https://apnews.com/article/five-dead-long-island-new-york-cc670f4aae6318f2c778c6aff40d084d
A New York man distraught that he was being forced to move from his late mother’s home shot and killed four of his family members before turning the gun on himself.
DeLucia, Jr., who worked as a local auto mechanic, was also a hoarder and the house was packed with tools and other car repair items, Fitzpatrick added.
At the extreme, could this be a "failure to launch" child, now 57 years old, that continued to live at home being provided for by mom unable or or unwilling to provide for themselves, and finally was being forced to provide for themselves at age? Did the family make overtures to get the man mental help for decades only to be rebuffed by mom or the murderer? Now that mom was gone, the siblings were forced to deal with it?
The article doesn't contain enough information to draw conclusions.
How does this keep happening?
It keeps happening because parenting can get legislated only so much. Inept and ineffective parenting isn’t exactly illegal if the child is relatively unharmed.
We (Americans) will never give up our guns, especially if you are working class.
We should continue to help fund to uphold our 2A rights.
Gun safety and training should be an option for everyone.
Everyone who makes this absurd argument knows it won't. They just want to keep their stupid toys and don't care about the lives it costs, so they muddy the waters to delay actual action on preventing these needless deaths.
Every time there's a systemic problem in the US, someone shows up to make a proposal that puts a very small band-aid on the problem at best while making it much more deeply entrenched in the long-term and consequently more of a problem (in the above examples, we have respectively more guns and gun culture, more investment put into generating energy via coal, more infrastructure for plastic, and more car infrastructure). Basically, "I don't want my guns taken away ever, so the solution I'm going to come up with is that everyone has them and so the actually effective solution of restricting them becomes literally impossible." Their solution doesn't just not work; it actively causes more deaths while serving their own self-interest.
I honestly don't think, in this specific case, it matters either way. This was a murder-suicide by an insane person. They could just as well have used poison or a knife.
I don't think guns were the root of the problem in this case. It sounds to me like this guy was fucked and almost certainly not getting the support he needed. If he was living at home and had a "hoarder" amount of tools he likely didn't have anywhere to go. Assuming he was getting a even cut of the sale1/5 of the return on a house wouldn't be sufficient to provide for another house to keep that stuff. Obviously he did a horrible thing but this probably could have been avoided by not letting him get into such a desperate situation in the first place. It's a failure of society.
"gUnS dOn'T kIlL pEoPle, PeOpLe KiLl PeOpLe" is always fun to see trotted out. This was a failure of society to keep a shotgun out of the hands of a deeply mentally unstable man, and every rational country in this respect is either laughing at Americans who make this ridiculous argument while their gun violence rate is multiple orders of magnitude lower than ours, or maybe they just don't have it in them to laugh and just feel bad over the mountain of corpses America makes and then just says "well we just need better mental health and then everything will be fine bro".
Any mental health professional worth their salt will tell you that giving someone access to firearms simply increases the likelihood for impulsive murders/suicides.
Okay so say he didn't have a gun, he's still in a desperate situation. As long as he only has the capacity to kill himself it's fine?
Mental health intervention is important, but you can't intervene when someone is dead.
Haven't needed one yet. Might need one in the next few upcoming years if things keep going as poorly as they have been. The second amendment was intended for citizens to protect themselves from invading forces and malevolent American government alike. We haven't yet had a desperate enough need to exercise it in such a fashion, so instead it's merely built up a gun nut culture in America. But it's there for such times as we find ourselves approaching.
I sincerely, desperately hope it doesn't come to that. But I'm comforted by the fact that one of the favorite tools of my possible enemy is one that also guarantees I am never defenseless.
The same could be said about nukes. You hope they're never needed, but the fact that they're there helps keep things in check.
Does it really though? It certainly doesn't level the playing field between those who have nukes and those who gave them up to get a guarantee of sovereignty...
The military has drones though, that can used against the population at any time. How do you defend against that with arms from the civilian market? Or just tanks.
It is a matter of scale and tactics.
For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that's 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that's 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.
For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.
There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don't need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US.. When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.
When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as "Rambo," but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.
In before someone reports this - the person DID kill themselves, therefore this comment isn't advocating self-harm, so much as "I wish the harm had ONLY been to themselves"
Using so-called “red flag” laws, local police could have potentially prevented DeLucia from obtaining a firearm if they were made aware he was dealing with mental health issues, Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder said Monday.
And if we had a PreCrime unit like in Minority Report, crime would never happen. What a pointless addition to the article and pointless statement by useles police. These kinds of mental issue are rarely caught in time as the person "seems normal" until they don't. While long guns are insanely accessible and cheap in most states.
With the frequency that crazy errant behavior seems to occur with boomer-age people, I truly do wonder if there is a common thread. Leaded gas? Covid causing long-term brain damage from plugged blood vessels? Micro-plastics? Having to face the reality that their retirement is going to erode away because of the climate change they naively accelerated with their spoiled ass lives?
It's not 'fatally shooting', it's killing or murdering.
Edit: lowered the bodily functions over the life threshold using a portable metal ejecting tool.
Ok "shot dead", is that ok?
I know. It's just that fatally shot is what policemen or "good guys" gets, a bad guy will get the "killed" headline. That's what I wanted to convey.
Like how an 18-21 year old woman that murders gets called a woman/adult in the headline, but if she's the victim, she's called a girl/young adult. (Similar with guys too.) News author or editor injecting bias (intentional or otherwise) into the article. That's always annoyed me.
Can't put my finger on it, but I feel we have a word for fatally shooting people.
I guess we're avoiding the word gun in titles now..
What term would you use that’s more accurate than ‘fatally shoots’? The term ‘murdered’ would simply obfuscate the method of killing.
No but if could have legal consequences. Murder is used both colloquially and legally, and accusing someone of being a murderer or committing murder if they have not been found guilty at trial could be considered, when issued by a news agency of any kind especially, as libel. That's why you see news agencies using the word "allegedly" all the time. Because legally speaking, they are innocent until proven guilty, even if they were caught red-handed.
You unable to see the word "shoot" in the title? I doubt it was a blow dart...erm.. oh wait. That's a gun too!
I don't think it was a crossbow, or long bow, or a water...damn it. Keep coming back to "gun".
If you can't discern that it's a gun from the title, there's not much to do.
You inject with a syringe but maybe their mind went there since that's referred to as a shot. I guess they could also assume someone forced them to drink 1.5oz of liquor and died from it. Maybe it's because I'm American but when I hear "fatally shot" only one instrument comes to mind.
I'm not a redditor lol. It says reddit wanderer, as I have been wandering since the day RIF stopped working. I have not returned to reddit. Nice try with the ad hominem though
Can't put my finger on it, but I feel we have a word for idiots posting stupid shit on the internet.
I guess we're avoiding the word redditor in titles now..
There's really no need to get angry and attack people personally because you don't like their opinion. My comment is extremely tame and you're allowed to not agree.
Funny I recently went back after however long it's been since reddit took a shit. Man the quality of the comments there is absolute shit. Seems like the only ones left are immature. So glad for Lemmy!
Yeah even the Buddhist subs that I used to peruse are just so full of garbage that I ended up not checking it any longer.