Until they're not.

interesting way to organize a society - think the worst of everyone and place societal control accordingly.

I'm not saying that every person is a criminal; I'm saying that every criminal was, at one time, a pre-criminal (to use your term). For that reason "law abiding citizen" mantra so beloved of gun advocates is ultimately pretty ineffectual.

that implies a certain cynical perspective towards your fellow citizens.

There are some here that would like to regulate human behavior based on the assumption that everyone is a crime just waiting to happen - and it is not just guns. Pre-rapist and pre-dunk drivers are good examples.

I prefer to regulate human behavior based on the view that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and law abiding. If nothing else it minimizes government intrusion into our lives.

Since you're making up a term and blaming me for it, I see no reason to defend that strawman term.

it implies an attitude towards gun owners that is common here - that they are all a crime just waiting to happen. It reflects an attitude that most Americans shouldn't be trusted with guns.

Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 PM - Edit history (1)

The term that you coined and attributed to me ("pre-criminal&quot implies an inevitability that I didn't express. Therefore I reject the term and will not defend it for you.

Put simply, all people are law-abiding until they are not. That doesn't mean that they must at some point become non-law-abiding; it simply means that if they become non-law-abiding, then at some time prior to that point they were law-abiding.

It's curious that you're so eager to find inevitability in that factual and, frankly, self-evident statement.

Couldn't help myself

But can you deny that someone with a gun - all other factors being equal - has a greater means by which to commit violent crimes?

but that does not justify the constant vilification of gun owners. There is no recognition that the vast majority of gun owners are safe and reasonable. "Gun nuts" "gun humpers" "NRA shills" are common prejoritives aimed at anyone who dares to disagree on iota on gun control.

My only point.

It is two different outlooks on how we view our fellow citizens.

Do you lock your car when you park in an unfamiliar neighborhood? Do you lock your house when you leave town for a few days?

If the answer to either question is "yes," then you view at least some of your fellow citizens as pre-criminal, and one wonders by what criteria you make the determination.

Those are the people I am worried about. Not the average citizen of my part of the city.I trust that most people are trying to live a normal life like I am while being aware that there has always been a subset of the population that preys on others.

This is the bigger point I was trying to make.

That's what that sounds like to me.

By the way, whether this involved an assault rifle is really irrelevant; he would've done it with a .22 revolver if that had been what he had.

Bake

... that's why everybody needs to be packing a concealed weapon with which to shoot the other pre-criminals when they decided to become criminals.

If we all weren't pre-criminals then there would be no need to own an arsenal of weapons to protect ourselves with.

How is the NRA going to have a 'surge' of discounted new members and how are the gun shows going to do record business if there isn't universal recognition that anyone standing next to you at any given time is a pre-criminal just one trigger pull away from becoming a criminal?

How hard is that to understand?

It would be nice to have a discussion without it descending into this type of commentary. Truly. I am so tired of the acrimony and I am having a terrible day. Reading posts that are so negative just makes things all that much worse. There is no such thing as a pre criminal. It is all a stupid(IMO) meme.
Peace, Mojo

NEVER. NO WAY. NO HOW. UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES.

Every criminal was once a law abiding person, Does not implie that every law abiding person will (or may) become a criminal.

And it takes pig ignorance or a blind agenda (same thing really) to keep pounding away with the same flawed illogic.

"There are some here that would like to regulate human behavior based on the assumption that everyone is a crime just waiting to happen - and it is not just guns. Pre-rapist and pre-dunk drivers are good examples.

I prefer to regulate human behavior based on the view that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and law abiding. If nothing else it minimizes government intrusion into our lives."

even if small petty stuff. That is just a popular meme these days IMO
I would bet this man was an abusive husband.
Peace, mojo

And you're right that many criminals have a history of some sort.

In cases like this though there are usually warning signs before the big blowout. The meme that this was a law abiding infers upstanding citizen till this happened is probably imaginary. I am sure that people who have no past do snap every now and then but I don't think it is the norm. I hate that the phrase is used by both sides in the gun issue.
Peace, Mojo

The term is ultimately pretty useless because it doesn't describe what it purports to describe, and it can be too easily abused by either side of the discussion.

Better to abandon it as a criterion for who should be allowed to own a gun or as a means to prevent sensible gun regulations (e.g., "This will only hurt law-abiding gun owners...&quot

I totally agree with you.

That is the story here. Premeditated murder, and one of the murders was via strangulation.

rather than the method.

At least it would be harder to keep the others at bay. There was a gun. It made things worse. That's a fact.

at that also. There is a lot more to this story than gunz and I am glad a couple other people here notice that also.

That's a pretty simple, obvious fact. And it's not as if guns and domestic violence, as social issues, can really be separated from each other.

The sheer magnitude of hate in that act is almost beyond comprehension..

I surely hope this woman gets the help/support she is going to need.

Killing their children is rarer, but, sadly, not all that unusual. Sociopathic.

No wonder she was divorcing him.

Those poor kids. That poor woman.

the blood of children continues to stain their hands.

he used a .38 caliber revolver.

There is no evidence he was not allowed to own a gun. There is no evidence the gun was illegal.

So what additional law would have stopped this?

One was banned as an "assault weapon" by name (but then sold legally without modification under a different name). That was not the weapon he used.

The handgun that was once classified as an assault weapon was found in a duffel bag.

Seriously, this is a stretch. They said he used the .38, and that a TEC-9 was found. I still don't see why the phrase "assault weapon" is even in the title.

The pyrase "assault weapon" is in the title because an assault weapon was found at the scene. Sorry you are so offended by that.

You seem more offended by the thought of an assault weapon being mentioned than the crime itself. What's the psychology behind that?

We both reacted. The phrase is there to make that happen. Unfortunately "man kills self with handgun", while equally (and probably more) accurate, doesn't get that same response.

...yet you have zero reaction to horrific nature of the crime itself?

Seriously, what's up with that?

The crime makes me sick to my stomach. The choice of headline makes me irritated. Anything else?

Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with people? What difference does it make what kind of effing gun the sick bastard used? Fact is, he used a GUN.

lets not forget he strangled both sons first.

Do you think they would be alive if he did not have a gun?

So why is the focus on the kind of gun that was found in a bag that he DID NOT use in this heinous crime?

If he'd only had the revolver would the kids be less dead? I can see calling out AW's in cases where the capacity or firing rate makes an actual difference in the number of people injured, or the severity of the injuries. In this case, it makes not one whit of difference. It is simply a pistol.

No difference. Could have used a revolver. Therefore, it is irrelevant, and the primary issue here is Domestic Violence.

fucking act.

(There is no gun mild enough to point at a child and pull the trigger without horrific consequences, so in this case, it makes little goddamn difference. A 5 shot .38 revolver would have had the same consequences)

might have. Maybe. And if it didn't prevent this tragedy it might prevent the one that will occur tomorrow. How many people must die before you agree something must be done?

since laws don't prevent crime. I mean really. Why bother to regulate behavior at all? It's not like we have any way to punish bad behavior if someone breaks the law.

I wish we had things like courts and trials and prisons, but we don't.

I just wanted to know what specific gun control laws would have prevented this. You are right that there are plenty of laws to punish such behavior after the fact.

I support gun control - all of the President's EOs, universal background checks and limits on magazine size.

We could outlaw being an asshole....

Oh wait,....that's the Republican's worse fear....

prohibit carrying, owning or ACCESS to any firearm if a no contact order is issued OR there, are charges of alleged domestic violence, OR other misdemeanor or felonies pending pending. In RI I believe it's 10 years.
Background checks and closing the gunshow/private sale loophole would go a long way.

Spouse killings and familicides preceeded SSRIs. There's about a 1000 blues or appalachian murder ballads about killing your wife and family.

.... the side-effects of some meds exacerbate 'teh crazy' and having a hair-trigger temper/personality issues AND access to uber-weapons synergize into a particularly dangerous concoction.

Might not have been.

My point was that plenty of these types of murders happen without meds. And without assault weapons.

None of them happen without testosterone.

There are female family annihilators, just not many.

Cambodian grandmother in Seattle, Schizophrenic, used a gun to kill her family.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Family-Grandmother-in-shooting-spree-battled-884335.php

Another case of a schizophrenic with access to firearms. the motivation was completely different than this case, in which the motive was utterly cliched.

And I vaguely remember a few others; drowning and poisoning seem to be more common for female FA's.

This was done to make the wife suffer, so she would experience the pain the narcissistic husband thought she deserved, and leave her with no way to exact justice or find peace. Cruel and typical.

I draw a distinction in the motivations of women who kill their children and men like this.

I posted this downthread but I find it really interesting, a psychiatrist's take on family annihilation and media responses to it:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/8_characteristics_of_family_an.html

... that drowned all of her children in the bathtub because 'the voices' told her to?

(Can't recall specifics at the moment) ...

a frequently misdiagnosed mental illness, frequently poopooed as postpartum depression or baby blues.

Lack of sleep, lack of support, lack of adequate mental care, and a hormonal storm surge will do that to even the strongest person.

That was the case that shook Houston's Med Center to it's foundation. Women's and Pediatric care did a lot of soul searching after that case. They do a much better job of recognizing and treating women suffering from it. No one wants to see that happen again.

You want to take the blame off the perpetrator and instead apply republican talking points?

Jaysus.

I'm not sure the Guns caused this particular tragedy.

Bryant

To clarify - i don't think becoming a Mormon did it either (I am a Mormon myself) - I just think he was mentally disturbed.

With hand guns possibly (he used a 38 apparently on himself) or with knives or something.

Bryant

One of the boys was shot in addition to being strangled, but most likely he was shot after being strangled. Even if this guy had no guns at all, those boys would still be dead.

Really? The gun was used to threaten the family, just because it was not used to kill it was still used in this case.

Remove the gun and how is the guy going to hold back his family and contain them into standing still while he was there killing them.

We have so many unsolved cases of missing persons in this country every year.

How many of these were committed with a gun that we do not know about. Abducted at gun point is the easiest way to subdue someone.....

The report I read says the mom tried to fight back and even asked for him to kill her instead. That proves that she was not holding back because of fear of the gun and it proves that he didn't need the gun to stop her. Actually, the easiest way to restrain the family would be to use the duck tape that he had on him. An article I read also says that he didn't take a gun out until he had strangled both boys with a rope.

So a gun was used in the crime...

even if he didn't have a gun. They were strangled. He may or may not have killed himself in another way, but the boys would still be dead.

Are you saying he had magical powers and a force field.

Did you witness the attack?

Are you saying the gun was not brandished in anyway?

Good luck with that.

Was she scared of the gun? No, she begged him to kill her instead, but he didn't. So in what way did he fend her off with the gun? He didn't shoot her. She wasn't scared of dying. Reports say she DID try to stop him. Brandishing a gun would accomplish nothing at all. All you have is your imagination. Deal with it.

really sad... I know you are but what am I.... you must have been a big hit in the playground in second grade.

You need an actual argument if you want an actual reply.

" Brandishing a gun would accomplish nothing at all."

So a gun nut finally admits to what we all know.

That guns do not deter crime, they are the enablers of it. Thanks for sharing.