Bay City Texas is crawling with illegal gun owners?

chuckler...you will find crime and criminals everywhere....even those who choose not to buy firearms from legal vendors who require that you register. This mans problems seemed to run much deeper than owning illegal guns...job loss and wife who fled her home for a shelter and who know what else. Much will come out in the local news so we will see.

But chances are he did not attempt to murder because he owned a gun....his decision to murder was probably an escalation from violence within that had already seen his wife leave him. I suppose next you will condemn the shelter that gave her the strength and a place for her to go....maybe you are one of those who believes that if a woman chooses a mate who turns violent then they must stay and live that life....so are you going to blame the shelter next...instead of the man who committed the crime?

txmom--why do you assume he had to be a "criminal" and "illegal gun owner"? Could just be a guy who snapped who, sadly, had ready access to a weapon that he used before he could think things through? He could just as easily have run the family off the road if he was driving a car--or he could have waiting until everyone was sleeping and lit a fire.

There are lots of ways of killing the whole family--but, the point is that ready weapons make it easier to kill a lot of people very quickly and very effectively. And, he might have shot them just because he owned a gun--there are plenty of people who feel more powerful when they are holding a gun.

The stupidity both of those who want to assume that all gun-owning is bad and those who want to engage in silly logical fallacies (no, no one will blame the shelter for the woman's death) in order to attempt to score points is really annoying. It is a bad idea to romanticize guns the way we do in the US; it is a bad idea to make them quite so readily available to any old idiot.

On the other hand, there are plenty of responsible gun owners--and while the guns (handguns, mind you--hunting weapons help people hunt) don't really benefit anyone, particularly not society, at least they are happy knowing that they have guns as they are under the delusion that it will help them. It's a false happiness, but what the heck--happiness is hard to find and most gun owners don't use them to commit crimes or for violence.

The point remains, though, that if this fellow was going through a divorce or other issue known to provoke people, it would have been best to try and keep him from buying a gun or ammunition. He might already have had both--but it really wouldn't be a bad idea to limit access for people who are in some kind of domestic situation unless it is fairly certain that they are the victims.

Still, if the gun nuts are going to get too upset about it, maybe it's better to let that idea go--it probably wouldn't help that much, and it's not worth antagonizing people over.

But, txmom, it would be nice if you would stop oversimplifying a complex situation and making assumptions based on nothing at all. And, it would be particularly nice if you would quit mocking those who wish that there had been a way to intervene and help this family. There probably wasn't, but it is nice that people wish they could have done something--which, apparently, isn't really your first impulse.

There is no mandatory registration in Texas.

Also, stop blaming the tool for the action(s) of the fool.

When the Founding Fathers added the 2nd Amendment it wasn't for hunting...it was to keep the Government in fear of its populace.

bean..."...--and while the guns (handguns, mind you--....) don't really benefit anyone, particularly not society,..."

'You might want to read "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" - by John Lott before you start "oversimplifying a complex situation".

'You might want to read "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" - by John Lott before you start "oversimplifying a complex situation".

Or you can just Google "Firearm homicides by country" and see the USA lands in between the Phillipines and Thailand for gun murders. Then look way, way down the list of countries that have real and enforced gun control and note the tiny fraction of gun violence compared to the USA.

this is exactly correct - just ask Australians and the English what happened to their crime rates after they confiscated the guns - went through the roof, because only the criminals had guns - people could no longer defnd themselves

DiHrdLbrl....LOL!!! Do you mean the countries that have outlawed guns, like Russia, Mexico and Brazil, that have higher per capita murder rates than the U.S.?

Many, who can't deal with shades of grey, would love this to be a simple, black and white scenario, but it is not.

Sharky - you are absolutely 100% incorrect. That is a complete and utter myth.

@The Loonatic: No, actually it's not 100% incorrect. Murders didn't cease. Murderers simply switched to using knives.

Sorry Sharky but that theory on the crime rate rising is nothing more than internet lore and not backed by facts although it has been used by the NRA as a fund raising subject.

laws are followed by people that are willing to abide by them. the media should include in their reporting of crimes involving guns wether those guns were legally owned and registered or stolen or illegally obtained. the omission of these facts leads to the false belief that gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of those not willing to abide by those laws.

another part of this issue is blaming the gun instead of the person wielding it. i have never heard of or seen a rifle/shotgun leaning on a tree take down a deer or duck or whatever game was being hunted. it has to be aimed and fired by the hunter. same holds true for handguns. a colt 45 1911, or any other pistol/revolver, lying in a drawer or on a table will not point itself and fire on its own. it must be aimed and fired by a person. guns of any type are tools and like all hand tools are inanimate until someone presses them into action.

m.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Gee Sparky read the study

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/kang.pdf

Does anybody else find it a little fishy that 4 people could be shot and alive but the gunman killed himself? I wouldn't be that surprised if the woman wanted the man dead bad enough to shoot herself and her children in places that arent fatal after sticking the barrel to his head. Or maybe I've seen too many movies....

beanathome....

txmom--why do you assume he had to be a "criminal" and "illegal gun owner"? Could just be a guy who snapped who, sadly, had ready access to a weapon that he used before he could think things through?

Well let's see I live in Texas, I read the local and state news. Often times the names change but the story remains the same. My best guess is that he is an illegal immigrant and his gun can probably be traced back to a fast and furious weapon....Wouldn't surprise me if there were a drug or cartel connection...Again very sad story and we can hope the children and the woman recover. As for the shooter...well he should probably burn in hell for an eternity....

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/30/9120408-stabbing-spree-suspect-admits-killing-4

and their cars and knives as well

Yeah sure trust- guns are much easier to use and you can kill much more efficiently. I get bored by the same old defensive excuses by gun nuts who think a knife or car or even a sharp stick can kill like a gun can- TOTAL RUBBISH.

Or maybe you could insure your kids and spouse know when, and how to properly and safely use the fire arms.

And there knives and their cars and matches and lighters and any household cleaners that contain toxins and the list goes on and on.

Another gun tragedy- if you have children and guns in your home make sure your spouse is not unstable, has anger management issues, has poor self esteem, is a bully or has a low IQ.

That leaves the NRA with two members.

Yeah sure trust- guns are much easier to use and you can kill much more efficiently

Cars kill and maim millions of people every year.

I guess you want to ban cars too? Or, maybe you don't because you have a car and not a gun?

cars and knives have other purposes. The only purpose of a gun is to shoot

Steven B

Yeah sure trust- guns are much easier to use and you can kill much more efficiently

Cars kill and maim millions of people every year.

I guess you want to ban cars too? Or, maybe you don't because you have a car and not a gun?

That and everyone who's anti-gun likes to believe that violence, in general, and killings would all disappear if guns were banned entirely. You know,...b/c taking the firearms away from law abiding citizens makes a difference to criminals.

Hardly Sono. Thanks for making are large ridiculous assumption about people who simply want to limit the amount of damage one violent person can commit.

Lori W,

You are so correct. Shooting at intruders breaking into your home threating you and your family. I've been to a gun fight with a knife before. Not good...

@Lori And knives are only meant to cut, cars are only meant to drive.

Guns have purposes too. They are used in defense, they are used in hunting, they are used in shooting sports and hobbies.

It is okay to fear the unknown, but at least make an effort to understand. There are some of us who have been VICTIMS in violent crimes who can be 100% certain that having had a firearm would have saved us from that. As a VICTIM, you will never convince me otherwise. In my situation, the mere presence of a firearm would have likely ended the mugging that turned into a violent assault. Instead, I received a fractured jaw, and nearly $8k in dental bills to repair damaged teeth.

I carry my pistol every day now, and I will never be persuaded to give up my rights. You can not judge someone unless you have been in their shoes, so dont act all smug because you dont understand why someone might own a firearm, and dont pretend that there is no valid purpose for them.

Come and take them, MOLON LABE. The time for debates is over.

Wow, the (count it now) 4th challenge by this calm, rational , law-abiding gun owner to try and take his weapons.

Imagine how he would be if he didn't feel paranoid and threatened and belligerent??

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
― Sigmund Freud

StevenB - This is not is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1990 essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" by Don B. Kates, Jr.

Thank you Lunatic, "Steven B" has posted the same quote before. He likes beating the same drum over and over I've noticed.

Actually, I had replied to one of his other posts and then noticed that he had the same comment here ... so I'm also guilty of duplicating my reply to his duplicate post :-)

With that logic, nothing kills but people. Grenades don't kill people. People with grenades kill people. Anthrax doesn't kill people. People with anthrax kill people. The list is endless... I highly doubt I will ever wish I had a gun. I have no intention of ever killing anyone.

You'll wish you had one when someone carjacks you.

Perhaps we should just ban stupid people. But I'm afraid that would include banishment for many non gun owners and anti gun supporters.

Nukes don't kill, people do. So everyone should have a nuke!

One day it will come a time when you wish you had a gun.

The most effective and only gun I have is the big one I was born with.

I actually feel sorry for those of you that need to purchase a substitute.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
― Sigmund Freud

The need to froth over weapons is a sign of having no gonads! Only people with little penises have a need to wield a firearm around in a public place. It makes them feel manly, powerful, and important in spite of the real parts they lack!

StevenB - This is not is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the 1990 essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" by Don B. Kates, Jr.

@winblow,

Would that really help if the carjacker has a gun and shoots first?

I already asked Santa for a Red Ryder carbine-action, two hundred shot Range Model air rifle.

Pulling a gun out in a car jacking is a good way to get yourself killed. Car Jacker is able to move outside the car. You are stuck in the car. If you are right handed, you have to pull the gun across your body. Your only chance is the element of surprise. Good luck with that.

@justhefacts,

So let me get this straight. If you personally are getting carjacked you would prefer not to have a weapon with you and know how to properly use it??

Dano - I've gone 48 years without getting carjacked. My wife has also never been carjacked. So between us, we've had almost 100 years of experience not getting carjacked. Now, what would be the odds of some "accident" happening if we had been carrying a loaded gun with us everywhere we went for those 100 years? I'd much rather take my chances without a gun, thank you very much. And as others have pointed out, even if you ARE carjacked, the perpetrator would be a lot more willing to kill you if you are armed.

guns don't kill people...bullets kill people

You omitted the first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I know, the conservatives don't like those pesky details to get in the way of what they believe.

What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get? Those who bear arms should be part of a militia and a well-regulated one at that. No others should be able to privately own guns.

@sam adams. +1

The reason Japan did not invade during WWII was because of fear of the standing militia. If you look it up, the United States is a fully armed country and it would prevent any other country from trying to invade it. If guns are outlawed would not that make a difference?

homesick, what part of the right of the people do you not get?

Can't understand the "well regulated miltia" crowd. Anyone not to lazy to use google can find numerous quotes from the writers of the constitution that make it crystal clear they meant for the average person to have the right to self defense.

The framers considered the right to self defense an inalienable right. The second amendment does not grant or give any rights, it is a restriction on government making it illegal for the government to deny an American their inalienable right to self defense.

I'm not against guns as much as I am against the american attitude towards guns. Here's my take on the whole argument:

http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/post/2011/06/09/Americans-and-their-Guns.aspx

What part of "a well-regulated militia" don't you get? Those who bear arms should be part of a militia and a well-regulated one at that.

When this was written, "regulated" meant well timed, or well trained.

That's why so many old clocks have the word 'regulator' written on them:

http://z.about.com/w/experts/Clocks-Watches-1747/2010/02/Regulator-Clock-bought.jpg

And, if this fact cannot be accepted, let's look at the word militia.

In fact, all able-bodied men are a part of the militia, according to our US Code:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

Davy Crockett wrestled bears to put meat on the table, as I recall. But, the rest of the country in that day used a gun to put meat on their table. Guns were an absolute necessity when the Constitution was written. So, however you interpret the wording of the Second Amendment, the forefathers did NOT mean people were not to have guns.

So, Steven B quotes the code saying "The militia of the US consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age......... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the US and if female citizens of the US who are members of the National Guard.
"

I am assuming this is cut and pasted directly from the code. SO, only males able-bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens or who intend to become citizens OR female citizens (not those intending to become citizens) of the US who are members of the National Guard can own guns. So, all the rest of you gun-owners should proceed directly to your local police station and turn in your guns. You are not in the militia!!!!!!

Just one more thought, to those of you who insist that you are protecting yourself from home invaders, carjackers, etc. etc. What are the chances you can get out your gun and shoot them before they (who are not going to be caught by surprise) can shoot you? The only way this can happen is if you have your gun loaded and aimed at all persons near you at any given time. If this is how you live, good luck. You are far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member, or be shot by them. Don't go to sleep, an invader may be just outside your door! Don't go out, a carjacker may be just around the corner. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Mary you missed (b) subsection (2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

This little bitty section gives everyone the right to bear arms.

Echols1, section (a) says to be in the militia AT ALL, you must fit the sated criteria: "The militia of the US consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age......... under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the US and if female citizens of the US who are members of the National Guard."

IF you fit these criteria, then according to section (b) you may be either in the organized or the unorganized militia.

It does not say that you can choose from (a) or (b). This is not a multiple choice test!

There is NOTHING in US law that says everyone is part of the militia. This is an urban legend!

Here's my bottom line: I have a gun. Try to get it from me. Good luck. (And, BTW, my next door neighbor has a LOT of guns and he believes pretty strongly in my right to keep mine. The guy across the street from him feels the same way and wears a gun on his hip 24/7.) We don't have a lot of trouble in our neighborhood. I wouldn't recommend trying to start any.

Frankly ocaxeman, I'm surprised that some of these liberal retards haven't protested the soldiers having guns. They just don't get it.

It's All the Crazy,Sick & Twisted Human Monsters in our society that are the real problem,

So it's clearly a good idea to let them have guns.

Just demonstrating his second half of the second amendment (the conservative "retards" to quote some of them on this blog only recognize that part of the amendment.)

@ocaxeman,

angry much? You sound like a person that should not own a gun

So it's clearly a good idea to let them have guns.

No, its a good idea to execute them, but libs are against that too.

Good assessment. But the end result is that in the Red states its a form of genetic control by eliminating them from the gene pool. At least something good comes out of it! The bad part is children become their targets too. Maybe they could allow children in Texass to have automatic weapons one day a year in which they are allowed to practice behavior modification on their parents!

1) Gun control works very well for the criminals...Fact: Assaults such as mugging and rape went up when Great Britian and Australia banned guns.

2) Source your fact

3) When seconds count the police can't get there in time...a .380 in the purse can help more than crying help during a rape.

4) Check again

5) What do you do when a tyrannical government takes away the voting booth?

*edit* It appears that the links I posted aren't going to show up. I'll get them up somehow.

1)

4)

www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
m.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome/singlepage
abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

1) Gun control works very well for the criminals...Fact: Assaults such as mugging and rape went up when Great Britian and Australia banned guns.

Both countries continue to have a fraction of our gun violence.

2) Source your fact

You seriously want me to source whether CARS are used in intentional homicides more than GUNS???

Are you serious???

3) When seconds count the police can't get there in time...a .380 in the purse can help more than crying help during a rape.

You just totally changesd the subject.

4) Check again

The post about the Swiss and guns is totally accurate.

5) What do you do when a tyrannical government takes away the voting booth?

If you feel that to be a rational possibility you need professional help.

"4) Switzerland has a gun in every home and no crime."

So much for the availability of guns and the crime rate correlation....

I take it you didn't take the time to read my sources. And yes, I do expect you to source the cars. You claimed fact, so proof is required.

I'm sure the folks who were victims of the robberies, rapes, etc. in those countries can take solace in the fact that they have a fraction of our gun violence.

I provided sources...you have not.

I've recently returned to the US after living in Switzerland. While it's true that ex-military reservists in Switzerland have guns in their homes, they can be inspected at any time to ensure that the firearms are properly stored under lock and key - the guns are owned to defend the country against foreign invaders, not to protect the home. See my article at:

http://www.halfbakedlunatic.com/post/2011/06/09/Americans-and-their-Guns.aspx

Lunatic...

"they can be inspected at any time" So what? Border patrol and ICE agents have the authority to stop anyone, anywhere and at anytime and demand proof of citizenship. Has that happened to you or anyone you know?

"the guns are owned to defend the country against foreign invaders, not to protect the home." So if a guy comes home, finds his kids beaten and tied up and a guy raping his wife, he says, "Hhhmmm, I would shoot him but by gun is solely "to defend the country against foreign invaders", so I can't use that..." Right...LOL!!!

thanks for the info on guns in Switzerland, but what exactly does that information have to do with the 2nd amendment debate here?

The point is that the high number of military reservists that have guns in the house is NOT the reason for the low crime rate in Switzerland. The low crime rate is because children are raised with a sense of honor and taught how not to be criminals.

Regarding the debate at hand, I'm just saying that most gun advocates in the USA would not accept a law whereby a government official could come into their house at any time to inspect their firearms and ensure they are properly secured ... although this would reduce the number of kids who get their hands on a gun and shoot a playmate, and would also reduce firearm thefts.

Both countries continue to have a fraction of our gun violence.

Which historically has ALWAYS been the case, even before they encated gun crontrol.

It's also interesting that after Australia enacted their "buy back" program, although gun murders did go down the overall murder rate remains relatively unaffected.

Very well put. Thank you.

Good posting, E Hall. Don't forget...it's just a matter of time before they bring Obama's name into this (?)debate. Goes hand-in-glove with the gun nut's "Obama is gonna confiscate our guns" paranoia!

uhhh, dumass...YOU just brought Obummer into the picture...tard

You're also not to use that weapon outside of military duty. You get issued X rounds sealed in a box and you get in big trouble if there are any missing.

Jetjoky - I also lived in Switzerland. You are correct that reservists are issued weapons, but you are incorrect that they need to be kept loaded. The opposite is true ... in fact, they are to be kept locked up and inspectors can enter your home at any time to ensure that the guns are properly secured under lock and key, and unloaded. The intention is to protect the country from foreign invaders, not to try to secure an individual's home. Gun ownership in Switzerland is more highly regulated than it is in the US, which is why there is less crime.

"no identities have been released"

They is a really clueless comment. the fact that there are four children involved and the next of kin probably haven't been notified yet you try to use the old backup...it was probably an illegal. You must be one of those clueless people who think anyone with a Hispanic name is illegal because they really haven't lived here for the last hundred or so years.

Inability to construct a sentence is a hillbilly problem.

arhillbilly: English please.

all my unemployed college English Professor what are you all doing today, what the matter Progressive liberal can't stand the truth I will take my PhD in the school of hard knocks against your PhD in butt Paper.Keep believing that Progressive Liberal BS it going to come crashing down Pound you Good day

Police tried that in a number of other urban areas and it worked just as well there.

Squidword, is your post some new form of performance art?

Squidword, so you're ok with crime as long as there is no gun involved? You think people murdered by some other method are any less dead?

Yeah guns don't kill people do. That 10 year old boy that shot his sleeping father with his own gun certainly would have found another way to off his father. Perhaps he could use his hands or a tootsie roll pop stick. I'm sure he would have done it anyway. And the shooters at the school in Colorado certainly would have attacked the other students with a slingshot or some other implement of destruction until all those other students were dead. It only stands to reason that they could have charged after the students with a pocket knife and surely would have if they didn't have a gun.

Stats are not available yet over Penns new law. If all the data behaves as it does in every other study, the violent crime committed using handguns will rise not lower. The effect has been shown in the U.S. and every other country that has tightened up gun ownership laws. The data strongly suggests less access less crime. It's not that complicated.

It also suggests that in countries like Bosnia when people cannot protect themselves they are subject to ethnic cleansing i.e. mass murders. There does need to be a balance. I have been a gun owner for 40 years and only one time was it necessary to actually use a firearm in self defense. I did not need to pull the trigger when i woke up and found armed intruders in my house. Just its being present was enouhg to hold them until the police arrived. Yes they were armed with stolen hand guns.

Gun owner need to be more accountable. If a handgun, rifle , shotgun or any other firearm is stolen from your home due to carelessness on your part and used in the commission of a crime, you should be accountable for it. People need to be better educated in gun safety. I would push for a law requiring any prospective gun owner to undergo mandatory gun safety training.

Retired SFC, I'm with you on the mandatory gun safety training. There are way too many accidental shootings due to unsecured firearms, and accidental discharge. A little safety training would go a long way.

Concerned: I don't quite follow that reasoning; however, I am not in the criminal vs non-criminal gun ownership debate. However, I will say this about your comment: I would bet that this was not the first act of domestic violence from this guy. I would even venture to say (if a followup story is done because these things are so common place nowadays) that he had been arrested for domestic violence.

I seriously doubt that he was a loving, caring husband and father, that suddenly became a maniacal gun-frenzied shooter that shot his wife and kids. Naw, he's done the domestic violence thing before, which would make him a criminal.

But, all that aside, what difference does it make HOW he did it?? It's the fact that he did it at all. If he had used a knife, fists, or machete would that have been better?

It's the ACT we should focus on, not the METHOD used for the act.

Amen my fellow patriot! :)