Man charged with killing six members of same Texas family

Comments (45)
LogicalOne wrote:

Of course. I’m getting really tired of coward men and their coward guns.

Jul 09, 2014 10:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
faithnoman wrote:

Me as well, LogicalOne.

Jul 09, 2014 10:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carnivalchaos wrote:

Let’s see, when shootings take place in Chicago conservatives are quick to point out that Chicago has strict gun laws. Texas has very liberal gun laws. In fact, more gun violence occurs in states with lax gun laws than in states with strict gun laws: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/04/10_states_where_guns_are_most_and_least_likely_to_kill_people_partner/

The gun obsessed like to point out that guns don’t kill, people do. They also think we can solve gun violence by doing something about mental health (they rarely say what.) However, the problem is the proliferation of guns. If there are guns everywhere, then it’s never a problem for someone with mental problems, criminals, or just people who really don’t need to be owning a gun, to get their hands on a gun and start killing. Yes, guns by themselves don’t kill, but guns in the hands of people do.

We need to catch up with the rest of the world on this issue and become a more responsible society when it comes to gun ownership. We should have mandatory universal background checks, ban all assault weapons, limit magazine capacity, and start holding gun owners responsible when their guns are used to commit crimes. People need to do a better job of keeping their guns under lock and key, and maybe if they bore some of the responsibility when their guns are used in a crime, they’d think twice before choosing to own an arsenal of guns.

Jul 09, 2014 11:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bear87 wrote:

I’m guessing if he doesn’t do the coward thing and take his own life – he will be dead soon enough. Most convicts in prison don’t take to kindly to someone who kills kids. I’m betting his life won’t be worth a nickel.

Jul 09, 2014 11:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bear87 wrote:

I’m guessing if he doesn’t do the coward thing and take his own life – he will be dead soon enough. Most convicts in prison don’t take to kindly to someone who kills kids. I’m betting his life won’t be worth a nickel.

Jul 09, 2014 11:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Torc wrote:

Another testimony to the NRA’s interpretation of the second amendment.

Jul 09, 2014 12:00am EDT  --  Report as abuse
bucklj wrote:

If gun owners had to carry liability insurance like vehicle owners do we would see a lot more care taken with guns.

Jul 09, 2014 12:01am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GodLite wrote:

Meanwhile in Kentucky … a veteran Sergeant First Class died after being shot today at a Kentucky National Guard armory. Police say the shooter was a young white man wearing a hoodie.

Proving …

1. The only thing that can stop a good guy with an armory is a bad guy with a gun, and

2. The shooter in the hoodie was white and therefore, did not attract the attention of any local George Zimmermans.

Jul 09, 2014 12:11am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jannez wrote:

Long live responsible gun ownership and down with those who would infringe on my rights to own and operate firearms.

Jul 09, 2014 12:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GodLite wrote:

Way to go, Texas. Another “law-abiding gun owner” becomes a mass murderer the moment he pulls the trigger.

Jul 09, 2014 12:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ANZUS wrote:

CHICAGO (CBS) – At least 14 people were killed and 58 others were wounded in shootings across Chicago over the long holiday weekend.

One doesn’t have to look hard for misery among people. It is the folly of those that think with more power, rules, laws, enforcement, fines, education, inducements and finally official or sanctioned violence itself, that they can stop it.

Jul 09, 2014 12:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
HughJasss wrote:

Yeah, it was much better when Andrea Yeates was just drowning her kids. Stop trying to use those babies to make your political point, leftie losers.

Jul 09, 2014 12:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

Amendment Two to the United States Constitution (as ratified):

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So, …
A). Let anyone who wishes to be enlisted as a member of the well regulated militia of the United States of America, keep and bear arms.

B). Let the Federal government, which is constitutionally the responsible entity for the security of a free state and for regulating the militia (the keepers and bearers of firearms), be the sole supplier/provider of all ammunition for said arms.

C). Let the ammunition be contracted, inventoried and sold by the Federal government to members of the well regulated militia (firearms keepers and bearers) at the government’s actual material cost of acquisition, administration and distribution (i.e., no profit for the government on ammunition sales).

D). Under the commerce clause, let the Federal government impose a tax of $1,000.00 per firearm round*
[*revenue to be used to offset the significant societal costs and impacts of firearms violence, and firearms accidents due to irresponsible use of firearms resulting in death or injury, and to compensate guns violence and accident victim's, their families and survivors, and for mental health therapy and treatment.

Note: the imposed $1,000.00 tax per round is exactly the same for the most wealthy, and for the most desperately poor. This should be especially attractive to the "Regressives"].

E). Let any surplus taxes collected from the Federal ammunition tax be paid to the general fund to reduce the Federal Budget deficit, and eventually toward reducing the National Debt.

There you go. You’re welcome! Now granted, a weekend outing at the target range could cost you a few hundred thousand dollars, but hey. Your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed, so …what price freedom, right?

:-)

.

Jul 09, 2014 12:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JIMMYLIMO wrote:

More children’s blood on the hands of the NRA…

Jul 09, 2014 12:45am EDT  --  Report as abuse
mind_emergent wrote:

NRA will respond: “Yes, this was a terrible event. And obviously, the solution is to have more guns out there. If the women and children had their guns at the ready, the shooter would have been killed and there would be more people alive today.”

Jul 10, 2014 2:35am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@carnivalchaos

“In fact, more gun violence occurs in states with lax gun laws than in states with strict gun laws: ”

The article you linked to counts suicides as “gun violence.” I disagree with this categorization, personally. I’d be interested in seeing a state-by state comparison of gun-related homicides, though. If I can find one I’ll post it here.

Jul 10, 2014 3:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@carnivalchaos

I used the FBI crime report:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf

…and state population data to create a “per 100,000″ gun homicide rate for each state. The results are as follows:

10 Lowest Rates:
1) Hawaii: 0.233 / 100k
2) Vermont: 0.322
3) South Dakota: 0.497
4) North Dakota: 0.624
5) New Hampshire: 0.684
6) Minnesota: 0.785
7) Iowa: 0.833
8) Wyoming: 0.939
9) Utah: 1.060
10) Maine: 1.063

10 Highest Rates:
1) Louisiana: 8.389 / 100k
2) Michigan: 5.358
3) South Carolina: 5.290
4) Maryland: 4.917
5) Missouri: 4.787
6) Delaware: 4.696
7) Mississippi: 4.492
8) Pennsylvania: 4.193
9) Oklahoma: 4.091
10) Tennessee: 4.089

Not sure how or if this correlates to gun law “strictness,” or how accurate the FBI numbers actually are. Also, the FBI report excludes data from Florida due to it not meeting requirements. There is also no data presented for D.C.

Jul 10, 2014 4:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Is there anything more than mere correlation between strictness of laws and violence? It seems to me that if anything, the states with the most violence are more likely to try and control it with stricter laws.

Lets see how long this post lasts before 4825, 9825, or some other member of the paid poster group come along and hit the abuse button…

Jul 10, 2014 5:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

Unbelievable horror and tragedy!

Jul 10, 2014 7:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jagator wrote:

I agree. Ban all guns. And while we are at it let’s ban cars too. No more leaving children in the back seat to bake to death. And then we can ban knives too. No more stabbing. And after that ban baseball. No more beating people over the head with bats. And then a ban on rope. No more strangling people or bounding them and putting them in the trunks of those banned cars. What do we do though about people’s bare hands and feet when they beat someone to death?

Jul 10, 2014 8:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@Bakhtin

“It seems to me that if anything, the states with the most violence are more likely to try and control it with stricter laws.”

An interesting hypothesis. According to this:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf

…we can assign the gun law “strictness” rank to the states I listed previously (lower number means stricter laws):

Least Gun Homicides:
1) Hawaii: 6
2) Vermont: T-27
3) South Dakota: T-39
4) North Dakota: T-47
5) New Hampshire: T-27
6) Minnesota: T-17
7) Iowa: T-25
8) Wyoming: T-39
9) Utah: T-50
10) Maine: T-25

Most Gun Homicides:
1) Louisiana: T-47
2) Michigan: 11
3) South Carolina: T-22
4) Maryland: 7
5) Missouri: T-39
6) Delaware: 18
7) Mississippi: T-39
8) Pennsylvania: 10
9) Oklahoma: T-47
10) Tennessee: T-22

So, the 10 states with the least gun homicide rate have an average rank of 30.2 with a standard deviation of 13.6. The 10 states with the highest gun homicide rate have an average rank of 26.2 with a standard deviation of 15.5.

Not exactly conclusive, but it certainly indicates that there’s something other than just gun law strictness at work. Perhaps, as you hypothesized, some states with high gun violence adopted strict laws to try to control it. Some states with low gun violence may ave adopted strict gun laws to maintain low rates, or they may have been adopted long enough ago to have an effect.

If anything, this indicates that the problem is more complicated than people tend to make it seem.

Jul 10, 2014 8:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pb1988 wrote:

ban guns, ban guns, ban guns! Yes, that’s the answer. Don’t try to help those who are mentally disabled, just ban guns. Never mind that the killings could just as easily be done with a knife, baseball bat, etc.

Jul 10, 2014 9:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
OSU_Aero_Eng wrote:

@pb1988

“Never mind that the killings could just as easily be done with a knife, baseball bat, etc.”

Well, not just as easily. I have a hard time believing anyone could kill 20 people in one go with a baseball bat.

It’s statements like these that make people criticize gun owners further (mind you, I am a gun owner). Yes, bats and knives can kill people, but it’s wrong to assume that:

a) Killing with these items is just as easy or likely as if a gun were used
b) Killings would be just as prevalent if there were no guns

Jul 10, 2014 10:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

“There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States.1 This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.2 Excessive alcohol use is responsible for 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) annually, or an average of about 30 years of potential life lost for each death.1 In 2006, there were more than 1.2 million emergency room visits and 2.7 million physician office visits due to excessive drinking.3 The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion.3″

So where is the outrage and movement to reinstate prohibition? Come on people, get off the soap box and admit it is neither the alcohol nor the gun that is responsible, but the actions of individual people who are to blame.

Jul 10, 2014 10:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

jagator, For the quick answer crowd, it is easier to blame an inanimate object and rally against a “thing” than it is to admit that society (people, voting base) have a problem and risk offending someone and losing a vote. It also prevents them from having to think too much and develop a real solution.

Jul 10, 2014 10:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

BeRealistic,

You’ve confused quick answer with obvious answer. As for alcohol, yeah those deaths are primarily their own. If someone wants to jump off a bridge or drink themselves to death so be it. That doesn’t affect me. Someone who takes a gun and goes on a killing spree of others does.

As for the economic costs, that is unfortunate, just as unfortunate as all the other health costs such as eating unhealthy foods, lack of exercise, etc.

Since you have all sorts of ‘real solutions’ because you clearly ‘think real hard’ about this, why don’t you tell us your ‘solution’ for a problem that stems from a device designed for killing.

Jul 10, 2014 10:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
seren37 wrote:

I don’t have a dog in this fight but it’s so very simple. You have to be trained, insured, and checked out to drive a car because it can very easily kill someone – accidentally or on purpose. The same with a gun. Why some people argue against this common sense, yet accept a driver’s license since they don’t want loonies plowing into their car, is beyond common sense.

Jul 10, 2014 12:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Divorce is just not so hard that you have to kill people because of it.

Jul 10, 2014 12:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Chuck22030 wrote:

The wife must have been hot. I mean, she was able to divorce her loser husband, and marry another guy who’s willing to take care of her kids for the sex. He probably wanted to adopt them. I can understand the emotional instability of the ex-husband without condoning what he did. Obviously, the wife didn’t realize how angry a man can get.

Jul 10, 2014 12:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Thubbs wrote:

Gun Control and Banning Guns are two very different things. There is a very obvious need to “control” gun ownership, whether that means stricter background checks which include mental health assessments, liability insurance for gun owners, a ban on assault style weapons, etc. Banning guns will never happen, but controlling gun ownership needs to happen…deperately.
When my child doesn’t play well with his toys, I take the toy away from him until he learns to play well, then I show him how to use it responsibly. That’s my job as a parent. Our lawmakers should take a similar approach to gun owners.

Jul 10, 2014 12:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
brotherkenny4 wrote:

Well, it’s no big deal. We kill children every day with drones. We pursue a foriegn policy that destabilizes democratically elected governments and creates terrorized societies where the children flee to avoid gangs and violence. We proliferate illegal drugs so as to make profits for bankers while creating nations and cities of destruction and violence. And, instead of promoting laws that reduce violence and harm we promote punishment laws for sinners as defined by fanatic religious nuts who love pain and suffering. To make this single act meaningful in this fascist nation of liars and criminals and manipulators and users is a sham. It’s no big deal since we are so much worse than this, and yet the real crazy people talk like we are free and just and good, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are an evil nation of vacuous and selfish manipulatrs intending to gain wealth and favoritism for ourselves and religion and politics are the foil by which we defend ourselves against those that would truly prefer justice.

Jul 10, 2014 12:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MichiganRes wrote:

You don’t need an assault weapon to commit the crime listed above. you could also have gone through a background check and been found ok. This guy planned the crime and unless someone else knew of it beforehand, it is unlikely this crime would have been stopped.
My prayers are with the family and friends.

Jul 10, 2014 12:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gharlandrive wrote:

Keep dem guns free, though. Don’t let a few shootins come in the way of people’s Amurican freedoms.

Jul 10, 2014 1:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Starduster wrote:

People who think more guns = more protection are simply inept at statistics and reasoning. We no longer need musket guns to protect us from an invasion of the British colonialists and guns can’t protect us from our own government because they would just type in coordinates from across the country and turn a neighborhood into dust if they wanted. Bottom line is that guns rarely protect people, and they more often than not are used to hurt innocent people. Vote out any politicians not courageous enough to ban all guns in America so that 10-20 years from now, we’ll have less gun violence.

Jul 10, 2014 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

@pb1988 wrote: “… the killings could just as easily be done with a knife, baseball bat, etc.”

RESPONSE:
Ever see the movie ‘The Warriors’(1979), based on Sol Yurick’s novel?
One of the New York street gangs portrayed, the ‘Furies’, wear pseudo baseball style uniforms and arms themselves with baseball bats.

After seeing that film I have viewed the Chicago Cubs in a whole different light, which helps explain for me their perpetual cellar win/loss records over the past 100 years. Great street gang; mediocre ball club. HA! :-)

Jul 10, 2014 1:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

@jagator wrote: “I agree. Ban all guns. And while we are at it let’s ban cars too. No more leaving children in the back seat to bake to death. And then we can ban knives too. No more stabbing. And after that ban baseball. No more beating people over the head with bats. And then a ban on rope. No more strangling people or bounding them and putting them in the trunks of those banned cars. What do we do though about people’s bare hands and feet when they beat someone to death?”

REPLY:
Well you’re no fun at all. Party pooper!

Jul 10, 2014 1:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Goldenfoxx wrote:

@LogicalOne: It wasn’t the gun, it was the crazy man behind the gun. I’m sure he had shown signs of craziness but no one can do anything about it until they do stupid things. He could have done the same thing with a sword. Guns aren’t the problem, people are.

Jul 10, 2014 2:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RMax304823 wrote:

Angry man in Texas gets gun and kills couple and children.

It must be a slow news day.

Jul 10, 2014 2:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bobfrancais wrote:

that 15 year old girl is a hero and she saved the lives of who knows how many other people, i hope this girl gets all the love and support she needs, and poor brave girl needs to in the future go to court and face some lowlife attorney that will try to help this murderer get a reduced sentence, i hope she has the strength and will to follow thru and see that this guy gets put to death as soon as possible, and i hope that maybe somehow some justice can come from this horrible thing, i hope that this guy looks at this girl in court and sees what a real brave women can be, and sees that there is a god and even in this tragic murder that justice will be handed out and that this girl grows up healthy enough to have a family of her own and has somehow a happy life. god bless you and i hope everybody will support this girl and give her the love and support she deserves and that she will see that her family that died would want her to go on and live life to the fullest and do it for herself but also for them. this is so so sad and beyond words.

Jul 10, 2014 3:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
possibilianP wrote:

In a statement from the NRA, Wayne LaPierre (obviously of liberal French decent) said “Aw he’s just exercising is constitutional rights. Give him a break you liberals!”

Jul 10, 2014 5:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sorrymess wrote:

hope you look at kinshasaorchestra and see peace,.

remember usa got uranium there for their first nukes,.,.

Jul 10, 2014 6:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Keithm98 wrote:

Actually carnivalchaos, Texas does not have a “very liberal gun laws”. We very well controlled gun laws just not as strict as Chicago yet we have FEWER gun deaths. Actually, the whole state of Texas has fewer deaths per year than the city of Chicago alone. And the only place in Texas that has the largest number of gun deaths is Houston which is largely populated with liberals. That is why Sheila Jackson Lee keeps getting reelected.

Jul 10, 2014 7:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

Righties keep saying “Guns don’t kill. People do” in the apparent belief that the bullet that does the killing doesn’t come from a gun.

Whatever, even if you take the view that the person kills (with a gun… but we will ignore the whole using-a-gun-to-kill bit for the sake of argument), then why is the GOP so hell bent on making it as easy as possible for these people that do the killing to get guns?

Jul 10, 2014 12:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pyradius wrote:

Keithm98,

That point is as tired as it is irrelevant. Chicago’s gun laws are 100% irrelevant since the rest of Illinois has very LAX gun laws as do most of the surrounding states. So yeah, that’s why this is a national issue, not a state, city, or otherwise local issue.

Jul 11, 2014 2:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
komokazi wrote:

Lol, same ol’ same ol’. Criminals will be criminals, regardless of what the LAW is.

“…start holding gun owners responsible when their guns are used to commit crimes…”

So if someone’s house is burglarized and their firearm is stolen, should they be held responsible? There is absolutely no way you could keep a firearm 100% secure.

He had it in his mind to kill those people regardless if guns were legal or not, lol. What a joke.

Jul 11, 2014 9:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.