Now, this bizarre story is a prime example of the terrible toll of gun violence. The 75-year-old man who killed this couple undoubtedly would not have done so if he hadn't had a gun. Now FIVE children are orphaned.
The couple wasn't blameless, of course, as they were being vindictive about the man's complaints about noise. But these were two slayings that almost certainly wouldn't have happened except for our excessive love affair with guns.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/02/dallas-po … hway.html/
I hear ya Bear--this story, sad as it is, is rife with opportunities for good jokes. Excluding all the bizarre and sad rash of gun murders as of recent, this story brings a sly smile to your face. A fitting outcome for shitty people?
The apartment complex is at least partly at fault here. They should have moved one of the parties.
I don't imagine this is the first time people have been killed over dog poop. Its an issue that can cause a stink.
Granted, the person might still commit suicide with pills or something, or the man angry over the dog poop might grab a knife and carve them up. But I think that realistically you just have to look at the numbers from other countries that aren't as gun crazy as we are to know the answer: If so many guns weren't just lying around, a lot less people would die. BTW, there are also an average of 2 accidental shooting deaths per day in the U.S. If guns weren't around, those wouldn't happen for sure.
As I pointed out in the earlier post, the reality is that we as a country have decided to accept these deaths. We wouldn't from other causes, but as a country, that's a decision we appear to have made. That doesn't mean we can NEVER change our minds.
I also think it would be fantastic to spend more on mental health, and improvements are needed in that area. But thinking that alone is the answer isn't true either.
I'll go along with the person who said that trying to address gun deaths without addressing guns is like trying to address smoking without addressing cigarettes.
That answers my question then, doesn't it? It's the mental condition, not the instrument. If a person is bent on suicide, they are going to stop because a firearm wasn't available? A "crime of passion" won't happen because they don't have access to a firearm?
As long as we address only the firearms and ignore the root of the problem, nothing will change. People who are blaming the access to firearms are looking or a quick fix to a deep rooted problem.
But that kind of misses the point. Which is: The vast majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides and, as in this case, crimes of passion. If guns were not so free and easy in this country, the number of these types of deaths, and we're talking thousands a year (there are over 50 suicide guns deaths per day in this country, just that alone).
However, we as a society have decided to accept these kind of casualty figures in the interest of letting Americans "have their Second Amendment rights." Other countries have decided differently. And I suppose that's fine that we as a country accept the carnage, but I don't think there's any reason to bury our heads in the sand about why it happens. Regardless of what the NRA has to say, supply of guns does affect casualty figures. So let's just be honest and say that we as a country are OK with it instead of making lame excuses.
Mr. Kim is a 75 year old Vietnamese. They don't tell us if he is a natural born citizen or one of the "boat people" brought over in the late 70's. Could there have been mental issues, such as PTSD? Was he reaching the age of dementia/Alzheimer's? If he didn't have a firearm, would he have continued just verbally assaulting the people or gone after them with a knife?
Timothy McVeigh, the perpetrator of the "deadliest act of terrorism on American soil prior to 9/11" used ammonium nitrate and nitromethane (a racing fuel). He killed 168 people and injured 800. Was it the instrument or the mental condition?