent of the government has discretion over me.
I have outlined very reasonable means to separate out the deserving from those who should be prohibited from guns. Further, I don't give a damn that you WANT to carry a gun; unless you NEED to carry a gun as part of your occupation, there is no inherent RIGHT for you to do so. You ask me to trust your judgment, but you don't trust anyone else's judgment apparently. Your own logic, judgment, and critical thinking aren't very good, as evidenced here.
That last quote pretty much sums it up; you don't want to accept the rational role of limitation in your life that normal adults do accept. That is an unreasonable and unjustified statement, and doesn't deserve consideration.
All of us accept the role of agents of the government all the time - traffic cops, county auditors, election officials at polling places, building inspectors, customs and immigration officials, etc. That is not onerous, that is a positive and constructive rule-of-law-society decision.
Whether you LIKE it or not doesn't actually concern me. "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn"; doing what I outlined would be worth the benefit.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou don't think that it's burdensome, and I do think so. Have you never had to waste time gathering documents because some bureaucrat pushed the wrong key during data entry?
Again, what is wrong about requiring people to be responsible for their own actions? If I screw up, then prosecute me and put me in prison. Otherwise, leave me alone.
And by the way, you're Scarlett in this drama. We're going to win, and you'll be left digging in the dirt of your gun control fantasies.
"but my observation of mental health professionals over the years leaves me doubting that they really know what they're talking about."
ReplyDeleteYou're going to the wrong ones.
Jim:
"According to them, firearms are used only in a small percentage of domestic abuse incidents."
And yet they account for68% of all deaths that occur during domestic disturbances.
As Greg Camp did with another statistic, you are conflating two separate indices to arrive at one value.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI don't go to mental health professionals for treatment, as I have nothing that requires such care. I've worked with some, socialized with others, and listened to the ones who speak in public (not on Oprah, in case you're wondering).
There were over 32,000 automobile fatalities last year caused by people who were tested, licensed and had their weapon registered. How do you stop all these deaths?
ReplyDeleteBut Anonymous, we have a right to travel--didn't you know that?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps the line is that those people were registered and insured (not all, actually), which fact makes them completely safe. Oh, wait, um. . .
Did I mention that the real plan is to get everyone on public transportation, so that these accidents won't happen anymore?
Anonydunce:
ReplyDeleteThat "Cars are the same as guns" meme is tired. It's been debunked many, many times. But you gunzloonz never let go of the lies, do you.
Greg Camp:
Why do you persist in being an idiot? Do you like looking a complete fool?
It appears that your knowledge about psychotherapy is as exhausted as your knowledge of ConLaw or most of the other subjects about which you bloviate.
"There were over 32,000 automobile fatalities last year caused by people who were tested, licensed and had their weapon registered. How do you stop all these deaths?"
ReplyDeleteIf cars were regulated like guns, how many car deaths do you think there would have been? 100,000, I'd say.
Consequently, if guns are regulated like cars, there'll be a similar decline in the mortality rate. One-third, I'd say.
It'a that simple.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, cars and guns are regulated in similar ways. To get a carry license, I had to take a class and pass a written and a skills test. What I'm allowed to do with my handgun is specified by law.
But there are many drivers on the road who have no license to drive and no insurance. Last night on my way home from class, I nearly had a head-on collision with some jackass who pulled into my lane from the other side because they guy in front of him wasn't turning fast enough.
In summary, stupid people do stupid things. Pay attention, and keep your powder dry.
Greg, I don't think cars and guns are regulated the same.
ReplyDeleteLet's put it this way for simplicity's sake.
guns kill 30,000
cars kill 40,000
If cars were regulated like guns, there'd be 100,000 dead each year especially due to the private sale loophole. Imagine if all licensing and testing could be avoided if one bought a car "privately."
On the other hand, if guns were regulated like cars, licensing of owners and registration of guns, there'd probably be 5,000 deaths.