E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSView more videos at: http://nbcdfw.com.
A father shot his estranged wife to death and then killed himself during his daughter's 16th birthday party, police said.
The shootings happened outside the front door of the teen’s grandparents’ house in Grapevine, Texas, late Saturday.
Kristi Suckla, 44, had moved to her parents’ house with her teenage son and daughter after the couple separated.
Grapevine police said her husband Kelly Suckla, 43, came over to the house Saturday night for the birthday party.
An argument broke out and investigators said Suckla then shot and killed his estranged wife with a handgun before taking his own life.
The children and grandparents were inside the home and were not physically hurt.
The couple previously lived in Euless, Texas. Neighbor Donell Arseneau took the news with tears.
"They would just come over and we'd visit and I'd been over there a few times," Arseneau said. "They'd have little parties on the weekends. They had just recently separated. Kristi hadn't been staying over there (at her parents) but for just a few weeks."
Arseneau said they had recently celebrated their 20th wedding anniversary.
"They just got along so well so even when she moved to her parents, I just figured she'd be back in a little while,” she added.
Grapevine police detectives said they were continuing their investigation but called the deaths a murder-suicide.
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like he lived up to his last name. Condolences to the families and their children.
Scumbag. I've been to the bottom of the barrel in my time but would & could "never" think of doing what this guy did.
Some people just "do" and don't "think" before they go through with their actions.
RIP Kristi...
Another NRA success story. Let the NRA shootings continue.
Guns don't .... Oh! Never mind.
another responsible gun owner.
There's always more to the story. No father shows up at their child's birthday party with a handgun.
Prayers to the poor kiddos, and my sympathy goes out to all those who were affected by this tragedy.
Aren't they running pro gun ads in Texas? Hey y'all come to Texas. We ain't got no pussy, lefty gun laws in Texas!! Come on down, bring a gun or three. Everybody has a gun in Texas! Of course he brought a gun to a birthday party. I'll bet he took that gun everywhere. The real problem was that his estranged wife couldn't get to her gun in time. The kids and grandparents were probably too startled to get to their guns. Too bad. More guns would have solved this problem.
@Bluelake
If only the mother had had a handgun, this never would have happened.....
Gun enthusiast's NEVER leave home without them...might need to shoot your wife!
Untrue, DRGerrow - the poor woman could have had an arsenal, but whoever gets a shot off first usually wins. Unless you're suggesting she answer the door with her gun already drawn? Bluelake is right - more guns would have solved this problem. /sarc/
My heart goes out to the family, especially the daughter - this is a birthday she will never forget, and for all the wrong reasons, poor girl
Yes, by all means, let's turn a tragedy into another political statement about how the entire United States should just frelling disarm. Goodness I'm sick of you crows picking at sad events like these like it's just another reason to disarm the millions of honest, non-violent, lawful gun owners. The Guardian says there are 270,000,000 total civilian arms (averaged). This means 1 out of 270,000,000 guns was used to commit a murder. 269,999,999 guns were not used to kill anyone. Try. The Freck. Again.
It's a good thing he had a gun. Can you imagine what the divorce would have been like?
/sarcasm
DRGerrow,
No, it could have been that she could have had her mom kill her dad instead. Either way, adding another gun to the mix doesn't make it better.
Hey Monkeh - After criticizing others for talking about gun politics, you didn't have a problem with yapping about the statictics of gun violence. The point that escapes you bubba, is that no other weapon or tool makes it easier to kill as a firearm. I'll bet that this guy fell in your wonderful category of "lawful gun owners" before he "unlawfully" shot his wife to death in front of her parents and kids.
Soooo many assumptions. We assume HE was violent to begin with. We assume HE was unstable. We assume she had to leave him due to the instability we've assigned to him.
No one will even touch the subject of "no fault" divorce and how unfair it can be. Nah, this is a GUN issue (what crap).
I'm making assumptions now too. I'm assuming he's been a loving husband and wonderful father for 20 years. I'm assuming he LOVED his children more than anything. Now I'm assuming that his wife just left him.... BOOM. He comes home from work to find out she's gone, she has the kids, and now he's only going to see his kids 2 days a week, while he pays her to support his children in someone else's home.
Sure, it's grandma's home for now... until the divorce is finalized. Then they move into new boyfriend's home while dad pays to support them living elsewhere until the children are 18.
What did he do to deserve that? Nothing! But no fault Divorce ensures that a woman can leave a man FOR ANY REASON, (including a new boyfriend) and that man will LOSE his children and PAY dearly in child support.
Yep. That's what I'm going to assume. Because it happens WAY more than anyone wants to admit.
Don't be surprised if the reason he snapped is because he just found out about the boyfriend. No, it's not a reason to kill her. But don't just assume this is all him. Men are driven to insanity by the unfairness of no fault divorce. The default is that they lose their children and have to spend 10s of thousands in attorney's fees to TRY to get them back. It's rare they succeed and most (good) lawyers will counsel the man to not even fight it.
To most, this is a gun law issue. I've walked 20 miles in this man's shoes. To those of us who were married 20 years only to come home and find out we weren't married anymore.... this is a No Fault Divorce law issue, not a gun law issue.
Fair divorce laws would have prevented this tragedy, not gun control laws.
here we go again with the gun owners stuff. guns are not going away folks. this guy went to that party with the intent of killing his probable so to be ex wife unless she magically changed her mind and now wants to get back together. she said no, he killed her and himself. he went there with this intent. i think it would be reasonale to assume that he normally did not carry a gun around. he simply was a guy who lost his capability to think straight over this break up. it happens. unfortunatley.
my sympathy to all parties who have lost loved ones here, especially the children.
So some nut kills his wife with a gun (not an assault rifle) and the NRA is behind it? What?? What a bunch of idiots. Tell me how this could have been prevented. Anyone, anyone. Guy didn't shoot off 15rds, no assault rifle, etc etc. No law, NO LAW, would ever prevent this. Even an all out gun ban would not have taken this gun out of this nuts hands. Get real, quit trying to politicize this crap.
We shouldn't leap to the conclusion that taking the gun to the party is evidence of premeditation.
The gun may well have been his daughter's birthday present.
I'll say it again.....And they call us gay people sick. Here is yet another shining example of a hetero marriage where innocent children are harmed. How can a parent kill their own child....now that's sick.
When we adopt or foster childern it's because we want them to know that above all they will be safe, loved and cared for. Not put in harms way.
No gun laws could have fixed or prevented this. A gun, a knife, a stone, same outcome.
Gay Steve,
Reread the article. He killed his wife....
I won't call you sick but I "will" call you unobservative and too quick to state your case (or should I say "shoot your load") without reading and comprehending the article first....
I mean, the headline itself is self explanatory and you didn't get it.
Harold,
No fault divorce is as fair as such a painful and divisive situation can approach. It avoids two parents smearing and tearing each other and their children apart in a court over monetary issues. The no-fault impacts directly on the financial divisions, whereas custodial decisions are a separate issue and evaluated as such.
"no fault Divorce ensures that a woman can leave a man FOR ANY REASON, (including a new boyfriend) and that man will LOSE his children and PAY dearly in child support."
Frankly, the reason for divorce has no direct bearing on the issue of child support. Both parents have an obligation, legal and moral, to support their children according to their ability, regardless of whether or not the other parent committed an ill such as adultery. Clearly, you had a painful and bitter personal experience, and I am truly sorry for that, but you are not thinking this issue through in a logical fashion.
While historically, on issues of custody, the father lost before he began due to a mistaken and entrenched cultural belief that only the "nurturing" female could perform better, thankfully, we are, albeit slowly and painfully, moving beyond this misconception to a more comprehensive and just analysis of individual cases in determining the more fit candidate for custody. The introduction of the no-fault dissolution was but one more step up the evolutionary ladder of the system in that regard.
Your conflation of two separate issues, the reason for the dissolution and the issue of custody and support of minor children, is the failed cornerstone of your argument. A marital partner should be able to leave the marriage for any reason. That reason, however, is irrelevant to matters of custody unless it directly impacts the quality of the custodial abilities of that parent, such as drug addiction, violence, etc., a behavior that puts the safety of the child(ren) at risk. When it comes to custody, both parents should start on equal footing and then into the equation factors are introduced that may/may not prove to be deleterious to their ability to provide safe, secure custody. Those factors should be reviewed by professionals in family dynamics and child development, who then submit findings to the court for use in determination.
The result is not always perfect, due in no small part to the history of the assumption of the "nurturing" female I referred to above, but progress is being made toward improving those conclusions. Then again, no matter how vast the efforts made toward that remedy, it will never be perfected, only improved. But again, no-fault was a step in the right direction, a good step in the right direction.
@ Harrold of the Rocks,
I see you have gone through a divorce. You realize, if Hussein Obama gets his way, based on what you have stated here, you will now be under a psychiatric evaluation and all your guns and the right to bear them is now taken away.
According to all you libbies it's the gun's fault. In the news this morning they talked about a drunk who ran into a house with his Land Rover. Guess we better ban Land Rovers.
Nice "black" hat gay Steve, figured you for the "brown" hat.
When you want to provide commentary on article, it really helps if you actually READ that article first, Gay Steve. He killed his wife and himself, not the kids.
Thanks Liberals for your keen insight. A few hundred people are killed each year with an "assault weapon" and you all want them banned (good fix - that's like fining every one in a county because someone got pulled over for speeding - yes it's that absurd). About 12,000 were killed this past year in gun incidents alone (about 8,000 were homicides), any tragic death is one I could do without. Yet all, you insist upon abortions resulting in about a million deaths each year, and that somehow is ok? Wow, I need to drink what you're drinking.
@ Steve, You have a right to live your life as you wish. However, suppose everyones life style was like yours... None of us would exist, because it would be impossible to procreate. So does this make your lifestyle "right"?
Happy Birthday, Sweet 16, here's a present for ya, BLAM!, BLAM!, BLAM!
Now you don't have to worry about arguing with your momma about goin' to the prom in that dress.
Friggin' idiots.
Notice how many of these stories come out of Texas and Florida.
Notice the correlation with high school graduation rates?
MORE GUNS would have solved this problem...er um...right?!
Okay, a man took a gun to his inlaws' house and shot his wife right at his daughter's birthday party. Now many people get divorced and manage not to do that. This isn't about divorce and saying it is shows you have serious issues in your own life. Speaking as a woman I can tell you that no one should be telling women they can't get divorced just as no man should be forced to stay in a marriage. That has nothing to do with blowing a person away, whatever the divorce law is. It does not mean all guns should be banned, either.
It is a fact that women are very vulnerable to violence from a man they just left...it is a fact. This guy might have already been violent or not, but he is a murderer now and the children have no mother, and he sure won't get custody since he killed himself. Yes, I personally believe that having a gun readily available ups the odds of someone getting shot when someone gets really upset, and no, this isn't about banning anything else or guns, for that matter. I would like to know whether he was already prone to violence, and if so why he was allowed to keep his gun.
Paint this all colors you like, but once more it's time to see what factors led to this without blaming divorce laws that the vast majority of people cope with and to be reasonable. I have no idea what led up to this, but he killed his wife and that is a tragedy.
Yep. Meanwhile, those actions takes WEEKS and several thousand in attorney fees to get the ball rolling. Meanwhile, poor Dad came home from work one night to find Mom is GONE and has the kids. It will be WEEKS and thousands of dollars later before he even has a CHANCE at seeing some fairness. Until then, Dad see them 2 days a week, and he will WILL be paying BACK child support for all the time it takes for the case to be "reviewed the professionals".
Bottom line... a woman can decide she's bored with the marriage and TAKE the man's kids away from him. The man has almost zero recourse until WEEKS later and it costs THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of dollars to try to fix (and many times, you lose anyway). This drives sane men insane and causes them to do things they could never even fathom before. STEAL a man's children from him and WATCH how he turns into someone (or something) else.
Ms. Ram... if I were a woman, I'd also be saying that the divorce laws are just fine as they're written. You get the kids by DEFAULT. What a sweet deal for you! And what a TOTAL SCREWING for the man. I'm convinced the unfair custody situation is what caused this. A loving father GOES INSANE when his children are stolen from him.
Good thing Daddy came to the party packing his manhood. Otherwise it might've gone badly. Yup, guns are the final solution to whatever ails ya.
Are we certain they weren't from ''Clueless" Texas?
Well, Harold, those horrible things you describe still don't give any reason for a man to go blow anyone away. And women do get screwed in divorce, too, so it's not just poor pitiful men as you seem to describe there. Bottom line, men often take off and leave women taking care of kids with no help at all and often don't pay child support anyway, so you had your experience and I see it scarred you, but it doesn't excuse his behavior. The nastiness and unfairness can go both ways, and neither party has to go shooting the other. This isn't about divorce. It's about instability and taking a gun to go shoot someone. Sometimes the woman left because the man isn't all sunshine and roses to live with, and both parties can be a**es or violent. No, it doesn't drive a healthy person insane to have the wife or husband leave...it sucks and can be horrible, but it doesn't lead people to kill people unless they are already unstable.
I read the article....I know what it says.....Harming any child in any way is sick. Just yesterday a story where a step mother and father denied a 10 year old water and he died.
You can say what you want about my sexuality, but I'll ask you so called Moral religious hate mongers one thing. Do you do anything in your community to help stop the violence against children? If not why not?
Maybe the reason we feel the way we do is because we have had to fight for our equal rights and have been under the microscope when it comes to children, marriage and our life that makes us appreciate it more and not take things for granted (like a life).
bdjbforfun
and all others:
Lifestyle? What makes you think this is a lifestyle? How is it any different than your "choice" as a lifestyle? Wait your lifestyle is not a choice....Mine isn't either.
Ask yourself this: When did I know I was heterosexual...If you've always known then you know how we feel.....We've always known....no choice in the matter. If it was a choice don't you think it would be easier to not be gay?
My condolences to the birthday girl, her brother and their extended families.
For those discussing the divorce issue, please keep in mind that the kids are teen-agers, and as such, unless they were disabled, they would have had a voice as to which parent they wanted to live with.
@Creekdog:
This is the best argument FOR strict gun control so far. People just can't be trusted to own a gun. Those who argue for less control claim they don't trust people either, but they only think in terms of good guy/bad guy. This father was probably a good guy until his wife left him and took the kids.
@ Steve, My mistake, replace the words "life style" with "sexuality". Same outcome. Does your homosexuality make it "right"? Good thing your "destiny" isn't more common place or we would not exist. I reiterate, you have the right to be homosexual. Live and let live.
steve: You're preaching to hysterically devout atheists. What could be worse than an obviously intelligent, introspective, resourceful, and empathetic gay? Most of the rest of us.
Enjoy your posts on all subjects.
For the desperate in the crowd....no, I'm straight.
Cybersaw,
I disagree, a more appropriate name would have been LaSuck.
So much for a Sweet Sixteen birthday party.
Harold ..On this man's list of top priorities in his life were was his kids.
1.."If you leave I will kill you."
2. If I can't have you no man will."
3, "You are mine and I will kill anyone who tries to take you from me." Just like he says about someone taking anything that belongs to him.
4. "I can't live without you." I can hear the narcissistic sh-t NOW..
SDN.. Nope, I'm anything but atheist. Good for you, you're straight, so you too are one of the "worse" as you put it.
You know what Steve! Nothing angers me like some homo running around waiving his "I'm gay and I'm better than you" flag! Get off of your god damn high horse! So you are gay, good for you! And I'm straight! Good for me! I don't care what your "choice" is, it is no better than mine. And that is taking out the "religious nut" stand point. Don't sit there and brag about how much better you people are, because you are wrong! I love how its ok for you people to walk around with your "proud to be a fag" sh!t, but if I bragged about being straight then I all of the sudden hate gay people! Get over it already.
100% agree. The murder was not justified. In terms of just thinking about the 16 year old girl, the father was much MORE selfish in his actions than the mother was in stealing his children. While I understand this guy's pain, I do not understand his selfishness or how he could do that to his daughter.
They don't get screwed by default. They get the benefit of the doubt by default. The man has to spend 10s of thousands of dollars (if he can even afford it) to get his kids back. Women who do get "screwed" only get screwed much later on the process... after months of fighting and thousands of dollars in legal fees. That's the difference.
Just about everything else you said, I agree with, including that it's "not about divorce". Your probably right. It was probably about custody and the fact that his children were stolen from him.
I will also go out on a limb and say this person may very well have been sane his whole life until this situation was forced upon him. This kinda thing turns good people into bad people. In the end, his final action makes him a bad person... he should have never done that to his kids. They are scarred forever, especially the birthday girl.
Shelia... don't direct your nonsense at me. I feel this situation is about a man losing his kids, not his wife.
I doubt if she was armed this tragedy would have been avoided but disarming him probably wouldn't have saved her life either. If there was a shovel nearby, he could have hit her on the head and killed her that way, or beat her to death. Maybe if he didn't have a gun they would have just yelled and he would have left but he could have also used something else to kill her. If you're enraged enough to shot someone chances are you will find another way to kill that person. But what I do know is if a crazy guy attempts a murderous rampage, the only way to stop him is with a gun. If we take the Newtown massacre for example, if the principal or the other administrator that first encountered Mr. Lanza had been armed, it is quite likely that the only dead person at the school would have been Mr. Lanza.
Every single one of these stories bring out both sides firing. (Hmmmm)
Anyway, I know many, many people who do not know how to use a gun or never fired one and for that reason, are very scared of them "PLUS" are super, duper anti-gun people. This (for 90% of you anti-gun people) is where you come from. Don't even go there, there's no denying it. I have asked them and it's true.
For the gun people who do understand how to use them, understand that you don't play/joke around with a gun and would only use them for self defense or target practice (which I do like. It's a lot of fun putting a $5 bet down with your buddy to see who comes closest) this is the reason we enjoy them. Just like going bowling and having fun.
The problem is criminals. Plain and simple. That's it! Even this guy is labeled as a criminal. I have posted the below several times just to state my case. Even though the anti-gun guys still have their own opinions...
Someone shoots and kills another. Guns fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone drinks themselves to death. Alcohol's fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone chokes to death on a steak. Steaks fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone drives crazy, runs over and kills pedestrian. Cars fault? No. Persons fault.
Haggisbingo blames the NRA for all gun related deaths. Guns fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone drowns in a lake. Lakes fault? No. Persons fault.
Bobby told a person to jump off a bridge "and he did". Bobby's fault? No. Persons fault.
I cut my finger with a knife and required 10 stitches. Knifes fault? No. My fault. ;-)
Wake up man. Can't you guys understand? Jeesh! Always gotta blame someone but never the person at fault. Never....
Still boggles my mind how every anti-gun person says,
<<>>"Way to go NRA"<<<>>>"Nice job NRA"<<<>>>Chalk one up for the NRA<<>>OMFG man...
Bottom line since we'll never get all the guns out of criminals hands is;
The only way to stop a "bad" guy with a gun,...is a "good" guy with a gun.
A person can't argue with that. Well, they can, but only it if strikes a nerve - and it does.
Wow, he sounds like a prime candidate for Father of the Year.
keytojoy,
No, stupid, more guns would not have solverd the problem. If I bought another gun, and live 1,000 miles away, it could not, and would not have affected the outcome. I said stupid because your comment is brainless.
Women who believe divorces are fair and dont screw men over, are just as bad as misogynistic men. Things are going great for you, and you dont care what happens to guys. Face it women, you luck out in divorce. Harold is just saying something you dont want to hear because things should only be made fair if it makes women better off right ladies?
We shouldn't be quick to judge what happened in this particular case. I am not saying that this guy's actions are justified because he just wrecked the kids' lives by taking this course of action.
I agree with Harold of the Rocks to the point that this man could have been a very loving, supporting and devoted husband and father to have his complete life turned upside down by this woman.
Ro Mar: As I agree with what you stipulated above, I do have a problem with it thou. Any one has the right to end a marriage but... here's the but, the marriage should be dissolved first prior to one of them engaging another relationship with someone else, especially when there are kids involved. End the marriage civilly first so that there can be a working relationship between the parents for the sake of the kids. I am not sure what events unfolded in their relationship to result in this outcome but it reminds me of what I had to go through a few yrs ago...
I am a divorced father of 2. Our lives were turned upside down when my exe decided that she wanted more in her life. We were together for over 12yrs, got married young, had a bumpy road and I mean bumpy but we got through all that. She was a stay at home mom, by her choice, and I supported her and the kids. I make a good living as an engineer and money wasn't too much of a concern. Pretty much what happened that ended our relationship is that she felt that she could have special "friends" and did everything imaginable to make that happen in her life. When I mean everything, I mean everything. She went as far as opening credit cards in my name to pay for her time spent with her "friends", without my permission might I add; she lying about having cancer to gain sympathy, I'm guessing, and much, much more then that. When I found out, I was completely devastated. Her reasoning which comes from her up bringing, coming from a highly dysfunctional family, even though her mom has a PhD in psychology and works with disturbed and abused kids (don't even get me started on what happened under that roof). I took my ex from all that, she couldn't wait to escape from that hell hole but I digress... She was raised to believe that she can do whatever she wants to make her happy and would constantly lie (and I mean lie after lie after lie) at the expense of others, this is typically called sociopathic lying. Needless to say, because of her actions, I have custody of our kids, we live in a nice house and they get everything they need. Their mom on the other hand, is newly married to a guy that is a lot like her. Neither can keep a job, they have no car and they have no stable place to live. She pays me child support, well, that's when she's working and not tied up in the courts for her continuing life choices. (Great job mom and dad, you did a great job raising a responsible daughter. She took after them in more ways then they hoped I'm sure.) And do you know who she blames for all this? If you guessed me, pat yourself on the back. She also believes that since I make more then her and her new husband, that she should not have to help support our kids that share. (In my view, she picked a real winner and she's now sleeping in the bed that she made. I wish my ex and her new hubby the best of luck, it just won't be on my shoulders anymore)
Creek Dog said:
"The only way to stop a "bad" guy with a gun,...is a "good" guy with a gun"
And if we could lump people so generically into two buckets that may make sense.... but since we are not, it doesn't make any sense... at all.
That's logic from a three year old.
Anybody older than that realizes that it is not black and white, but rather shades of gray.
Somebody can be a "good" guy to the outside community for years, while his family knows that he's an abusive drunk who really deserves an accident.
People may see his wife who has a short temper - due to constantly being abused - and may mistake it for her being "bad".
She gets sick and tired of his abuse of her and the kids and she flees to her parents.
He goes over to "visit" (and make strong violent demands), and you see him draw his firearm... but because you think of him as a "good" guy, you assume he wouldn't ever do anything wrong... so you watch him gun down his wife and then put one in his melon. It only takes a few seconds, and magically having your gun on your belt won't do a damn thing to stop it.
Getting rid of all guns would be stupid, and quite impossible... but the logic from the "no restrictions"
types is NOT logic... it is just pathetic.
Until you realize that people are more nuanced than just "good" and "bad", your arguments will ALWAYS fail. The simple fact is, even a "good" person can snap (and of course it requires you to correctly assess if they are good or bad - something most people cannot do - see how often people get taken by cons), and if they have a gun they can make an amazing amount of carnage in a few seconds. No butcher knife can take down a crowd without them being able to try to defend themselves... but a gun surely can.
Steve,
I haven't read all the comments so I don't know how an article about a murder-suicide devolved into a debate about homosexuality but I would just like to say a couple things. First, there are numeorus Christian organizations whose sole purpose is the protection of kids. There was the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic church but that involved a miniscule number of priests and bishops. Christians were responsible for ending slavery in England and the US, and are responsible for most hospitals and charities. The Christian religion is based upon two laws, love God and love your neighbor, so of course we do things to help stop violence against children, to do otherwise would be to reject our faith. Second, having attractions to men may be something you were born with but when we talk about homosexuality we are talking about the actual act not the temptation. You do have a choice whether or not you engage in homosexual sex or not, even if you don't have a choice about your desires. So being born that way doesn't excuse your behavior. Some people are born with violent tendencies. They are naturally short-tempered and more prone to violent behavior. They are still expected to control their temper. It's the same way with homosexuality. Just because one is born with desires and tendencies toward a certain action does not mean it is right to act on those desires.
The children were harmed. They just lost their mother and father.
Not condoning the actions of the father, just saying, the kids have to move on without both parents.
Texas women are crazy, they do the craziest things, like get into arguments with someone who can obviously kick their butt, then get right in their face and tell em what they are going to do. All the time knowing they are getting their self in deeper. Never could understand cowgirls.
hi Harold of the Rocks , it almost sounds like you had a california divorce like myself , I know it cost me thousands just to achieve a 50/50 custody even though she did drugs and was highly immoral in her behavior (gotta love california courts). All together the divorce cost me a lot of time with my kids and roughly 500k in lawyer costs and support so I can understand the feeling of starting out in a bad situation and having to dig your way out and how tough it can be .
I really feel for the kids in this situation , none of it was their fault but they get to suffer for it .
Sounds like he thought he would get back at her but that is true selfish thinking to do that to your children who are going to truely suffer in the end. Selfish bastard better be roasting down under...
You're a woman aren't you!.. Hmmmm. Re-read my post from where you copied the above "again" please and realize, you're the anti-gun people I was referring to.
So, you said, "Getting rid of all guns would be stupid, and quite impossible..." Correct you are!
That said, what's your solution? Please advise...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, what a terrible shame not to mention they pretty much witnessed the whole thing.
On another note, You're avatar pic is the same as Haggisbingo if you haven't met her yet.
Take care...
bdjbforfun
LOL! This one was just too funny to pass up. None of us would exist?? That may have been true a hundred years ago but obviously not today, gay people have kids all the time. Besides, the world is grossly overpopulated now, I say we need more gay people and less procreation. A solution to the abortions you guys are always bitching about also. Sounds pretty "right" to me.
@Creek Dog
"
Someone shoots and kills another. Guns fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone drinks themselves to death. Alcohol's fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone chokes to death on a steak. Steaks fault? No. Persons fault.
Someone drives crazy, runs over and kills pedestrian. Cars fault? No. Persons fault.
"
Agree to all of above. The thing is a guns only purpose is to maim and kill. You can't have a killing tool on the hands of Nutcases, Lawful till they become unlawful gun owners , criminals etc.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people - Thats a pretty ignorant argument. Every one knows that it takes a person to pull the trigger. No one denies that. The question is why do you arm a person to kill? Defense? - a lot of good it did to the wife and the kids and the movie goers.
When you have statistics of so many easy killings on innocent people - something needs to be done.
If you want target practice or place a bet with a friend - use a paint ball gun.
Harold of the Rocks
Well the article did state that they were NOT divorced and even that a neighbor expected them to get back together. So why would anyone touch a subject that is not a part of the story??
It's painfully obvious at this point that you are no longer talking about the story but rather your own personal experience. Sounds like you got jobbed but I suspect there are parts of the story you're leaving out. I say that because my own experience, with a situation pretty much exactly as you describe, turned out quite differently. I had little trouble getting full custody of my kids. It's all about leverage and it sounds like you didn't use yours to the fullest. After all, you have to AGREE to a "no fault" divorce, did your lawyer not explain this to you??
logical-663460
Actually the statistics show that gun violence is HALF what it was just 20 years ago without a single knee being jerked. Surely you don't believe it can be eliminated entirely?
That is a losing game. The bad guys win.
The good guy does not stop the bad guy. When a bad guy has a gun, especially a hand gun, he will win.
The only way to stop a bad guy is to keep him from getting his hands on a gun.
It is not possible for there to be a good guy with a gun everywhere there will be a bad guy with a gun. The bad guy has the element of surprise. The bad guy will choose his time and the place to attack. The good guy cannot know this.
The good fight here is to reduce the number of hand guns in circulation today. We need to follow the model that we used for machine guns. In time, this will result in fewer hand guns. We will make our children's world safer.
I totally agree on "not" having guns in the hands of nut cases. Most anti-gun people just do not understand.
There are "WAY" too many guns out there. We'll never get them all out of the hands of the criminals.
Lets say the entire Country banned gun and every law abiding citizen Really "DID" abide by that law and turned in every gun they had. Think deep here. Really, not one single gun left in the entire Country left "in the hands of a law abiding citizen"....
Need I say more?! C'mon man, you know where I'm going with this. For the people who aren't sure.....
OK, Lets say that 10% of the entire Country are criminals. This means the 90% of the citizens are sitting ducks right?!
Here "my friend" lies the problem. The criminals will not turn in their weapons and the law abiding citizen will. How do we avoid this?! I just cannot see another way.
I am not a gun nut. I just happen to understand the above. If you have any ideas on how to control gun violence (without simply saying "ban them") then please do not hesitate to bring it on for us all to understand.
Besides that and until there is a cure, we'll have to fight fire with fire. Have no choice at this time do we? And if you say we "do", then please let us know.
Thanks....
davey,
You're incorrect. A good well trained person will take 'em out dude. You're not a gun owner or enthusiast. This is why you post what you said. You'd most likely freeze and give the guy a nice still shot at ya.
99% of criminals don't just pull out a handgun and immediately shoot. They want to have "control" and love the feeling.
I'm pretty much done here. We can go back and forth for years and we'll get nowhere with each other anyway and guess what? Nothing else is going to change in our society either.
Yup, we'll continue reading articles like, and similar to this one till the day we die.
Out...
davey-526272
So are you saying there is no way to stop the bad guy?? Because we've been trying to keep them from getting guns since guns were invented. How's that working so far? The places with some of the strictest gun laws in the US have some of the highest rates of gun violence. What excuse do you guys use to ignore this fact??
Right and the few there are will ALL be owned by the bad guys. No thanks. The Constitution gives me the right to protect myself just like it gives you the right to choose not to.
How do you know she didn't own a gun? Or do you mean that she should always answer her door while holding a weapon?
We often hear the gun-manufacturer's prayer "By God, I wish that there had been more guns at the scene and this tragedy would not have happened."
Well, there often HAVE been other guns present. They haven't helped, and they can't help. Guns can never stop a bullet. All they can be used for is to fire other bullets. If you are able to come to a scene and within less a second figure out who the bad guy is, AND take them out with 1 or 2 shots, then yes, your gun protected you. Otherwise, you are just adding to the danger and the confusion.
Listen to all the limp wristed left wing pinko liberals/communists blame the NRA for this. It could have been done with a knife. And by the way, if it was done with a knife we'd never see it on the national news.
A word to the wise. When women separate and take the kids dads feel abandoned. After all the kids are the family. If your going to do this make sure there is ample time for dialog before you separate. And whatever you do don't antagonize your partner whether its your wife or husband. Its probably the most emotionally charged time in a persons life. Handling it right is what both parents and kids need.
And most Americans think that only Muslims engage in senseless violence. Seems like lately the news from inside US is all about insanity and violent rampage... Karma is a b..tch... you run around the world starting wars in faraway lands while you have a huge mess at home... stupidity 101.
Harold,
Throw your pity party and make it about you all you want. The bottom line is that the wife could have Kicked the husband out of the house, moved the boyfriend in, video taped themselves having sex in his bed and sent him a copy every night... all while still making him pay the mortgage and all the child support
- and it would STILL not be justification for taking 2 lives and the parents of his children!!!!
Clearly his damaged ego was more important than his kids. Regardless of how much you try to speculate and play devil's advocate, his actions have made him forevermore the SELFISH party in this situation. And the wife will forevermore be the victim.
@ davey
Good luck. You will never stop the bad guys from getting guns because they don't care about your laws/bans/restrictions. That's why they are called bad guys/criminals.
Good guys with guns stop bad guys every single day of the year. Depending on which studies you look at the self defense uses of firearms, where people keep themselves from becoming victims/statistics, range from 1.5 million - 2.5 million times per year in the U.S.
Even if self defense uses of firearms were only 1/10th of the above numbers per year it would still far out number the times guns are used for evil/criminal purposes to kill people.
Your odds of getting killed by a firearm (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening.
Shaneal Osterhout Wallace
I must have struck a nerve....I wasn't putting down straight people....Hell without them I wouldn't be here.
My point is that I am a Child Advocate, Civil Rights, Gay Rights & HIV/AIDS Advocate. I speak from the stand point that I have come into contact with many children that have been abused in ways that would make you more pissed off than you are at me for my comment.
I have the right to point out that I am Gay & that we (LGBT) beings that we are not Heterosexual, do not have families like you do. Our families are made up of children that are mostly adopted...many of them from homes like this one, or where the mother is addicted, and no other relative will step in.
Sorry if you find it distasteful or angering. Maybe you should see about getting out there and doing something to help abuse women & children before attacking me.
I believe this is another case of 'would've done what he did by any means necessary'.
All kinds of arguements can be made about the gray area of the laws pertaining to guns; assault rifles, CCW, etc.... but the right to own A gun, at home, for hunting and/or family protection CANNOT be disputed.
Similarly to the marijuana quandry, both pot and guns are here to stay irregardless of anys' feelings or viewpoints. So, theory be damned and deal with reality. Control, regulate, but outlawing is nothing remotely feasable, neither fiscally or factually. That time came and went some time ago. Attempts at mary jane regulation have only fueled criminal activities, violence, deaths, and expenses for all - including those that would never touch the stuff. Try to outlaw firearms and you'll see the same results, violence, money and gang activities, importations, smuggling, and all else one can conceive.
This person that did this to his wife, the timing, etc... was hell bent on doing it, gun, knife, hammer or bat. There'll be speculation as to the why, his psyche, and again, all else. But to start another gun debate isn't the point and isn't relavent; being a 'hot topic' it becomes part of it however falsely.
I love how you @$$clowns bring guns into this discussion, sure the guy used a gun to kill one other person and himself.
But I garun-freakin-tee that I could (i never would, but hypothetically) kill 1 or 2 other people and myself with a KNIFE, JUST as easily, maybe all you idiots are panseys dont think its possible to kill people with anything other then a gun. Maybe you all dont read about anything unless it says GUN in the title. But people WILL find a way to kill other people.
ALL your pathetic gun laws and regulations WOULD NOT have changed the outcome of this tragedy.. you losers are just chomping at the bit to take away people's rights your blind to facts right in front of you. If i sound offended I am, i dont like when people try to take away my rights.. rights that I FOUGHT for when i joined the military... If you do take away my 2nd ammendment.. I am going to sit back and laugh, hell i will even support them taking away your 1st ammendment. You puke's dont deserve it.
If a bad guy gets a hand gun and decides to kill you, then you are dead. That is what I am saying. Your hand gun will not save you.
Works badly. When there are so many legal hand guns, it is easy to get one illegally.
The excuse is, well, let me put it this way, when the age to purchase alcohol was 18 in NY and 21 in NJ, kids from NJ drove to NY to buy alcohol. Now do you understand?
And, Mr. Smarty Pants, look at other industrialized countries, they have a much lower rate of violent crime, and gun violence and murder, and they have strict gun control. Get it now?? Look at Canada.
Look at what happened with machine guns. In the 1930s, the gangs had machine guns. Machine Gun Kelly. Now, some people own machine guns, but not many. And, most importantly, machine gun violence today is very low. No thanks? Wassamatta with you?
We should try and do something like that with hand guns. Look, if the bad guy has a hand gun, I don't know how you can feel safe with a hand gun. Safety comes from living in a safe place. If you live in a place where you think that you need a hand gun to be safe, then you are living in a dangerous place. If you live in a dangerous place, then you need to move. Do you live in a dangerous place?
Does your hand gun make you safer? If you said 'yes', how do you know that? Any data on how safe a gun makes you? Certainly, Nancy Lanza's guns did not make her safer.
The 2A says nothing about protecting yourself with guns.
That a person would do such a horrible thing at his daughters birthday party is utterly sick--and selfish! To the girl and her brother, all I can say is that I hope you both find some resolution to this eventually. And that you both seek out ways to learn how to better live life on life's terms at peace with yourself and others. And please realize--you both did NOT deserve this, and had no control over what happened--it's NOT your fault.
@ Max: We may have some messes here at home, but at least our woman don't get raped and then killed by their rapist in the street, made to marry their rapists, or get the crap beat out them by their husbands because they had sex with another man!!!! You want to talk stupidity 101, middle eastern men obviously don't know the difference between rape and consensual sex!! You're probably just cranky because westernized woman don't put up with men's crap, we're not wearing a rag on our heads, walking behind our husbands and do whatever he says!!!
Creek-Dog said (most rudely and cluelessly):
"You're a woman aren't you!.. Hmmmm. Re-read my post from where you copied the above "again" please and realize, you're the anti-gun people I was referring to.
So, you said, "Getting rid of all guns would be stupid, and quite impossible..." Correct you are!
That said, what's your solution? Please advise..."
Nope, not a woman - just have known more than a few abusers over the years, and their wives sadly will do a lot to cover it up and try to pretend that their "soulmate" isn't beating them up and screaming at them on a daily basis.
So empathy suddenly implies estrogen to you?
Besides, I'm most certainly NOT one of those people that you want to broadly swipe into "the enemy" if they don't fully agree with you. There are not two opinions on the subject, so acting as if there are is amazingly ignorant of you.
You need to take off your black and white goggles and realize there ARE places in between the two polar opposites.
It isn't an easy solution, because law abiding citizens should be able to legitimately defend their homes, go hunting, go sport shooting, etc.
There's nothing more entertaining than to go rifle shooting and actually shoot down the tree that you set up the target on (assuming it's a garbage tree to start with of course), but there's a whole hell of a lot of difference between what you can safely do on your buddy's property in the country and what you can do in a suburban part of the "DFW Metroplex".
I don't happen to own any firearms personally - I can borrow anything I need on shooting outings from friends - so I just have an air rifle; but I do have a variety of cutlery - and if anybody broke into my home, they would not be doing so well, and it doesn't take a .357 Magnum to stop the bad guy.
However when you let people carry handguns with them off their own premises, you're sliding down a slippery slope. You do get the occasional hothead like this jerk who likely straps openly every day... when you piss them off, since they have a gun on their person, there is a chance that it will be used. Somebody's temper tantrum turns from a shout fest into a murder-suicide.
If we required a mental stability test for concealed carry permits, that may catch it some of the time - but you'd have so many people crying foul that it would languish in the courts for years.
People who currently get permits have a clean history... which says nothing about what could possibly make them snap and lose control. Until we close that gap somehow, we will continue to have idiots like this guy not having the balls to just blow himself away if he was that broken up over the upcoming divorce. To leave two orphans, however, is not the action of somebody that you can defend in any way. He lost his temper and killed his children's mother. Then himself. How can you even pretend to yourself that it would have turned out the same way if hothead wasn't strapped that day?
What would you suggest? Besides, that is, denying that this subject DOES need to have some form of long term plan in place.
Divorce laws need to be changed. Custody should default to 50/50 unless you can prove that either parent is not fit for the job. It is devasting to both parent and child (usually the father) to be removed from his childrens' lives simply because his wife is not happy anymore. Women file about 75% of divorces and usually there is another man waiting. Dad finds out one day he's no longer married, his kids will be removed, there is a high probability the ex-wife will engage in parental alienation, and the courts will enforce the support order with threat of jail but won't do anything if she wants visitation.
This is not to excuse what he did. But for someone to say "how could this happen", well, that's how.
Matthew Coons
Isn't what your going on about a violation of my freedom of religion?
So what your saying is that while we have the right to believe in the God of our choosing, yours is more right than anyone else's...... I don't get that.
God loves me for who I am. Nothing you or anyone elses says about it matters....Your not God.
davey-526272
This is utterly ridiculous. many people, espiecally LEO's use their weapons to shoot bad guys all the time. If I hear a bad guy coming into my home you can be I will be the one who gets the drop on him, not the other way around.
Violent crime? Hardly, only when you factor in guns are any rates "much lower". Also the idea that it is only the guns that lead to violence while ignoring social and racial factors is beyond ludicrous. No country in the world is as socially and ethnically diverse as the US. Ignoring all of the other mitigating factors and pretending it's all about the guns is moronic in the least. Ignoring the fact that violent crime has been steadily decreasing in the US also refutes your notion that guns are the problem because over the same time the number of guns has steadily increased.
Right, because crime never happens in "safe" places. Honestly this is such a stupid statement I don't even know how to respond. There just isn't a way to rationally explain away irrationality. Aurora Co, and Newtown, Conn were and are both "safe" places.
"...being necessary to the security of a free state..." So why did they give us the right to keep and bear arms if not to protect ourselves??
Thank You Backcountry164 I was going to point that out (#1.59)......Too funny.
I get that a lot from people that look at life threw a narrow scope (mostly threw their anus).
I have to admit, I'm with Harold of the Rocks on this one. Since the government first invited itself into our bedrooms and decided it knew best how to raise our families and care for our children, it has overstepped its rights to interfere with our lives with absolute blatant disregard for our liberties. Marriage and family matters have become nothing more than another financial windfall for the legal industry and the state since being turned into a business where attorneys and state regulators use us a nothing more than a means of paying for their lifestyles, while placing those most vulnerable at risk. Government has done far more to destroy families and people's lives over the last 20 years than any other institution going.
And who are these so-called experts who get to sit in judgement of us and write the rules by which we will live our lives and become slaves to the system of entitlement when a relationship just doesn't work out? Why, they're the same cynical heavy drinking, crack smoking, overindulgent and overpaid public servants who'd be out on the street standing in a soup line without our forced public funding. Of course, the ones with the better connections are serving in Congress.
I prefer the New Zealand's method of separating partners... when you leave, you do so without any entitlement to the future of your Ex. Just take your stuff and go away; distribute community property evenly, no alimony, no support, and each have an equal requirement to support the children, and an equal entitlement to share them.
By the way Steve-3564331, just wanted to let you know I'm all for the gay marriage thingy. The way I see it, until everyone gets a taste of the hell the state dishes out, nothing will change.
Given today's environment of state intervention, I would never recommend anyone to get married... forget the state sponsored contract. The single life may seem lonely to some, but trust me, it has all the perks of marriage, without the legal contract that will hold you a prisoner to the state. At the very least, get a pre-nup... the ultimate in get out of jail free cards.
Of course they do. But, my statement still stands, and if you do not understand it, then you are in trouble. All you need to do is understand that 7,000 people a year are murdered by someone with a hand gun. Figure that another 40,000 are injured.
Bad guys (i.e. burglers) are famous for not entering houses where there are people. If a bad guy does enter your house, by all means, kill that person. Seriously.
Canada enacted strict gun laws in 1977. The number of murders went down immediately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Violent_crime.2C_suicide_and_accidents_in_Canada
You love guns so you latch on to any facts that support your position. Yes, violent crime has decreased since the early 1990s. But can you prove that guns are the reason for it? Of course not. Here is one person's explanation (please try to read it all the way through, the author is a really smart guy):
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
I'm saying that yes, violence has decreased during a time when the number of guns has increased, but these two things have nothing to do with each other. i.e. how many people have more than one gun? I am saying that if there were fewer guns, especially hand guns, there would be even less violence.
I don't know what they were thinking and I don't care. I know the following:
Hand guns are used kill and injure many each year.
The 2A is a bit vague. It requires judicial interpretation.
The model for reducing the number of machine guns in society worked very well, and in the framework of the 2A. All nice and legal. We need to do the same with hand guns.
ThaMonkeh, apparently math was not your best subject! More than 30,000 Americans are killed each year by guns. That is more than 80 people a day. I highly doubt 1 person out of 270,000,000 is responsible for those deaths. 789 deaths are a result of accidental shootings; that is one too many accidential deaths due to legal owners of the guns involved regardless if they were the shooter or not. More than 17,000 are suicides (most are from legally owned hand guns); again this is one too many regardless if they were the owner or not that should not have been around nor had access to such firearms. More than 12,000 are due to homicides. The real problem comes from legally owned guns. Mental health and ownership of gun types are the issues that are the root cause. Combatting illegal guns is difficult enought without worrying what kinds of firearms are being illegally distributed. Now we deal with the issue of the mentally incompetent regardless if they show signs or not. And abusive spouse or partner should not have access to firearms; people with bad tempers should not have access to firearms; people with mental illness should not have access to firearms and nor should people with criminal records have access to firearms. If you think for one minute that arming everyone is going to solve the problem just look at the Middle East countries where firearms are legal. Israel...yeah, there's a good example of public safety by arming the general public...NOT!!! Only a paranoid person is going to stand with the gun fully loaded and aimed. The chances of that person shooting another unarmed person is much greater than his chances of ever having to use the gun for it's intent purpose in the first place. Getting into an argument with a neighbor that owns a gun also puts the unarmed neighbor at a higher risk of getting shot even though the unarmed neighbor did not make any physical or verbal threat. It is the neighbor with the gun that scares me.
I don't get it. Why would this guy use a gun when reportedly hammers, cars, ladders, and hands are just as effective and easier to get a hold of? Why would anyone use a gun for that matter when we have all these lethal killing instruments around? You Fox watchers better inform your fellow hysterics that there are more effective ways of killing than guns. Maybe you all can start a new hammer collection?
@ davey
You conveniently skip over the fact like I posted above that guns are used far more times for self defense purposes than they are used to kill people.
Depending on the study you look at the the numbers range from 1.5 million - 2.5 million self defense uses of firearms per year. Most of the time this is done without even needing to fire a shot since the mere presence of a gun prevents these people from becoming victims/statistics.
As I also posted above your odds of getting killed by a gun is a small fraction of 1% in the U.S. You should worry more about getting killed in a car wreck or about dropping dead from a heart attack, which are far more likely to happen than getting shot.
Last but not least, if Canada is your idea of a gun free/crime free utopia then I have a simple solution for you. Instead of trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights why don't you pack up & move to Canada.
No need to thank me. I'm glad I was able to solve your problem/fear of inanimate objects.
@ davey
There is a term for people like you - Hoplophobe
Steve, yes you did strike a nerve. To sit there and point out the this happened with a heterosexual couple is asinine! And for you to now stand a judge me because I called you out on your hate for heterosexual people is asinine. I do work in my community with abused kids. And I'm sorry, but you choose to be in a relationship where it is difficult to get kids. And you think just because you have adopt that you value a child's life more? Straight people adopt to! Or what about the Mom's like my self who had to go through countless doctors appointment, and loosing a child to have kids! DO not assume just because you can't have kids of your own you value children more. Its the person who makes the parent not there sexual preferences!
davey-526272
Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
What part of that do YOU not understand??
First, crime has been steadily decreasing since the 1990's with gun violence today HALF what is was then. Second, I never implied the decrease was a result of more guns. My point is that it disproves your theory that less guns equates to less crime. Since Australia banned semi-auto firearms their decline in violent crime mirrors that of the US where there is a semi-auto on every block.
I know what you're saying. I also know that you've got nothing but biased speculation to back it.
You don't care what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights??? Really??? WOW!
Not nearly as many as are killed and injured by drunk drivers which stands at one (killed) per hour here in the US. So where is the outcry from the left for breath analyzing devices in every vehicle which would save many if not most of those lives?? Seems you (by which I mean the left in general) are only concerned about death and injury when it isn't something that will inconvenience you in any way.
The 2nd is the least vague Amendment in the Bill of Rights. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
LOL! There were never even a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of the number of machine guns then as there are handguns now. In addition, to own a machine gun all you need to do is get the gun licensed by the ATF. The cost of buying such a weapon and the cost of shooting the thing have done as much to deter ownership of machine guns as the $1,000 license you need for the gun. Oh, and no it wasn't in the "framework" which is why they were not banned outright.
Shaneal Osterhout Wallace
You sure are full of a lot of hate & anger that for some reason is being placed on me. You again are assuming that I place myself and the LGBT community above anyone else....WRONG.
By continuing to banter on as your doing tells me you need professional help.....For the sake of your children go get help....And yes that was a direct attack towards you....Not the Heterosexual community....So stop trying to speak for them, most don't hold your view.
FYI no where did I say I hated hetero's.....You said I did...Go back and look.
I think the comments on here are most interesting than the story iteself. The story has caused people to open up about their own experiences and thus result in good debate over what the issue really is here: divorce laws, insanity, guns, etc.
Harold,
You have issues. You may have been wronged. But it takes two to make a marriage work and it takes two to make a marriage fail. Can you honestly say that you were satisfying all your wife's needs, or did you play lip service, forget anniversaries, birthdays, choose yourself and your needs consistently over her needs and wants? So stop blaming the "little woman" for the failure of a marriage, especially yours. You failed. Get over it. Move on. Loads of people have suffered worse than you. I know a woman who still stays married to her bastard of a husband who every once in a while, beats the @!$%# out of her. The fact is - being a woman means that your are more likely to be the victim rather than the perpetrator. You can see it from the number of restraining orders, failed restraining orders, and homicides such as these where the man shoots his wife/ex-wife/girlfriend/ex-girlfriend rather than seek mental counseling. What are men - animals who follow their base instincts of retaliation? I hold men to a higher standard because they are HUMAN BEINGS. If you want to argue that I shouldn't - then what are they, animals? Are women superior beings because they are less likely to shoot their boyfriend/ex-boyfriend/husband/ex-husband?
The fact is that this man lost it and was calculating enough to bring a weapon to a birthday party. The screams of premeditation. And it isn't lost on me that the man shot himself after he shot his possession - the wife. Because that's all she was in the end. If you really loved someone, would you really want to hurt them much less kill them? Now stop crying this stupid silly woe is me and all men sob story. If you want - volunteer at a women's shelter. Listen to some of the stories they tell you. And then be damn grateful that you are a man and thus less likely to be a victim of an assault, have legislation on what you can do with your body, be judged for your looks over your ability, and be less likely to be treated as an object/possession.
BackCountry...
Please read the report for yourself, and stop parroting 2nd hand information.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Uh, there is enough evidence to suggest that fewer guns == less murder, that I would not laugh at it, if I were you.
The murder rate for western industrial countries where guns are not plentiful is less than the US.
New York State, which has stricter gun laws than Texas has fewer murders than Texas:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4
Is it easy to buy a machine gun? Were your rights to buy a machine gun infringed?
And let me ask you, are you safer with a hand gun than without one? If you say 'yes', how do you know that?
I need to do some work now. If I reply to you in the next 7 hours, I'm a bad boy.
davey-526272
You mean the one you haven't even attempted to refute??? I have read the report which is why I went with the low number of 1.5 mil instead of the high of 2.5 mil and I quoted the "2nd hand information" because the numbers in the report are in a table that I can't paste here.
I'll stop laughing when you make even some small attempt to back your claims and share this supposed wealth of evidence with the rest of us.
As is the drunk driving rate in countries that ban alcohol. What is your point? The guns are here now, trying to make a comparison to places that NEVER allowed them in the first place is disingenuous at best.
It's not nearly as hard as you think- http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?Keywords=class+3 As I said, the cost of the weapon and the cost of shooting it are as much of a deterrent as the license required. So you are proposing a "solution" that doesn't provide nearly the deterrent that you think it does and fails to address the fact that there are already literally hundreds of millions of handguns currently in circulation.
I know because my firearms are properly secured and because I am proficient in their usage which means my guns are of no threat to me. So, even though the possibility is extremely remote, if I ever do need it I will be safer in that rare situation than I would be without one.
I also know that I will be safer when I am in the backcountry as rifles and shotguns are difficult to carry and they run the risk of "offending" or scaring people such as yourself that I might come across on the trail. You stand on a trail with a mountain lion 20 feet away and tell me how safe you feel with your walking stick as your only means of defense. Been there, didn't need the gun but I sure as hell was glad that I had it.
Yes, it's just a darn shame he didn't stab her to death or beat her to death with a hammer... then everyone on this post could have a happy feel-good moment that no gun was involved.
No Steve I do not need help. I am a good mother, and do not need the advice of a man who can't even remember what he wrote implying his insults of the hetero community. Both of my children are incredibly smart well mannered, happy kids. FYI if gays were intended to have children your anatomy would allow you to do so! Its just not natural. I'm sorry, I have a sister who is gay and while I love her very much I would tell her the same thing.
"Here is yet another shining example of a hetero marriage where innocent children are harmed."
Copied and posted from your first comment earlier! Again, it is the person who makes the parent.
And this, folks, is what it all boils down to. This is why our children are being slaughtered in their classrooms. This is why we lead the so-called civilized world in gun murders. Because of men with this deranged "macho" complex; men who pin their entire sense of masculinity and self-worth to a gun. To them, if you don't worship at the altar of Smith and Wesson, you're just a pussy.
Time to call a duck a duck. There is a certain type of of man who loves guns because apparently he feels like a big tough man when he has one, and like a "limp-wristed" sissy when he doesn't.
thinkfor: I take offense at your remarks toward our men and women of the military who have been trained to kill in the past, present, and future generations. With this knowledge in hand for you, why haven't mass murders happened more frequently? The wide open society of no morals and anything goes is probably the culprit. My opinion. This guy in the article, is a "Scumbag" and it was more than likely his selfish frigging attitude was the problem.
You need to read the report again. The authors do not make any claims as to the number of DGUs.
It is a very good report.
I gave you some. Here are more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-deaths-exceed-motor-v_b_1536793.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americans-guns-danger-defense.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
?? Don't you say more guns equals less crime? I have shown that fewer guns equals fewer murders. That's all.
You really do not know what I think. If I was you, I'd stop arguing based on what I think. Focus on what I say and stop trying to read my mind. The laws concerning the purchase of machine guns has resulted in relatively few people owning machine guns. And that has resulted in relatively little gun violence with machine guns. That's good enough for me.
Yes, I know that there are lots of hand guns in circulation. That's fine, but we have to start somewhere. Can't be daunted. The affect may not be immediate, but our children will have a safer country.
You are investing a lot, a real lot, in a scenario that you admit is highly unlikely to happen. Does not make a lot of sense to me. And on top of that, the policies that you support make it just as easy for the bad guy to get a hand gun. Really makes no sense to me. The only way it makes sense is, You like guns. You just like them.
OK, so your guns are secured and you are proficient. How about other people who buy hand guns? Are their guns stored securely? Are they proficient? What are the risks associated with unsecured hand guns owned by people who do not know how to use them? Any data on what percentage of hand gun owners are proficient in their use, and maintain their proficiency?
The report we have been discussing said that 1/2 of gun owners do not secure their weapons. Is that acceptable? 16% do not secure loaded weapons. Is that OK? Do most people know how to handle their hand guns?
Unfortunately statistics show this is what normally happens with hand guns available in the home. Either the husband kills the wife or the wife kills the husband or the spouse gets depressed and kills his or herself or the kid finds the gun and accidentally kills himself or a friend or someone breaks in the house and steals the gun and kills the kid working at the convenience store or the New Mexico kid gets to the guns and kills the whole family or the kid takes the gun to school and kills one or more classmates. The numbers show that only 1 in 20 gun deaths involve protecting one's home or family Meanwhile we are going to the funerals of the other 19. Sad state of affairs.
To be clear, most hand guns are not used to kill. But when a hand gun is fired, and someone is hit, we most likely do not have a situation where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
Not to worry Harold of the Rocks... jh-2945581 obviously has no idea what you were talking about. He's either newly wed or clueless... same thing, in denial, or whipped to the point of utter submission. He's still caught up in the notion -
jh-2945581... here's a little hint from me and Harold... It takes three to make a marriage, You, Her, and the State. It takes the same three to end one... and it's always a two against one affair. So before you say, "I do," cover your ass-ets, including the future of any children you are blessed with and any future you ever hope to have with a pre-nup. They really work, and anyone who is of the mind, "If I ask her to sign a pre-nup she'll think I don't really love her," BULLSH*T! Just remember, the pre-nup protects both of you, as well as your children, and not just from each other when a breakup occurs... it protects both of you and your children, and all of your futures from the State.
What is this... confession time? Dude, I think you're the one with the issues. Hell, people break up all the time. So what? There's another bus coming in ten minutes... not to sound flippant or crass, but that's life. "Attraction" does not always equal "forever" and it never did. When a relationship works it's the greatest part of your life... when it don't, move on... you only get one chance at life... don't spend it with someone who doesn't want to spent it with you. Everyone who has ever gone through a breakup knows the best way to get over someone is with a good sense of who you are, and someone else who really wants to be with you for being you.
There's a no-sh*t factor... I'm reminded of that every time I drive past a grave yard. So what?
And you've done what so far to help out?
Or, you can chose not to be a victim.
You have a lot to learn about human nature and mental health... but you got close with the "mental counseling" remark. While I will agree there're a lot of nuts on both sides of the gender gap, you've forgotten the third person in every marriage... the State; one of the leading causes of mental breakdowns following a breakup. This is where the state steps in and hands your future and possibly the rest of your natural life over to another because of the entitlement society it has spawned.
1. Uh... yeah. Mammals in fact, and omnivores as well, except for the PETA flakes. So are women. 2. Sorry... I actually find HUMAN BEINGS much more dangerous than your garden variety viper. 3. Covered in answer #1 above, with a safety warning provided in #2.
Back to the no-sh*t factors...? Really...? You think he may have been a little crazy?
Actually, you were closer in the previous statement..."this man lost it," but you fell back into the well of sorrows after that.
I'm guessing no... hence, the mental health issues, which bring us right back to the State; the one those who crack really want, but virtually impossible to fight.
Yup... whipped into submission.
Hate to be there bearer of bad news jh-2945581... but the state already has a legislative plan for your butt should you ever submit to their legal license to marry and then decide to back out for what ever reason, and it has everything to do with your looks, your ability, and the fact you are just an object... one with a checkbook.
Pre-nup... think of it as a legal life preserver. It really can save your life.
I reread my post three or four times and I still can't figure out what you're rambling on about Steve. I never said anything about religion. The fact that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that I view it as sinful in no way infringes on your freedom of religion. You are free to believe and act anyway you want as long as you aren't infringing on my rights. Many things are sins, that doesn't mean the government should, or I want the government to, legislate on those matters. Nor does it mean I think you should be denied any freedoms available to any other human being.
I'm going to take a wild guess here: you don't live in Texas?
Hasn't anyone commented that if the dad had given his daughter a gun for her birthday, her mother might still be alive?
Or maybe the birthday girl would be dead too.
Guns: the fun never ends. (Until you're dead.)
Let's drop the good guy/bad guy and criminal/law-abiding citizen dichotomy as an argument. We are all capable of acting irrationally under duress. We are all "good" guys until we do something bad. We are all "law-abiding" citizens until we commit a crime.
This guy, whatever his excuses or motivations, ended the lives of his wife and himself in a bloody, brutal way that will forever scar their children.
Maybe he went to his in-laws house that evening as a good guy, but he died there as a bad guy and a criminal.
He used a gun. He could have killed his wife another way, but it was very easy to put the gun to his own head then, wasn't it? He was a violent coward who could not face rejection and reality. He could not face living with the consequences of murdering his wife, so he killed himself as well.
End of story.
MaxsMommy
Your statement shows me that you live under a rock:
We may have some messes here at home, but at least our woman don't get raped and then killed by their rapist in the street, made to marry their rapists, or get the crap beat out them by their husbands because they had sex with another man!!!! You want to talk stupidity 101, middle eastern men obviously don't know the difference between rape and consensual sex!
This goes on in this country too although I don't know why you have to drag middle-eastern men into this (Have you ever even met one in your narrow little world?). Women don't get the crap beaten out of them for sleeping with someone other than their husbands? They get beaten up because the husband only thinks she is. Women are raped and killed here, too. Accuse someone of rape, and her own sexual past is dragged through the mud during the rape case. And don't kid yourself that there haven't been parents who forced their under-age girls to marry their attacker if he was a good God-loving guy from their same little church so as not to bring shame upon her. Women are raped by their husbands, too...Not consensual, although in some archaic places men have a right to expect their wives to be available whenever they want. This is really off-topic, but you had to bring in the Middle-eastern men into something that has nothing to do with anything.
Aahh, Texans and their toys. Happy Birthday, kiddo, it's every 16 yr. old's dream.
Birthday parties should be banned.
It would be better to ban guns.
good morning, takenaka.
Uh, no takenaka, guns should not be banned. Better background checks, yes. Heck, maybe even medical clearance by a shrink, fine. But do not ban and take away all guns.
Just remember, you ban something and criminals will still find a way to get said item. It'll just leave the good folks disarmed and unable to protect themselves. Just look at that awesome Georgia mom who shot her intruder who would have most likely harmed her, and her young children (I mean the guy was CHASING them through the house).
As for this tragedy, it's sad. But sometimes people do snap. This is just part of being human. Every single person is capable of snapping. We all have a breaking point, which many of us do not like to admit. But it's true. Obviously this guy couldn't handle the humiliation he may have felt from the separation.
If the mother had a gun takenaka, then she could have killed this SOB.
What a selfish act. Now his poor daughter's birthday will be a reminder of this tragedy. This man obviously needed some counseling. It's sad when people commit suicide and I wish it wouldn't happen but darn I wish they would stop taking other people with them.
I bet the Guy who murdered his wife WASN'T a mental case, I also bet there was no Autopsy to determine if his mental state was in any form of chemical imbalence....meaning he needed to be medicated....most likely it was just an outright Murder, then a Coward...Oh excuse me, a really couragous act of taking his own life, not to face a Life behind bars or a death sentence....but Ban Guns....please give me a break....BAN KILLERS...BAN MURDERS....BANNING GUNS is like BANNING FORKS AND SPOONS BECAUSE OF FAT PEOPLE...HELL BAN CARS....More people are killed in Them then by guns...BAN THE GUNS THE POLICE HAVE....Ban the military weapons...Oh wait....HOW ABOUT BAN ALL RIGHTS...then GUNS WON'T be an issue....just criminals will be raping, stealing, and murdering ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO GUNS...that kinda of logic...this has to be coming from CRAZY PEOPLE...WHO HATE THAT PEOPLE CAN PROTECT THEMSELVES...
If I am a man who knows how to handle a gun or a rifle, to protect myself and family and property from those hell bent on doing my family and property harm or injustice...why should i let a MOB of people under MOB RULE over throw my Rights or my Guns, and leave me and my Family Prey to the Criminals...Oh I get it...If I am Disarmed, then the POLICE have Job security...Now it all makes Sense....BUT WHO THEN is LIABLE for FAILING TO PROTECT ME...Being I CAN't PROTECT MYSELF or Anything for that matter....THE MOB is LIABLE....BAN ALL MOB RULE...BAN DEMOCRACY...It's Mob rule...Majority rule...is Mob rule.....God Save our Republic.
Do the only sensible thing, BAN LibertyandFreedom....blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Liberty, speaking of meds...
Hand gun. So dangerous. You put one in your pocket. Move freely among your intended victims. They have no idea of the danger that is upon the. A nd then, when the time is right, you pounce.
Without a doubt, if I was to ever go postal, I would choose a hand gun for my murder weapon.
Harry Ruby killed Lee Harvey with a hand gun in a room full of cops. And TV cameras.
Machine guns are heavily regulated. You can't legally purchase them in some states. Not that many people have machine guns, good or bad. So, gun control can work, if you have good laws.
Because there are so many hand guns, it is easy for the bad guys to get them. 100,000s of hand guns are stolen each year. No biggie, if your hand gun is stolen, just go out any buy you another hand gun.
And if pigs had wings they could fly. American will NEVER (I said NEVER) be a country of citizens walking around in public with hand guns, ready at a moment's notice to whip 'em out and start blasting.
Relatively few Americans own hand guns, and fewer still walk around in public, or at children's birthday parties, with a hand gun. I mean, can someone here tell me about friendly fire? What happens in a gun battle? Do friendlies every get hit?
The essence of being a gun nut is telling everyone that they need to carry a hand gun. But this is crazy. Life is short. A normal person will want to enjoy life. Not live life like you are in a war zone.
Hand guns are used at least 20 times more often to murder than in a justifiable homicide. A hand gun gives the attacker such a big advantage.
I American was smart, we would find a way to reduce, even if only over time, the number of hand guns in the hands of civilians. Much bigger problem than assault rifles.
Did you know that in 1934, when legislation to restrict machine guns was made, they came 'this close' to also including hand guns in the same category as machine guns? Man, did they miss a big opportunity. At least half a million Americans are dead since 1934, because hand guns are so easy to get.
Here in Georgia, just recently, a man was jailed. He was a prominent member of society who got strung out on drugs. His wife, in the process of filing for divorce, beg and pleaded with the judge to please not let him out or to protect her. She knew he was going to kill her. The judge said all she could do was to provide a restraining order. This woman, anti-gun, begged. This man was violent.
So, restraining order received, less than 2 days of getting out of jail, he walks into her garage and STABS her to death. Then robbed a CVS pharmacy for Oxicotin.
So, all the stupid gun law debates and stuff aside....this woman knew, as did the judge and law enforcement, that this man would kill her. And he did. However, SHE wasn't protected under the law- he was basically given carte blanche- a monster who was set free.
However, for the fair sake of argument, knowing your life is in danger, why wouldn't you own a gun?
Watch Obama go forth with ANOTHER Executive Order because of all these shootings, and have the Feds forcefully come into your homes and take all guns away. I wouldn't put it past him! I agree with more thorough backgrounds checks, but what really needs to be tackled is again, the mental health problem we have!! It all starts with how parents raise thier kids.
davey-526272
In the VAST majority of cases in which a firearm is used to deter a crime it is never even fired. Statistics can be made to prove any point when you only look at a fraction of the variables.
Jeepgal66
Despite the beliefs of those on both sides of this issue, there are limitations on what the President can do by Executive order. Also, any such order would have to get past the SCOTUS which would NEVER happen even if he had personally appointed each and every one of the Justices.
The right to own firearms is protected by the Constitution, a ratification of Constitution would be required and there will never be 2/3's of the states willing to accept that.
I hope to God (or "goodness" for all you religion haters) that is true, Backcountry, because things could get pretty bloody if this country continues to have leaders who thumb their noses at the documents written to create this country.
Could Mrs. Suckla have known that he was capable of this kind of violence and this is why she left the marriage for her parent's home??? This selfish jerk obviously never once thought about his children or his in-laws and what this would do to them.
Condolences to the family and friends.
That's the slippery slope about gun ownership... indeed, that's the problem of living in society in general.
To suspect that someone is capable of such violence is one thing. To convince law enforcement of it when there isn't enough evidence--or the spouse fears filing charges, which might escalate the situation--is another. If someone has shown no overt actions and has no "priors," then there's nothing that can be done to prevent them from buying a lethal weapon or even to issue a restraining order.
And then we get into the issue of civil rights. Who is it that should decide if you are or are not worthy of owning a gun? Who is it that should decide if you are or are not mentally ill to the point of confinement/restraint, psychological care and medication? At what point do you, the individual, lose your freedoms because others deem you unworthy of being in society to certain degrees?
StandUp, you're taking this to a whole other level. There's a lot more to this story than what's here. We don't even know if he owned a firearm before this tragic event. Violence involves more than just firearms.
That's right; "guns don't kill people...."
Those poor children.
No Annie, guns don't kill people. People take guns with them when they want to kill people.
Good morning, chefaz.
You are supposed to ignore the tragedy that occurred to the young girl on her sixteenth birthday... one that she will forever remember as, in the future when friends and loved ones try to find a way to celebrate the occasion of her birth that won't remind her that on that day her father murdered her mother.
Instead, you are supposed to be focusing on the gun. Just the gun. Let your mind focus on the gun. Speak and think only of the gun.
And do not, under any circumstances, think of any of the gang killings that have happened in Detroit, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia or any of the other cities around the country that speak to the fact that gun control of citizens who obey the law will never impact those who don't.
screminimimi.
I see it is becoming a terrible strain for you and others to try to focus attention away from the obvious with gun tragedy after gun tragedy. Guns have no constructive role as a common household object in America. The harm they cause far outweighs the perceived good.
Americans have become gun dependent and gun addicted to the economic benefit of the gun pushers. The rationalization from those gun dependent folks, like you, are so transparent and much like a junkie arguing to keep their drug, rather than develop more healthy ways of coping.
gm mimi
If it weren't for guns, your screen name might have been Kanaka instead of Kama'aina.
Denver - So if guns were not invented there is no way we could have had freedom?
x
Let's not go there the what if's are never ending.
gm DB
For some reason when I tried to vote for your comment my screen skipped and I voted for the fool who posted right above you.
I see it is becoming a terrible strain for you to remember that I post on almost every thread about having to use my gun twice this last year to discourage men who tried to rob me. I live alone in the woods and am a single woman and it takes law enforcement approximately 25 minutes to reach me when called.
So yes, guns have a constructive role as a common household object in my life.
My son-in-law used his to fill the freezer, kill coyotes that were after his chickens which are a source of food supply for his family, and to kill a vicious dog he suspected of rabies that was terrorizing my granddaughter.
So yes, guns have a constructive role as a common household object in his life.
You, however, have no constructive role in a serious debate about constructive ideas as to how to limit their accessibility to either criminals or emotionally/mentally disturbed individuals while allowing citizens such as myself to retain them for personal protection.... get a clue... phone a friend... ask the audience...
You paint with too broad a brush. I can't say we would or would not have had freedom. I note for the record the lack of examples of people with bows and spears winning their freedom from people with firearms.
Hey folks! Focus on those poor kids, not to mention the older grandparents who will probably now become their guardians. And by the way, after 20 years, I doubt that Ms. Suckla left him because she thought he might be hurtful, unless his personality had been undergoing some changes, over time. We'll never know. But take the gun debates to another forum...anyone who knows them and could be reading this might just be stupid enough to quote one of you in front of one of the family members or (Heaven forbid) one of the children.
Yet another one of the many daily suburban murders that Rush Limbaugh, et al. will ignore or try to cover up by pointing to Detroit or Chicago.
I tend to disagree on this point based on two things. The first is that he was selfish enough to kill his daughter's mother on her birthday, of all things, at the home of the grandparents... a place that he knows his daughter will end up having to live and will have to face the ghosts of his actions every minute of every day she spends in the house. That shows a level of utter selfishness and psychotic need to control indicative of someone capable of physical violence to implement and contain it.
The second is the comment of the neighbor who lived next door to them who said they always seemed to get along so well and he had been convinced that the wife would return in a short while.
Men who are the best abusers always manage to keep up a good front, portraying themselves as loving and above board, with their abuse carefully behind closed doors. And they are the most dangerous kind. He killed his wife, but not his child, which seems to show he had a fixation about his wife as his "property." And I'll bet that while she lived with him, he could tell you to the tenth of a mile the odometer reading on her vehicle.
mornin mimi- This poor girl, all her birthdays from here on out will be marred with this I 100% agree, my Grandmother died on my 19th birthday and 18 years later my birthday always has a ring of sadness to it, this is much much worse. My daughter turns 16 tomorrow, I can't imagine her ever having to go through this. My thoughts and prayers are with the family.
When I first clicked on the article I said to myself "please don't be Texas, please don't be Texas" alas I was disappointed to see it was, seems to me people who don't live here have a special hatred for my state so I doubt I'll scroll down and read many more of the comments.
chefaz-1319563
He probably didn't give that a thought. People under grievous stress don't normally consider the outside world, they are too consumed by their pain. Sounds more like a crime of passion to me and a very good reason for much better and more comprehensive gun control legislation.
Standup -
Thank you for your thoughtful post at 3.1.
Seems there are three kinds of people left in this country: those who value their freedoms, those who don't, those who would take them away (politicians).
Those who don't cannot understand why those who do are concerned; after all, the government will look out for us all. This results in those who do care being labeled "nutz" and paranoid. (Some can only think in slogans).
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Take a loving father's children away from him, and watch him quickly lose his mind. This was probably a crime of passion, but not because the father was heartbroken his wife left him. He was heart broken that his children were stolen from him.
What if the reason for the break up was the woman found a new boyfriend? If she hasn't committed adultery, then she's committed no crime. She gets the kids BY DEFAULT. It's now on DAD to fight to get his kids back... which is very hard to do. Most lawyers will tell you to not even try because it's a huge chunck of cash to bring a lawyer into a courtroom and... the man won't win!
This is CUSTODY law issue, not a gun control issue. To quote from another post below:
Yep, it sure does happen. But when it happens, it's the DAD that gets screwed out of his children. He may not have done anything egregious to force the marriage to end, but it doesn't matter.... now he ONLY sees his kids 2 days a week! And he has to pay child support to pay for kids to live elsewhere, possibly at mom's new boyfriend's place!
Divorce laws need to change, not gun laws. Fair divorce laws would have prevented this tragedy, not more gun restrictions. He didn't shoot her with an assault rifle.
I am NOT justifying this man's murderous actions.... but I do feel the pain he went through. He was wrong, but I can only imagine a situation where this wouldn't occurred if the law wouldn't have taken his children away from him, BY DEFAULT.
Harold,
Simply put, a father that would commit the act described here is not fit to be a custodial parent. If indeed that was the mechanism here, someone made a very good decision in not letting this person have custody.
Harold, give it a rest. This isn't about you or parents who don't go shoot people and themselves. A guy doesn't turn into a killer over his wife moving to her parents for a bit with the kids unless he is already unstable. Really...this isn't about you or any friends you saw what you describe happen to. Many, many women are treated like crap in the divorce process as well, and it's not all about you or what you want. Some women do awful things and some men do as well. My ex paid a total of about 200 dollars over many years my son was growing up and did awful things, and shooting him never, ever entered my mind. It didn't make me insane, although I was not happy with his behavior or the laws that allowed him to get away with not helping out. It just didn't enter my mind to go shoot anyone, and you will find that most live through it without murdering anyone.
This just isn't about your situation or divorce laws, and while I could make it about several issues I won't. Your posts show you need some healing and I kind of hope you have no gun handy since you seem to think it's understandable that a man want to go shoot people, but this is about that family.
mpa: You've got the entire population of the US in three convenient categories. Rather simplistic.
I own a gun, and pray to God that I'll never use it on another life form. I will not kill for my car, my TV, my telescope, my guitars or my golf clubs. I couldn't bring myself to the conclusion that any of these objects are worth anyone's life. Exercising the death penalty when being offended by a thief seems just a bit hysterical to me. Protecting my, and the lives of my family? I will do what needs to be done.
And please note that there is no mention of weapons in the Jefferson quote you've noted. He used the term 'vigilance' rather than the term 'violence'. Considering his level of literacy and eloquence, it is unlikely to be an oversight on his part.
The teen-agers are teen-agers. They would have had a say in which parent they lived with. The parents were not divorced when this happened. "Estranged" means that she had moved out.
Harold,
Keep in mind that child support is calculated based on the earnings of BOTH parents, as well as what the state thinks the cost of child rearing is at the time in the lifestyle that they were accustomed to.. When I was divorced, I was the primary breadwinner so my ex-husbands contribution was minimal. If he didn't have a job, it would have been zero.
Ram... was I trying to say this was about me or my friends? Didn't think so... that's just you adding nonsense into the discussion.
Yeah, but they have the kids, which is ALL that matters.
Meanwhile, the women who do awful things have custody of the kids, by default.
I have experience with this issue and my whole point is simple.... if you're looking to change the laws to prevent this kind of tragedy, LOOK TO CHANGE THE CUSTODY LAWS, not the gun laws. That's where the solution is.
Did I talk about my ex or how much I am paying her? Did I give any details about of my divorce? Didn't think so. Please continue to tell me how this all about me (and my friends), while you describe in detail how it's actually about you.
In NO way, can I understand how a guy would shoot his children's mother on his daughter's 16th birthday. While I have walked in this man's shoes, I have never once cleaned his gun. For you to assume otherwise is a HUGE stretch.
Annie : It could have been the Cake Knife just as easy as a gun.
Ro Mar : Where does it state in the article that this guy wasn't allowed by the courts to see or have custody of his kids? If you have more info regarding this article, when you make a statement that's not referenced in this article, maybe you can cite a source for your info? If not, then you are making a awful, wild assumption. Not trying to attack you, just trying to be fair here with what info is given here. The article did state someone as saying that "they were getting along well since their separation" and "that they thought that she would be back after a little while."
Some of you people are totally sick. Maybe you should be the ones that go get tested by the CDC. Where are all your sick comments when nealy one a week you read about people cutting up their kids and putting them in trash bags. You read about finding children in dumpsters. You read about kids beate to death,kept in cages,and closets,and you want to jump on the adults that did the crime. You want to see them killed the sameway,as most of us do. But the minute someone is killed with a gun,you are so fired up to attack the guns,and the NRA,instead of the people that did it. My God when are you going to understand that gun did not pull its own trigger.It seems he went their to kill his wife and daughter,and would have done it with a knife baseball bat or whatever.Your president has got you people so misinformed that it's affecting your ability to think straight. We are trying to protect our second ammendment that our government is trying to strip from us. I sure many of you have lost loved ones in your family line that died in WW1,or WW2, or VIETNAM, or Korea,and nowin the war across the ocean. They took the same oath i took in 1965 to protect my country and the CONSTITUSION of the US. God rest these two people souls,and I pray to you now Lord to stop this maddness in our world today. Rid this world of it's most commen threat to our lives. DRUGS Amen
GM screminmimi. Very well stated all throughout this and as usual, have thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts.
GM Debora. Good post, you're looking very well and your pup is adorable.
piglizard, you said
Respectfully disagree with your assessment. His family at least would have / should have been his "inside world" no matter how much stress unless he was just a MEMEME type of person and without going into a psychological dissection of all this, selfish MEMEME is exactly where this horrible tragedy came from, IMHO. I think he gave this a great deal of thought and stated so at post 10.1.
I agree chefaz. Don't think it was a "crime of passion" but more a cold blooded play of revenge, and done at maximum effect calculated to hurt everyone.... the daughter and the grandparents as well.
Otherwise, he would not have done this on the daughter's birthday, and at the grandparent's house where he knew his daughter would have to live with both he and his wife out of the picture. I cannot imagine the emotional pain that child will endure every day she has to be in that home where her mother was killed.
And the grandparents! Their home was defiled with the death of their daughter by the father of the granddaughter they will have to raise.
What a selfish, cruel man.
Harold,
I don't know what state you are in but in my state (WA) the woman does not get the children by default. We had to file a parenting plan. Ours was 50/50 - it was difficult, it required hard work on both of our parts but we made it work. No child support since we were contributing equally and theoretically made the same amount. We kept the kids out of the issues between us & also somehow managed to provide a united front when dealing with schools etc. Also in this state when a child hits 13 he/she is considered mature enough to decide which parent to stay with.
My prayers to this family and all the survivors - they have a long hard road to travel because of one person's sick, selfish actions.
Harold...I am sorry that life was not fair to you.... Guess what, no one said anything was going to be fair in life. Everyone here can attest to that fact...but we aren't rubbing your face in our woes... Time to move on. You can't claim what a loving and devoted father/husband this guy was based on YOUR life. The children were both teens...by law, old enough to CHOOSE which parent they would live with... Shoots your "thousands and thousands" claim for this guy out of the water. Maybe, they grew apart...maybe, after 20 years, she had simply taken all she was going to take...and left. We don't know and will probably never know. But this is NOT ABOUT YOU... so stfu...
No one takes a gun to a birthday party unless they plan on using it... If it hadn't been a gun, it would have been a knife or a rock or a tire iron... or his bare hands. For whatever reason, this guy was going to get his revenge. He certainly wasn't thinking of his kids when he made sure that each and every birthday this girl has from now, until the end of her days is nothing more than a reminder of when her father murdered her mother. Loving, devoted father?...yeah, right...
Condolences to the children and the extended family. I cannot begin to imagine your pain...
RoundRobin,
In my response to Harold's suppositions, please note the "IF" that were the case.
Also, having just read your entry above, I want to say what a great parent you appear to be, based on your tale. I wish more parents had your dedication in regards to your children, particularly in light of the conflict you endured and how you availed yourself of all your resources to protect, nurture, and support your children and reduce the impact of that conflict upon them. They are fortunate children, indeed.
SDN -
simplistic, yes, but I got you to think about it. Simplistic, but Wrong?
Jefferson had pleanty to say about an armed populace - read on.
To the idiots that say "guns don't kill people" or those who say "cars kill, let's ban cars"....what exactly is the purpose for manufacturing guns? And what exactly is the purpose for manufacturing cars?
Guns are for KILLING; cars are for TRANSPORTING!
I rest my case!!!
ram-762581,
Notice how it is you and only other women that believe the bs you are spewing. Men always get screwed in divorce. Children by default go with the mother. Even Lisa doesnt get the fact that in WA children go with their mother around 80% of the time. Lisa, you may have been nice, but if you chose to be self centered, the children would be all yours. I agree with Harold, we would see a lot less of these crimes if men didnt get screwed in every divorce.
Always sign pre-nups. It makes no sense to allow someone to take everything from you if they get bored.
I didn't want to get into this, but after reading so many of the posts here, I really need to say something.
I was an abused child of an abused wife. My father had many good qualities, but temper control was not one of them. The lesson I took away from this was never to let myself become an abused wife. And I didn't. Before we were married, I told my fiance in no uncertain terms that if he ever hit me, I would be gone so fast he wouldn't even see my a** go through the door. He accepted that, and said that wife-beating was reprehensible, and unjustified.
Fast-forward ten years. He's having an affair with his secretary (how trite). He comes home, I confront him on it, and I get slugged. Really hard. I have an inch-long scar (still, 45 years later) inside my lip to show for it. I told him right then and there, that's it. He's crossed the line, and now the piper would be paid.
It took us another eight months or so to untangle our finances so he and I could each live on what we made (My job paid nearly as much as his, so I wasn't at the disadvantage many women are.)
First we filed for legal separation, as it was before the days of no-fault (irreconcilable differences) divorce in California. We spent three years in that status, then filed for divorce.
He wanted the children to live with him, and I was OK with that. He had pretty much coerced me into the marriage in the first place, and raising children is not one of my talents (although both of them would tell you differently; they think I was a good mother. Go figure.).
When we obtained our divorce it was still necessary to go to court and lay out your parenting plan to the judge. We did this, petitioned for joint custody, and the judge insisted someone had to be assigned physical custody, and we agreed it would be my husband. No questions asked, no advantages given to me because I was a woman.
I asked for no alimony and he asked for no child-support. Of my own will, I paid him child support in an amount we agreed between us. The court had nothing to say about it. I had as much access to the children as I wanted, and he made no effort to restrict it in any way. If we both wanted to do something with the children on the same week-end, we negotiated that. This arrangement continued until he kicked our son out of his home, at which point our son came to live with me. I then supported our son, while my ex supported our daughter. Again, agreed to by both of us, no lawyers or court involved.
We had had plenty of battles for a couple of years before the final break, and each of us inflicted hurt on the other; neither of us would deny this even to this day. But when it came time to break up the household, we did it in a civilized manner, and with a responsible attitude toward our children.
Now think back to the night he slugged me. Had there been a gun in our house, I could have picked up that gun and shot him dead. There is no going back from that point. There was no gun, and even had there been, it's not an option I would have taken. Even in a blind fury, I retained enough sanity not to do anything rash.
We had knives in the house, we had tools galore (both of us were tool freaks), and I probably could have picked up a chair or a large wrench and beaten him over the head, had I been the kind of person to do that. But that would have taken a whole lot more energy than firing a gun, and I would have had to get up very close and personal to inflict any real damage.
I once took a class, for academic interest, in close-combat techniques and tactics. No, it wasn't one of those self-defense classes they offer women, this was simply the theory and practice of close combat. After a morning spent in drills with various weapons, most of them about three feet long, it was time to 'shadow box' as it were. That is, to practice what we had been drilling in slow motion with others in the class. The first time I confronted an opponent at arm's length, I was shocked. The chills came up my back, and I'm sure my neck hairs stood on end. Up to that point it was all academic to me. I was horrified to see how close one would have to be to inflict any kind of damage on an opponent.
So I put it to those of you who are saying that if he hadn't had a gun he could have used a knife, hammer, stick, whatever. Do you really think that's an option? Have you any real idea what that takes? I do. The point I'm making here is that a gun may be fired from a safe distance. You don't need to invade another person's space to do it. Killing someone with a gun is a whole lot easier than killing that same person with a hand-to-hand combat weapon no matter how you think you might respond. Have you ever tried it? And, frankly, if you fire a gun at someone, you are much liklier to kill that person than if you had to go hand-to-hand. In a close-in situation, your opponent can defend him/herself. With a gun, none of that comes into play.
There are many suicides that are gun deaths; I heard someone reliable say the other day that there are more successful gun suicides than gun murders. Yes, there are other ways to kill yourself besides a gun. But they're not as reliable, and with a gun you're much more likely to succeed the first time you try.
Who should have a gun, who should not? Who is likely to snap in the moment, and who is not? There is no mental health professional who is willing to go out on that limb, nor is it likely that any kind of mental health exam can be devised that will both make that determination with confidence and pass legal muster.
This case is a case in point. Everyone thought these people were a wonderful, loving couple, the last people you'd expect to end up like this. Yet the husband snapped when push came to shove, and now there are two orphaned children who will have horrible memories to live with the rest of their lives. Clearly this man should not have had access to a gun, but who knew?
This is the reason that people such as myself who favor some form of gun control would prefer there be fewer weapons out there to begin with. You never know who's going to snap and who isn't. No existing gun laws would have prevented the tragedies at Aurora or Newtown -- no argument. But if guns were just a bit harder to obtain in the first place, maybe they wouldn't have been so close at hand when Holmes and Lanza snapped.
A gun kills from a distance, and yes, is fired by a person. To kill someone up close and personal is a whole other kettle of fish. And I can't resist adding that the woman (in Georgia, I think) who defended herself and her children with a gun did exactly what a responsible gun-owner should do, although I do wonder why it came so easily to hand if it were properly stored. But that's another issue.
I'm a liberal, and I believe in the 2nd Amendment; I don't want to confiscate your guns. Not only would that be illegal, it can't, as a practical matter, be done. I'd like us all to dial back the rhetoric a bit and look for sensible solutions we can all live with.
publia--First, thank you for sharing your personal experience here, and I commend you for your boundaries set with your ex-husband, and somehow the both of you were able to work out arrangements acceptable to both of you, and did not use the children for manipulation--which definitely made it easier on the children.
I agree that it is a lot easier to kill or injure a person with a gun than hand to hand combat. I took a self defense course--it was a gift to me by my first husband, who was chronically ill with a disease that took his life several years later. I worked as a Substance Abuse Counselor in a dangerous part of town, and he wanted to be sure that I could defend myself if the need arised. Just knowing I could defend myself gave me more confidence and that in and of itself will help to fend off most attackers--perps look for the most vulnerable, and tend to leave more confident people alone. There are exceptions to that, of course, but those exceptions are few and far between. At the end of the class, the instructor dressed up in padding from head to toe and in order to get our certificate, we had to hit him hard enough with all maneuvers learned, that if he had not been all padded up, we would have seriously hurt him. This was back in the 1990's, and I'm older now--I would probably hurt myself worse if I ever had to do it (I had to go to the chiropractor after the class!). In fact, if I ever had to try to protect myself from someone who knew the martial arts moves I learned--I would be at a disadvantage because of my age (My back and knees aren't as strong as they used to be) The reason I bring this up, is to point out that there are times when a person (the elderly, and essentially anyone not as strong or fighting-experienced as a perp) must use a firearm for protection if they are to survive an attack. My second husband and I have both a German Shepherd and a shotgun for home defense, and we both figure that the sound of a big dog barking, and a round chambering would probably scare off any sane burgler or robber and we wouldn't have to fire a single shot. Both my husband and I are well trained, neither of us are 'trigger happy' in the use of firearms--we mostly hunt with them, we also like to go out on the range and play skeet. I agree with your last sentence, by the way-- "I'd like us all to dial back the rhetoric a bit and look for sensible solutions we can all live with." I for sure, do not want felons or psychotic people to be able to legally obtain a gun. That is why I am in favor of background checks.
What a horrible tragedy. It is possible the wife suspected he was capable of this kind of violence.
The general public need to be trained to recognize escalating actions by mentally and emotionally unstable people. We need to be able to recognize these signs and report them to authorities so the disturbed individual can be assessed and treated and perhaps hospitalized until they are no longer a threat to themselves and others.
textrish, I wish it were that simple. Women often recognize the man they are involved with is dangerous. Some women are beaten regularly but dare not leave the man. Some get restraining orders before he murders them.
The problem is that law enforcement will not listen to the woman and a restraining order is no protection at all.
This woman had left the man after 20 years of marriage. There must have been a very strong motivation to leave her home and move in with her parents. Given the fact that her husband was capable of not only murdering her, but doing so on his daughter's "sweet sixteen" birthday, leaves no doubt that he was a sadistic POS. Im sure his wife had been cognizant of the "signs" for many years.
This is a failure of the legislative and judicial systems that still treat women as if they are a man's property. If you doubt this, remember how many times Nicole Simpson begged for help from law enforcement who chose instead to fawn over her famous husband. Police forces are made up of men and a few women who are wannabe men. In case after case after case, they side with the man.
I speak from experience.
And yes, I think in these cases a woman should not only get a gun, but if the situation is severe enough, should consider using it early rather than late.
Anything is possible..but there doesn't seem to be any history or record of it.
Patter, I left my husband after 20yrs of marriage too. He was never violent, he didn't cheat on me, and he never owned a gun. We simply grew apart over the years. It happens.
Janine, difficult as it might seem to grasp, this isn't about you. That incompatible married couples divorce is not the issue here.
Adult males do not grab a gun (or several), head off to murder the wife - then also shoot himself in front of his and other kids, on the daughter's birthday - without a history of violence. The violence could be recently in his adult life, married or when single, as a child or as a teen, but it will be there. Engaging your family in combat warfare is not normal. It's not as if he snapped over the kind of birthday cake at the party.
No, the fact that a woman can leave a man after 20 years and take his children with her is the issue. The fact the woman gets the kids, by default, even if the break-up is "all her" and isn't mutual is the issue. The fact that the MAN has to spend 10s of thousands in legal fees just to ATTEMPT to get his children back is the issue.
No, he probably just found out about her new boyfriend and the fact that he STILL can't do anything to get his kids back unless he can somehow PROVE adultery. Maybe that's what made him snap?
Look, this guy was WRONG WRONG WRONG. But if people want to change "the laws" to try to prevent this tragedy from happening in the future, then look to change the DIVORCE and CUSTODY laws, not the gun laws. Fair divorce laws could have prevented this tragedy, not draconian gun laws.
The guy was wrong. NO argument there. What I was saying is based on the previous presumptions that she left because he had been violent before and that's why she left him. I'm just making the point that maybe he wasn't violent before. There are other reasons that a woman leaves her husband.
He brought the gun with him to the party, and then shows premeditation to me. He wasn't crazy. This wasn't an act of passion. He planned it.
Littlechanges,
Maybe she was the one doing the abusing and he had enough of her abuse. Or maybe she had a "new" boyfriend and that prompted her to want to leave him. Why don't we all stop speculating on what was happening behind the bedroom door because we don't have ANY FACTS!
This is another case of undiagnosed, untreated mental illness. It is a terrible, terrible tragedy. This young woman now has to proceed into adulthood with the memory of what happened to her parents on her sixteenth birthday. This should have been a happy event full of hope, good wishes and blessings. Instead, it was turned into a horror show. I worked in outpatient mental health for many years and have seen situations which, with the proper intervention and treatment, people are prevented from going to such extremes. We continue to argue over gun control. We hack away at each other over "the right to bear arms". My friends, it is not gun control that is the problem. It is temper control, stress control, medication control and the understanding of another human being. If you are having problems in your life, for the love of all that you hold dear, reach out to someone. A pastor, a doctor anyone. Do not try to deal with life and all its stressors alone. You are NOT alone. If you have a friend or family member who is under extreme stress, talk to them. Let them know you care and offer to help them find assistance. Locate your local department of social services. Someone can help you. My condolences to all involved and my blessing to all reading this. Please, PLEASE reach out for help before someone does something for which there is no solution....
How do you figure he had a mental illness? Could it simply be that he was angry at her for leaving him? Is anger a mental Illness? If so, then I would say EVERYONE in the country must be mentally ill. For sure all of us have been angry at one time or another in our lives.
All of us have felt pain, through divorce, death in the family, medical problems, loss of job. Does that make us mentally ill?
Many of us have felt depressed during those times. Some of us reach out for counseling or medications, and some of us don't. Does being depressed make us mentally ill? Does no seeking help make that illness worse? Or can some of us just work through that depression on our own?
We use the term "Mental Illness" as a scapegoat without having a firm diagnosis of what is considered mental illness. If being depressed is a mental illness does that mean that EVERYONE who has lost their job/home/family etc is potentially violent? Based on that I would guess that a good 80% of the population would be listed under that term "Mental Illness" then. I am sure that at least 80% of us have suffered from job loss, divorce, death at some time in our lives or another.
Does being on medication for depression/mental illness make one potentially violent? I am an epileptic and at one time took an anti convulsant called Neurontin. A friend of mine also took it for muscle spasms. It is also used for depression. Would me using Neurontin automatically keep me from owning a gun simply because it's used for depression?
There are just too many factors involved to make a blanket statement regarding gun regulations.
Should the mentally ill be kept from owning guns? Certainly. But there must be firm statutes set down as to what who is considered dangerous.
The "children" are teen-agers and could have chosen to stay with their dad or return to him.
Elk don't confuse them with facts.
You know Harold, just the fact that you insinuate that your divorce was ALL your xw's fault and you had NO idea it might be coming suggests to me that you are self absorbed and not worried about anyone but yourself, else you might have known there were issues. This was my experience with my ex husband; see what happens when we paint everyone with the brush or our own lives? Men can and do leave women for any reason they want as well, and since we're making lots of assumptions how do you know hubby didn't have a girlfriend? Just because men don't file for divorce most of the time doesn't mean they don't engage in their share of crappy behavior, which of course as his property we're supposed to just deal with. Jerkdom knows no gender, and this guy clearly wasn't thinking about his daughter's interests and as such probably wasn't a loving father. Divorces suck and if you awarded custody based on who actually filed for divorce then one could treat their spouse any way they want, as long as they don't actually file. Try some personal introspection, it would help your victim mentality.
Because she's "not in love" anymore, he has to move out, is seperated from his children, has to give her at least half of the current assets and a significant portion of the future income. That isn't right. I understand divorce for adultery, abuse, and maybe addictions, but barring some catastrophe - try to work it out. Nobody really wins except the attorneys.
Liz-1105926,
Yet again another clueless woman is spouting off something that you only see women say. It is a fact that men get screwed in divorces. They lose half of what they worked for, they can lose their right to a gun and get a restraining order based off of the wifes lie, and women get the kids in over 90% of the situations, even if the guy did nothing wrong. Women dont mind the problem because they get what they want. Its typical that feminists will only choose to look at the wrongs against women, and blame the man when he gets screwed over. These killings will keep happening until women get over their victim mentalities in divorces and dont keep screwing the men over.
Liz... I challenge you to go back into any of my posts and quote where I talk about the details of my divorce.
All I said was I walked a mile in this man's shoes. I didn't talk about my situation. You do realize you created the part about "not seeing it coming", right? I may have described a situation where a guy comes home from work to find his wife gone, but I never said that was my situation.
What an aweful thing for the children to experience. What a selfish man this guy was.
::weighing:: On one hand, we can regulate guns. On the other hand, we can regulate males with guns.
Neither currently seems to be working.
Littlechanges,
I don't really know nor do I care who took a crap in your fruitloops this morning, but get off your anti-male blowhorn. Perhaps you should see a shrink to help you work through your anger issues.
After reading those two comments, seems clear to me that justapilot could use a bit of anger management. "...crap in your fruitloops"? "..antimale blowhorn.."? Not what I'd consider an appropriate response to three neutral observations.
Might want to consider comments containing caps. There is a very obvious consistency of expression with these. Yelling don't make it so.
Welcome to the new MSDNC, all gun stories, all the time. Gotta support the Marxist in chief's gun agenda after all. Notice no reporting of any deaths in Chicago. Black deaths don't seem to count unless committed by a white.
Could the propagandists be any more transparent?
Condolences to the family, at least the idiot saved the tax payers a trial and decade on death row.
hehe... you're retarded...
Obama is not a Marxist and we should support his gun control measures.
NO! send the marxist muslim back to kenya and shut down hollywood. ban all video games!
we always had a right to guns.........second amendment just tells these left wing nut political hacks to back off. 6 million jews thrown into ovens by socialist workers party member heir hitler approve of this message.
hey now your going after my first amendment right of freedom of speech? send obammy the marxist back to kenya, shut down hollywood, & ban all video games.
2nd amendment says no gun control of any kind. 6 million jews & 7 million christians killed in Germany, 70 million killed in China, and 50 million killed in Russia approve of this message.
@1st CAV - hardly any cavalry. You're a disgusting racist nazi!
Oh hell... Here we go again... School is back in session:
Please look up, read, and comprehend the First Amendment. And even in your pathetic, and incorrect, interpretation, that ensures our right to tell you how we feel about your comments. See? We didn't say that you couldn't comment in your own words, but as soon as we do the same in response to your rant you accuse us of what you're doing. You're saying we cannot comment on your comments. People that do that are generally referred to as hypocrites. BOOM!
No it doesn't. It CLEARLY refers to the well-regulated militia having the right to keep and bear arms. And they also were referring to MUSKETS and FLINTLOCKS. Also, please go out and buy a fully-automatic M-15 and take it to the local FBI office for inspection, in your M-1A tank. Be sure to ask them about 'no gun control of any kind' as you're handcuffed. Hint: You can't. A Fully-Automatic weapon, and a fully operational M-1A, are illegal to own.
I know about the 6 million Jews, and the ridiculous current claims that if they had had guns they wouldn't have been rounded up by the Nazis. Ask Poland how that went for them. And France also. Norway and Greece, too. Boom, BOOM!
Now just explain where you got your "christian" numbers from.
Class dismissed.
Disrespect for the President is not approprate. He is not a Marxist, where do you get your imformation? Stop with the lies and try to make an intelligent comment.
I've found that most people who spout off about Marxism and Socialism have usually never even read Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto and only go by the misinformation that other unlearned people have spouted off to them. On the same note, these people have also not read other books like Rights of Man, Common Sense or The Federalist.
@scubagolfjim,
"Hint: You can't. A Fully-Automatic weapon, and a fully operational M-1A, are illegal to own"
You sir are incorrect. Check your facts.
A LAW ABIDING citizen can own a full-auto firearm, with the proper paperwork.
I feel no need to give this president any respect. He's done nothing to earn it from me.
I don't consider him a Marxist, just a far left liberal looking to take away our rights and freedoms.
He's divided this county by race and class more than anyone in recent history.
Heidi.........
Disrespect for Hugo O'Bama is not approprate ? He has not done anything to EARN respect. Let the BIAS Media cover for failed O'Bama...Now let's get back on topic.
Fact is this guy went to the party to kill his ex-wife. If he had no GUN he would have used his car, club, fist, knife used to cut birthday cake,chocked her to death, an abortion doctor's knife ( 3,300,000 baby'skilled a year, under baby killer O'Bamas watch) or 1000s of other ways. Why is this news, were they White?
Oh hell ... Here we go again ... School is back in session. The single-sentence Second Amendment mentions "A well-regulated militia ...." in the dependent clause, and "the right of the people ...." in the independent clause. If you know anything about sentence structure, you know that the independent clause is the only one that can stand alone.
Yes, they were referring to muskets and flintlocks ..... exactly the same firearms that were being used by all military units of the day.
Class dismissed.
Yes according to Jim we should be using an ink well and quill and a man on horseback to communicate also.
You got that right Phil. Individual incidents across the country were never headline news before (as tragic as they are) but it's now time to stir the pot for their a** kissing liberal agenda.
You need to find out what a Marxist is before you call anyone that name. Obama is very far from being even a socialist let alone a Marxist. Using that word so incorrectly is what lets everyone know that you are listening to sound bites rather than thinking for yourself.
Ok, he is a Communist, he was raised by communists, indoctrinated by communists and his college was paid for by communists. Frank Marshall Davis, head of the Communist party in Hawaii was his mentor and substitute father.......kicked out of Hawaii once he became too dangerous. A communist's objective is the rights of the collective-no individual liberty. And the government runs everything....under Obama the government has taken away people's land using the EPA, Guns away using unconstitutional executive power, he is already using tax money to control banks, energy industries and car companies. Nationalized healthcare is something they do in SOCIALIST countries. The point is that communists, socialists and marxists think that government knows better than you what is best for you.....just like Mayor Bloomberg, "the nanny mayor".....no 20 oz. sodas, lock up baby formula, restrict emergency rooms from giving pain medication, no handguns, no salt in restaurants, no smoking except in your house. They use class warfare to convince the poor that the government is the answer-that's how they keep their power. Sound Familiar?
phil: "Could the propagandists be any more transparent?"
1st cav: Let's not conveniently forget those sadistic savages from Europe that arrived here just after 1500 and managed to kill off 70 million of the residents of the Western Hemisphere within 150 years of their arrival. Still with me?
And 'Marxists' has nothing to do with Groucho or his brothers. Google it, you'll see. Sorry, forgot myself there for just a moment.
Absolutely! If those residents of the Western Hemisphere had guns, the outcome might have been different.
TheKhanKubla
You know Marx wrote more books than that right? He could fill a book case full of his writings. Hell, he wrote a dictionary. So if you want to call people uneducated and ignorant, at least know what it is that you speak of, and learn what communism actually was to him. Its not the fairy tale you tell your children at night. Its worse than what Stalin and Mao did.
well, lets see now....add handguns to the list of banned guns.
but do you notice, young kids and adults kill using bushmasters and older mature adults use a more simpler handgun.
in either case, its got to be banned too.
another funny thing, just where is NBC's and MSNBC's reporting on the chicago killings?
why are they just reporting the typical american family, lets here about the gang life in the streets of chicago.over 532 people were killed in the streets of chicago this year alone. where is the news on this.
thats right, this isnt supposed to be about the typical life of a thug on the streets with his illegal gun, this supposed to be about the average joe, the working class homeowner and the legal guns he has.
Good point. If all of the daily gun killings were reported on, there would neither be space nor time for all of the other issues worth being reported on.
I assume you talking about black comunities in regard Chicago killings ? well, in my City in CT in the black neighbords is common sse some folks carried a gun, hear gunshots at night (and somebody die) and NOBODY is witness, the police work hard for found the criminal if somebody in a crowd is murder and nobody saw, unerstand ? the black comunnty made rallys in white and latino areas demanding STOP THE VIOLENCY but no in their neighbord they afraid of his own people and "demanding" the police for action, if the police star to arrest some punks in his area they cry "racial profile", you see ? they are never happy, they are insecure and blaming to others, so is better the black comuters star to resolving his own problems
The black community in any major city is near a state of civil war. It has been this way for years. It is so common, so universal, that it has stopped being news. There's a high school graduation rate of 50% or less in every urban core area in the country. About 1/3 of black men are in the penal system. Most of the children are born out of wedlock. There are some real serious issues, which is why everyone who could afford to get out (both white and black) has.
If he didn't own a gun they would all still be alive. Sounds simplistic, but when I was growing up in the 50's these kind of things rarely, and I'm mean rarely happened. Why, because people weren't so violent minded and paranoid and everyone didn't think 'I have to have a gun!'. We only locked our doors when we went on vacation. People had the same problems they have now when it came to love, infidelity and spousal abuse, but murder was on their mind. Evil wasn't a part of everyone's daily lives, unlike today. When you watched a scary or violent movie you didn't watch the knife 'go in' or in the case of a scary movie the headless man didn't even look real, but we all screamed, just the same. Watching those same movies today, you don't even flinch because we have all been desensitized. Young people most of all. It's very sad. God bless this family. You disagree with me all you want, but I lived and all the sickness in this country is real.
We used to have "family hour" before 9pm every night on television. The problem is parents are not editing what they let their children watch or play. When my children were young I didn't give them access to that material. Then I found out they accessed it at their friends house. I had to start restricting which houses they could visit. It's an unethical world now.
the breakdown of society and the family value.
no god, no morals, no respect, no boundaries
God, morals, respect and boundaries have never been there for members of society that have rejected them.
Even when they are seemingly present, tragedy has resulted.
There are no sure-fire ways to stop people from acting out against society's rules. Not God, not lessons of morality and respect, and not boundaries (in the home or by law enforcement). Each individual on this planet has the potential for violence; the degree to which one takes it varies depending on the situation.
Maybe, but more likely not true. If the guy wanted to kill her, he could've used a knife, a bat, or his fists. We don't yet have the whole story. Now if the guy had gone over with an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine and shot 15 people, I would say you were correct.
I am a gun owner. I have handguns, rifles, and shotguns. I do not have any weapons considered to be 'assault' or military-style. I DO believe we need more gun control. There is NO REASON for anybody to have military style assault weapons if they're not in the military.
For those who will now scream that we just need to enforce those laws on the books, you need to pay attention to the details. Senator Tiahrt screwed your hope for that in 2003. That sh!t doesn't fly any more.
(Thanks to Jon Stewart and his excellent staff for bringing that tidbit of information into the light of day. How many of you folks knew about this?)
Yeah, that's it! Let's have some reasonable gun control laws in the United States, and then let's tie the hands of the agency charged to enforce those laws to where they are meaningless. Then when anyone wants to scream about more gun control, we'll just tell them to enforce the ones already there. The ones we've c@ck blocked them from being able to enforce.
stepasidesue, as for the rest of your statement, yeah, times have changed. But that will always be true. You can't stop time. And yes, in many ways it was 'better.' But if we did stop time back then, we wouldn't have the many wonderful advances we've made since then.
I heard the same remarks from a woman in an ophthalmologist's office, as she waited on her husband to come out from his outpatient cataract surgery that restored his eyesight. Ironic, huh?
stepasidesue, keep on keeping on!
@Philly,
Think all you like, but there will always be darkness in the heart of man. That being said, just looking at the past, and the beliefs people held, you can honestly see a drastic difference between then and now. Religion brought rules, with consequences. Anymore, we have pretty much removed the consequences.
Oh, you killed someone. Okay, you behaved like a good little boy in prison so we'll let you out early!! Or, oh look ... you thought out a very brutal murder, and planned to murder your now deceased husbands ex and get maybe 22 years? We have also become more like drones....
I think Against pretty much nailed today's issues head on.
@philly
you had to go way back to the 20's, nearly a hundred years to get that.
society inst perfect with GOD,moral,respect and boundaries. you will still have those in society without them who will act out, but for this family in this article and many families like this one. it may never even happened if they did have GOD, morals,respect or boundaries.
think of the young kids today rebelling in schools and telling their teacher to screw off or even fighting their teachers.....no morals and no respect!!!
you will still have those in society without them who will act out, the world isnt perfect nor will it ever be perfect, so stop trying to make it perfect.
you are just spinning your wheels, you will always have someone oppose your views and laws.
Are you implying video games cause people to kill? Video games have been mainstream since the early 90s. If video games were the problem then we would have had many more shootings in the last 20 years. Lack of good parenting and discipline has a large responsibility in the current issue, not games or books or movies. When I say lack of good parenting, I include the parents of any child that bullies another, not just those that were bullied. Parents that raise their kids by nannies or daycare should still take an active role in the kid's life and really talk to their kids on a daily basis. If you start the open communication early, it's easier to continue it throughout their growth. If you do all that, then at least you can say you did your best effort to keep the kid on a decent path. It doesn't always work, but if you don't even try, it will never work.
Blaming ANY media (TV, movies, video games, music, etc.) is a cop-out.
The one thing that matters is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We know right from wrong. We know not to hurt people. Accusing media sources of "weakening our moral fibre" is bull. Either it's in us to do something wrong or it isn't.
I've never smoked marijuana. Imagine it, in this day and age! When friends and family have smoked it, when it's constantly shown in movies and on television, when it's incredibly accessible. In fact, I've had doctors suggest they can get me a medical marijuana card here in California--and there's a dispensary not half a block away. Yet here I am, having chosen never to touch it. Why? Because that's how *I* operate--based on what I wish to do and not to do, and not on what I'm "told" to by outside sources!
Either you man up, so to speak, and do whatever YOU have to do to lead the right kind of life for you , or you go around playing the victim and blaming others.
(Incidentally, I do believe marijuana should be taxed and regulated, and perfectly legal--I simply choose not to use it because that's not part of my personal belief/coping system)
Step: I also grew up in the fifties and you are right about how things were. Our society has changed and I do not like some of the changes. I do not even feel safe to go to a mall and shop, or to a movie. There are copycats that want their 5 minutes of fame.
My friends and I never felt unsafe we could go just about anywhere without any concern. The worst things that happened were maybe fist fights and they ended quickly.
My condolences to the family, very sad and just so unnecesary.
Did we ban marriage counceling? Could marriage counseling have prevented this incident?
Oh yea, almost forgot the prevelent notion that a cherry crapped a zombie. Yea, that's believable;-)
stepasidesue
Ummm.. How do you know? All you know was what was happening around your local area. Back then you were not getting the news of every single incident that occurred in every community in the United States. With todays media access to stories instantly they can pump out what ever information they want and push any agenda they want by just running the stories that support that agenda.
You seem to forget things like:
The Mafia was big in the 50's as well with gambling and still has a very significant influence around the country. With their activity came many murders and other horrible acts of violence.
Have these incidents increased over time? Yes. Is it because of the availability of guns or is it more to do with societal pressures, environmental conditions, break down in the Nuclear family, violent TV, Games, medications, on and on.
Anyway back to your point. Just because you never heard about it didn't mean it wasn't happening. Just like the cases where armed people save lives by killing the nuts intent on killing others. When's the last time you read one of those stories in the media?
In the 50's there were around 150m people living in the US. Today there are over 300m. So the 50's, lemme quote the first thing I can find about the 50's, get ready for this: "During the Eisenhower era, Americans achieved a level of prosperity they had never known before". Compare that to today. So as I think back to the Obamacare arguments, I seem to remember the liberals screaming "stop comparing apples to oranges!" Funny how their logic applies only to their opposition.
Localboy -
The murder rate in 2005 was 20% higher than it was in 1950. How do I know? Search Engine. (Report: Gun Violence - University of Chicago.)
Oh, and the most violent period in US history (not including war casualties was 1865 - 1895).
Quick, ban those evil looking semi-automatic killer assault rifles. Another wackjob killed someone with a evil looking semi-automatic killer assualt rifle, oh wait he used a pistol. Never mind.
Make no mistake, Pilot: they're next.
philly: #8.3
Did you notice that you had to go back 86 years for your example? Now we only need to go back a few months. Notice a difference?
What a tragedy. One more reason for stricter gun control. When they are too easily at hand during emotional stress, this is the outcome. We tried the gun nutz way for the past 40 years -- now it's time to try a more sensible and sane approach.
if were me and i didnt have access to a banned gun or i just could not own a gun. i would have used 1 of perhaps 200 way to kill a person.
please think before you type, removing guns dont solve anything. just deal with it, people throughout time have killed others by other means.
removing guns to satisfy one side of the argument will just anger the other side, pushing your way through and creating anger doesnt help the cause.
Get the guns off the streets.
I am not being sarcastic, as I do not own any guns...nor did my parents but what happened 40 years ago? Were there laws passed making more guns more available?
It's not guns in general, it's HANDGUNS that seem to be the biggest problem in America's gun violence epidemic. It's an efficient, easy, and damn near pocketable killing tool.
It is a tragedy that she didn't have a gun to defend herself against an angry ex.
Spineless pussies suddenly become brave, strong men when armed with a gun.
These same pussies would never be able to hurt, let alone kill, without the ease of a gun.
"perhaps 200 ways" You clearly couldn't hurt anyone without a gun you spineless @!$%#.
The majority of Americans do not want all guns banned. We just want stricter gun control and the inforcement of the laws.
Those who claim that all guns will be banned need to do some research.
Since our society has changed more laws regarding guns and their possedion need to be addressed period!
How's that working in Chicago? With the strictest gun laws in the country and I would walk the streets of Chicago at night for anything. Oh and what about DC? Or hey lets look at New York.
Gun control doesn't work. Period.
heidi-6712632 if the 2nd Amendment defenders let you get away with this ban what makes you think they won't try, and maybe successful with additional bans with the end result being a total ban?
Do some research yourself.
Perfect example is the current tax situation in the US. More and more taxes are being heaped upon the citizens. And now they disguise them as "Fees" so the sheeple don't know they are being taxed. Once the government starts taking they don't stop.
Once again I offer the State of Vermont as an example of the intentions of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. We have very few gun laws- no felons and no psychos, and no guns permitted in state and federal buildings (and Burlington's City Hall Park). Anything else is the responsibilty of the gun owner/carrier, and people are held strictly responsible.
Try following Vermont's pattern instead of disarming everybody or blaming the violence on guns. The violence is in the mind and the gun is just the tool used to express it. Remove that tool and they'll simply find another one that may be even more deadly.
This family has my sympathy but gun control laws will do nothing to stop a crime like this, whereas some mental health intervention might have prevented the tragedy all together.
Very thought provoking statement. Now what is your suggestion?
My government wants to limit my access to fire arms while at the same time increasing the fire power of the local police, if it truly was about limiting guns, then why do they feel the need to increase theirs????
If you come to my place and I fire my gun into the air, you damn well better haul ass. Because if I let the dogs out, you are much more near to death than you were when I pulled the trigger on that rifle.
It takes law enforcement about twenty five minutes to get to my place in the woods when I call. It doesn't matter if you are trying to rob me or if you were hiking around and got lost. If I yell at you to go away and you don't want to listen to me... if you insist on coming toward me.... if you try telling me "Hey, just calm down, Lady, I'm not going to hurt you" and it's some ungodly hour of the night... I'm going to fire my rifle in the air first.
If you think that by firing it in the air I am too cowardly to shoot you, that would be your first mistake. But your second would be in thinking that you got lucky because I didn't want to use the gun on you.... because that would be when the dogs attacked.
So don't ever think that guns are the worse thing that could happen.
it just proves that he was a sick person and did not care about anybody. He came to his child's 16 th birthday and killed her mom and himself. He did not care that he left phycological scar on his kids for as long as they live, not even mention his and his wife's parents. Unfair divorce? Looks to me she had a pretty good reason to divorce him
We have no idea why this guy decided to shot her. If he had went there with murder on his mind, he could have armed himself with a knife if he didn't have a gun. If it was a spur of the moment, passion killing, he might have grabbed a rock or a shovel and hit her over the head. If he didn't have a gun he couldn't have shot her, that is the only thing we know for sure. Maybe the lack of a gun would have prevented this murder but I doubt it. Even if he didn't kill her Saturday, he eventually would have killed whether it was by running her down with a car or stabbing her or hitting her over the head. I don't know if guns caused, or would have prevented, this tragedy but I do know that when a crazy individual goes on a murder spree, less people die if an individual with a gun confronts him.
And NBC once again gets their sheep to follow right along with them. You anti-gun libs are the easiest people to control.
Nice chest-thumping Screm. I too enjoy daydreaming in great detail about scenarios in which I kill people while being a badass. Sometimes it's intruders, sometimes it's ninjas that are trying to abduct a beautiful and romantically available bystander, so I whip out my huge guns are blow them to bits, because I'm wicked awesome.
It's good to pretend.
i am a little fuzzy on something, i understand that if he came to kill her he would have done it by any means, however, he also killed himself and i am finding it hard to use the arguement that he would have stabbed himself to death, or rocked himself to death or even shoveled himself to death. based upon the basic information provided, i say he came with the intent of killing himself (and the easy way is with a gun) and the intent to kill her (i believe the story says he shot her three times). sounds like she put up a lil fight but the bullets causing losses of blood probably didnt provide sufficient adrenaline to allow her to keep fighting.
this man was wicked and selfish. it takes an evil mind to take someone elses life. statistically, 67% of people are killed by firearms. within those stats, 60% are suicidal. i cant blame the gun but i do think that owning and/or having a gun made it easier for him to act
additionally, the government is not trying to take away our firearms, they are looking to put tighter controls on those who purchase firearms. if owning an ar-15 means i need to go through a wait period to attain the weapon, then so be it cause in the meantime a shotgun can still be acquired... why are people up at arms, both literally and figuratively. a handgun also takes about a week to acquire in certain states as they run background checks on you, then again, if you need immediate home protection, purchase a shotgun.. i can tell you one thing, when an unwanted person come to your door and they hear the SHHH SHHHHHHH of that shotgun pumped and ready after you say "state your business", they run!
Geesh...obviously, he was a mentally distraught individual. Dear God, I pray for the surviving family members. What an atrocity. With regards to more government controls on individuals...I wonder if he had been on mood-altering medications, like so many others people doing crazy, tragically sad things like this.
Agreed but also guessing that this may have been pre-planned. Why the need for a gun at your in-laws home where your child's birthday party is being held??? The article doesn't give details on how the argument started but they were married a long time so he would have known which buttons to push to start or end any verbal confrontations.
If he was bent on killing his ex and self, and had not access to gun, he might have run his car into her. You are correct in questioning whether or not he was medicated....
You mean like anti-depressants and other medications that may cause suicidal thoughts? I am sorry, but if something you ingest is going to give you suicidal thoughts, there is NOTHING stopping it from giving you HOMICIDAL thoughts. So go ahead and pop those pills into your kids mouths and create the next generation of murderers. By the time they grow up, guns may or may not be banned - if they are then I expect the sane kids will all be learning to defend themselves with brooms from cleaver-wielding classmates and other intruders like they are in China.
Chefaz, Why do you assume it was preplanned? Because he had the piston with him? He lived in Texas, I think from people I know from Texas it's an open carry state, so perhaps he always carried it. Or he could have had a CCP and again always carried it. Not sure where you're from, but in some parts of the world it's common to carry a weapon. So preplanned maybe, but not enough info in the article to know nor is it possible to know for sure because he's dead too. Maybe he left a note and that will clear things up in the investigation.
Yep.
Psychotropic drugs - involved in how many shootings? THAT is something that should be looked at.
Read the American Psychiatric Association report "Inappropriate Prescribing," June 2012. The gist is that these drugs are being way over-prescribed.
Then look up "psychotropic drugs side effects." "Common and well-documented side effects of psychiatric drugs include mania, psychosis, hallucinations, depersonalization, suicidal ideation, heart attack, stroke and sudden death." "Not only that, but The US Food and Drug Administration admits that probably one to ten percent of all the adverse drug effects are actually reported by patients or physicians." (Citizens' Commission on Human Rights)
Millions and millions of people taking these things. If a tiny fraction kill because of it, you might well get Auroras and Newtowns.
But guns look scary, and little pills - not so much.
Where is your proof on that? Was he diagnosed mentally ill? Did he have a history of violence against his family and others?
There's nothing in the report that says any of that.
He brought the gun with the intention of killing his wife and himself. He knew exactly what he was doing. There's no evidence to the contrary.
Surprise, surprise. He used a handgun. I assumed as much before I even confirmed it by reading the article.
Poor kids.. Especially the Daughter, she is going to need lots of counselling . She will likely suffer guilt for the rest of her life, and her Birthday will never be a happy one again. Its natural for a kid to feel responsible, especially if the reason they were all there, was for her birthday party. Hopefully she is able to see it wasnt her fault.
There really is no reason for this to keep happening. How many separations end this way? Too many. Why is nothing being done to prevent it? Maybe we should be taking guns away from people going through a divorce? Or make them take counselling right from the start.
THis is how guns in the home get used most often... put that in your Stats NRA fools.
It is not just guns that are used to kill spouses, and ex-lovers. Have you ever read a book? Or watched the real life criminal shows that break down the different cases. Blunt trauma.... knife attacks... run-over with vehicle, pushed down the stairs (on purpose), beat to death.
I never said guns were the only way someone can be killed. You should stop trying to put words in people mouths.
Gun are however, the easiest way to kill. And leave the victim the least chance at survival. And they can be hidden easily. The number of deaths in murder-suicide attempts, has dropped dramatically in any country that has banned guns. Especially handguns. Far more people are only wounded, or escape, when the assailant doesnt have a gun.
And of all the homes that have a death by gun, murder suicide is the most common reason. Its not intruders being killed by the home owner. Its not home owners being killed by intruders. Its one person in the home using it to murder another person in the home.
So a gun in the home, is more likely to be used by someone in the home, to kill a family member, than to kill anyone else like an intruder. It is NOT making you safer having a gun in the home.
Someone named MoreJustice wants less rights. lol. Here is your face hypocrisy.
I wish people would keel down and pray and have faith in god for their troubles. they need to rebuke evil things that clog up their minds.god ,if you will lay your troubles on my shoulders,I will shelter thee.
i wi
thats your problem and you will be closely watched.
but you expect gun owners to keel down to obama...your a riot boy!!
A keel is on the bottom of a sailboat..
Kneel is when you go down on your knees.
No one is kneeling or keeling to Obama. What a useless comment.
Philly -
You do know that YOU used the term and AgainstThese was mocking you, right?
And do you realize he was mocking dturner for the term?
What a selfish bastard.
Very tragic. My heart goes out to this family. I'm sure this isn't the first time they had seen his anger. He shouldn't have owned a gun or any weapon for that matter.
Oh my! I'm keeling over in a faint because I've laughed myself into a stupor over this thread! LOL
Maybe he just snapped because his wife was screwing him over. See, I can make assumptions too.
All the excuses and deflections in the world wont change a thing. We are going to keep fighting to regulate your guns.. And we are now the majority.
To take a name from the movie "Young Guns", Call us the Regulators.
I wish major news outlets would run the number of gun deaths in the country each day at the top of every front page. They have a debt clock to bring attention to the US debt, why not a gun violence clock to keep this issue front and center? The gun lobby is just hoping we'll get distracted by other things, as usual. Let's not do that this time.
Excellent idea - of course you know Faux news and others will find a way to spin it.
What channel is Faux news? Who are the others? (gotta keep track on who's saying what)
Thinkfor -
I'd be all for that - if they also post the running total of firearms used to prevent crime real-time.
And a counting on the number of rights Obama and his libby sheep keep taking away from people.
But, the Regulators in Young Guns used... guns.
"Alright pass her back. You stroke a mans gun like that you might as well be strokin' a mans woman"
But , the NRA says he was just defending himself. Nothing to see here. Just move along.
Just me,
No, the NRA didn't say he was defending himself. No brains in your head obviously, as your remark shows. Just moove along, as you would say.
How selfish of this man to do this on his daughter's birthday. The scary part is that there are people out there who own guns that shouldn't.
How many have you found and what are you doing about it?
If this idiot doesnt have a gun, this incident likely never happens.
Sick perverts with guns.
Guns are not the answer: they are the problems and f**k the second amendmen and the NRA!
F**k the 9th and 10th amendments so the Feds can run the whole country without being subject to states' concerns.
And if the husband was a better husband, this incident likely never happens.
What the hell, f**k you, Bart.
This poor child loses both Parents on her Birthday and it becomes a gun control issue,up yours bart.I am the N.R.A.
Just another 'law abiding' citizen excercising his second amendment rights...up yours smelbun.
Actually, he murdered people. Not what we considering law abiding, Randy.
We should ban birthday parties because someone might get shot at them.
SEE...if you "had" banned birthday parties this wouldn't of happened.
And we go again, another shooting by a man with no criminal past !!!
When are you going to get it ???? Weapons do not belong in a civilized society, especially when 1 in 4 americans suffer from mental illness !!
You, gun nuts are paranoid and should be the first to check into a mental institution ! guns are not toys, they are killing machines !
He would have killed her even if he did not have a gun. When are you going to get it? Do you think that if Obama put his executive orders in place 3 years ago this would not have happened? Why does NBC not print the story of every black thug who has shot an innocent person in the last 3 weeks? Because they know that gun control will do nothing to prevent 95% of the gun related homicides in this country? By the way, using bold print and nots of ??? and !!! is a sign of intellectual weakness in writing.
Believing in the 2nd Amendment does not make one a "gun nut". Not caring about the slow growth of tyranny under this current administration does, however, make one a useful idiot. Those who lived under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro could probably offer you some insight on "gun control". There is a pattern to tyranny and, as I'm sure you have heard before, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting or even societal self protection...it is about citizens having the right and the ability, as a last resort, to resist a tyrannical government.
I notice American fool is quoting my favorite "statistic"...that 1 in 4 Americans suffer from mental illness. Every time I hear that it reminds me that roughly 24% of the electorate are the hardcore Righties.
And 24% hardcore lefties...which leaves 52% sane people...didn't say they were smart, but thats the percentage of sanity
@Mykiddosmom
Why not? Maybe he had a CCW permit in which there are some people whom think you should be able to carry anywhere and everywhere. If some think it should be legal to carry at a school (which is crazy IMO), why wouldn't someone be able to carry to a bday party? Never know when a home invasion might occur, right?
I think you will find mentally ill to follow more with lefties. Ignoring history and statistics, check. Using childrens' deaths to promote their agenda, check. Being fearful of everything and giving comrade Obama the go ahead to take away rights, check.
i am a little fuzzy on something, i understand that if he came to kill her he would have done it by any means, however, he also killed himself and i am finding it hard to use the arguement that he would have stabbed himself to death, or rocked himself to death or even shoveled himself to death. based upon the basic information provided, i say he came with the intent of killing himself (and the easy way is with a gun) and the intent to kill her (i believe the story says he shot her three times). sounds like she put up a lil fight but the bullets causing losses of blood probably didnt provide sufficient adrenaline to allow her to keep fighting.
this man was wicked and selfish. it takes an evil mind to take someone elses life. statistically, 67% of people are killed by firearms. within those stats, 60% are suicidal. i cant blame the gun but i do think that owning and/or having a gun made it easier for him to act
additionally, the government is not trying to take away our firearms, they are looking to put tighter controls on those who purchase firearms. if owning an ar-15 means i need to go through a wait period to attain the weapon, then so be it cause in the meantime a shotgun can still be acquired... why are people up at arms, both literally and figuratively. a handgun also takes about a week to acquire in certain states as they run background checks on you, then again, if you need immediate home protection, purchase a shotgun.. i can tell you one thing, when an unwanted person come to your door and they hear the SHHH SHHHHHHH of that shotgun pumped and ready after you say "state your business", they run!
@ Agarcia
You say they are not trying to take away all firearms but some of them are, and taking things away is a slippery slope, taking one thing away makes it easier to take away more.
They banned fully automatic weapons... and crime didnt decrease, we still have murders.. so now they want to ban semi auto weapons... well i can promise you that wont help either.. so... WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL DO NEXT? They keep banning anything with the word gun in it until only the criminals have guns.
Then they will have to ban crossbows, bows, knives, rocks, cars, your face, and fertalizer.
So the right to own guns is more important than the 100 000 americans that get shot each year ?????
You gun nuts are truelly crazy !!!
YOU ARE PARANOID !!! AND PARANOIA IS A MENTAL ILLNESS !!
its only 32-34,000 a year which is about 8/1000ths of 1% of the population.
To restrict rights, freedoms and liberties of all americans it should be at least 5% (15 million) a year
Tommy, have you thought about running for political office? I think you would get lots of votes, only, they would be coming from inside the insane asylum sometimes known as the TeaParty.
tex2c2-
Its fairly simple math.
Statistically gun killings in a population our size is so rare its insignificant.... and in my opinion limiting/restricting rights and freedoms is uncalled for
Tell that to the families of the 30,000 people killed by firearms last year. How much do you think a person's life is worth, $10, $100,000, $10,000,000? Your logic is that of an accountant not a human being.
Exactly what freedoms do you think an assault ban would limit, the right to kill children on a playground from across the street?
It is pretty obvious to anyone who knows much about guns that the rash of tactical assault weapons being flooded onto the American streets are useless for the purposes they are being marketed for. They are not good for home protection (shotguns are better and don't kill the children in the next room). They would be useless to defend against tyranny (have you noticed the weapons used by the US Army lately). They are clearly inferior as hunting weapons. What they are good for is terrorism.
The fanatical hysteria being pumped up by the profit oriented and insane NRA leadership (LaPierre admitted that!) needs to stop. Simple...
Thanks, tex2c, for another hilarious comment. Lapierre admitted the NRA was insane and was pumping up fanatical hysteria?
Priceless.
This just goes to show that the puny, stupid, human mind is not capable of using a weapon of this nature. Everyone is not a wack job, but unfortunately, it seems that a lot of idiots that own guns, are. You can thank them for the gun laws increasing.