Murder / Suicide in Maryland - 5 Dead

CNN reports on the tragic story that took place outside Baltimore yesterday in which a dad killed his family and himself.

A Maryland man believed to have shot and stabbed his wife and three young children to death before killing himself with a shotgun was having money problems and left a note saying he suffered from "psychological issues," authorities said.

Christopher Wood, 34, may have slashed at least some of his family members in the killings and used a small-caliber handgun on others, Frederick County Sheriff Charles Jenkins said.

He was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted shotgun wound at the foot of the bed where the bodies of his wife and 2-year-old daughter lay, the sheriff said.

Wood's sons were 5 and 4 years old, authorities said. His wife, Francie Billotti Wood, was 33.

Do you think this story is a little different from this one and this one? Is the fact that he also used a knife significant? In some of the other stories I've suggested that the gun availability might have played a part. In this case, it looks like the gun apologists are right when they point out that a man determined to kill can easily use another weapon, a knife in this case. What do you think?

Do you think gun availability plays a part in some percentage of cases? Of all the murders we read about and all the suicides, and remember for every one that makes the news there are another 100 or so that don't, what percentage do you think happen quickly enough and spontaneously enough that the easy access to guns plays a part? Is it a significant percentage (you can define "significant")?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

After Warren Jeffs, Abuse Still Rampant

Arizona State University's on-line news site published a very disturbing article by Melanie Kiser about the abuse that continues still in Colorado City, Arizona. This is the home of Warren Jeffs’ Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. On November 20, 2007 he was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison and has begun serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison. The charges against him included sexual conduct with minors and incest. Wikipedia has a good overview of Jeffs' story.

It has now become clear that with Warren Jeffs' incarceration, the abuse which is endemic in the polygamous system has not ended in Colorado City.

Among the peculiarities of the town are birth defects unheard of anywhere else in the world, a female life expectancy of 32 years, black trucks that follow outsiders around everywhere and a baby cemetery, said Rep. David Lujan, D-15, in a lecture on Monday night at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

“Colorado City is a town with a population of less than 10,000, yet they have a baby cemetery that extends over two acres,” Lujan said. “Just an inordinate number of baby graves for a town that size. But that’s not even the most stunning thing. You see a lot of graves that are either dug up or unmarked, and so many where the headstone indicated they died years ago, in 1997 or something, yet there is fresh dirt on the grave.”

Also present at the lecture at Arizona State University was Flora Jessop.

Flora Jessop grew up in Colorado City, Arizona and was raised in a polygamous family, with two mothers and twenty-seven siblings. After years of abuse, she fled her family and faith and became one of the few women to get out alive. Today she works as a social activist helping other abused women and children escape polygamy.

Jessop provided some books as examples of what the community’s children learn in homeschooling. Lujan read aloud from one titled, “Sisters Are Eternal Friends,” which he said refers to sister-wives (other wives of a woman’s husband).

“These sisters do not have bad tempers. They are always sweet to one another,” one page said. Another stated, “Father is the master of the house.”

“Keep sweet no matter what — it’s a matter of life and death” is a motto in the FLDS, she said. “And they mean it. You cannot have emotions.”

The competition to be perfect and the favorite causes constant arguing between sister-wives, Jessop said.

“I didn’t come out of polygamy hating men — I came out of polygamy hating women,” she said. “It took me 16 years after getting out of Colorado City before I could trust a female. That’s why you don’t see a more united front.”

Girls raised in the FLDS cannot be friends with their birth sisters, have girl friends or share confidences, she explained. They are taught from birth that their only friends are their sister-wives, and after marriage, even private contact with one’s own mother is forbidden, she said.

“So often people think that Warren Jeffs is behind bars and all is well in the world,” Lujan said. “But the abuse continues.”

What's your opinion? Is this a legitimate set of religious and social customs that the government has no business meddling in? Where do we draw the line? When does child abuse and domestic violence behind closed doors become everybody else's business?

If polygamy were practiced among consenting adults, would it be wrong? In theory, couldn't it be done properly?

How widespread do you think this is? Colorado City is a town of 10,000. There are other towns, mainly smaller, but there are probably hundreds of them throughout Utah, Arizona and Colorado. So, it's fairly widespread, don't you think?

I'll tell you what I think. As much as I find government intervention distasteful, and only would suggest it in the most urgent matters, I believe the government is justified in trying to put a stop to these abuses, first through legislation and then if necessry through forceful intervention.

When we spoke about Jeffs before, I said I thought he and his friends were using their religion to justify child abuse, like in the marrying of a 12-year-old and in the general abuse of underage women, as described above by Flora Jessop. I think the same kind of abuse continues in these isolated communities. I suppose the temptation is too great for men to resist, but whatever the explanation, I believe it's time it was stopped.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

The Young Phil Spector

The Temptations and Much Much More

Assault Weapons Ban - Back on the Agenda

CNN reports on the comments President Obama made in Mexico yesterday.

Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Obama said he has "not backed off at all" on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban. It was instituted under President Clinton and allowed to lapse by President George W. Bush.

"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution -- the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe -- to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence," Obama said.

Sorry, but didn't Holder just tell us that it was all on the back burner? What could explain such mixed messages? Do you think the President is saying what the Mexicans want to hear while in Mexico and saying what we (some of us, anyway) want to hear while at home?

Perhaps the messages are not so contradictory. In Mexico, Obama made no reference to a timetable. Maybe the economy and other issues will continue to take precedence, like Holder said. This commitment from the President is reassuring at least in knowing that the whole idea is not abandoned.

Mr. Calderón had some interesting things to say too.

Calderón said that the link between Mexican drug violence and the U.S. ban on 19 types of military-style semi-automatic rifles -- which lapsed in 2004 -- is clear.

"From the moment the the prohibition on the sale of assault weapons was lifted a few years ago, we have seen an increase in the power of organized crime in Mexico," Calderón said.

He said that more than 16,000 assault weapons have been seized in the crackdown on drug traffickers, with almost 9 in 10 coming from the United States.

The famous 90% comes up again. The last time Helmke used that figure, the whole gun-toting world went wild with accusations of lying and deceit. It turned out he was quoting the ATF. I wonder where the president of Mexico got the same figure and why he's announcing it to the world. Maybe he's doing so because it's accurate.

Another interesting thing was mentioned. The lapsed assault weapons ban would ban "19 types of military-style semi-automatic rifles." That sounds extremely specific and very clear. So, what was all that talk about anti-gun people not knowing the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic? What was all that ridicule about people who didn't know what a "gun shroud" was?

To me it sounds like much of what the pro-gun crowd have been throwing into the mix is diversion and confusion. The Assault Weapons Ban, contrary to what they would make you believe, is a clearly written piece of legislation that had a greatly beneficial effect on the U.S. and its nearest neighbor, Mexico. The real problem that gun folks have with it is, I imagine, that it might take away some of their favorite toys.

What's your opinion? Among those 19 prohibited weapons are there any which are necessary for self protection or for hunting? When something like that goes into effect, what happens to all the assault weapons already in the hands of private citizens? What happens to all the ones in gun shops right now?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Richard Pryor in the Gun Shop

Kayson Helms - Summary Execution for Armed Robbery

We had a discussion yesterday about the case of Kayson Helms who was shot dead trying to rob an A.A. meeting in Columbia South Carolina. What I don't understand is the seemingly hard attitude on the part of the pro-gun crowd. Basically they all say the same thing: "If a criminal is stupid enough to show a gun and one of us is around, he deserves whatever he gets. He asked for it."

Now, that may be perfectly true, the "asking for it" part, but what is it with that attitude, that macho, tough-guy talk? It's usually followed by referring to the dead criminal as a "mutt" or a "goblin." What kind of talk is that? I'll tell you what kind. This is typical pro-gun, us-against-them mentality. It's the pro-gun guys against the anti-gun liberals. It's the pro-gun guys against the criminals. I say the pro-gun crowd are as anti-social as the criminals. It's difficult to find one of them who can take criticism and disagreement without resorting to personal attacks and insults. I believe they make the society worse not better. Here's an example.

When an armed robbery takes place how often does it result in loss of life? When an armed robbery takes place and one of you concealed carry guys is present, how often does it result in loss of life? The answer to the first one is very low; the answer to the second one is very high. That's why educated and intelligent anti-gun pro-safety experts recommend that cooperation with the robber is the best bet.

I know what the gun crowd says, what about this and what if that happens, well I suggest it's not the variations and possible twists on the scenario that worry them. What worries them is that the idea of allowing a thief to take what he wants, even if it means that statistically your chances of survival are greater, is contrary to their macho thinking. It's absolutely opposed to their don't-tread-on-me mentality. It's about their feeling like real men, regardless of the true benefit to themselves and those nearby.

What's your opinion? I thought the last Anonymous comment was quite compelling, the one about the gun having been put in the face of the writer's daughter and that Kayson got just what he deserved. The only problem is that even staunch supporters of the death penalty usually don't recommend death for robbery.

What do you think about that dilemma we talked about yesterday? What should the responsible gun owner do, shoot first and worry about the morality later?

What's your opinion.