Thankfully no guns were hurt during the incident.
-Republicans probably
The problem is there wasn’t a nearby cop that could have shot everyone, that would have sold the problem.
I don’t know if they had the complexion to be shot in self defense by a cop though.
How white are the people involved?
Pretty white, but not very wealthy if that makes a difference
Republicans actually: lol stupid fuck, glad I’m not a loser like this guy!
This is so American. From the availability of firearms, to their immediate use upon a perceived threat, to the economic situation that would have him evicted, to the insane sentence of 100 years for a 66 year old who needs an oxygen tank. Just sad all around.
I don’t think 100 years is insane, it’s life without parol without actually saying it. He shot two people tried to shoot another and actually killed the youngest.
Other countries don’t follow the punitive approach to criminal law, but rather a reformative. With the facts we are presented with it actually seems more like a failure of society instead of just one man. The sentence is absolutely ridiculous.
There are cases to reform somebody, and I fully agree that we must try that. In some cases. Which this is absolutely not.
Well an arguement could be made that he’s not going to do it again.
Think about the distinction between a contract killer and somebody who committed a crime of passion. Are both of those people equally likely to reoffend?
If the objective is to either reform someone or simply remove a threat from society then both cases require different approaches.
An argument could be made, sure, but I don’t think it would be effective. If a person has the capacity to willingly murder their family members over an issue of eviction, then I don’t know how much capacity for reform they have. They pose an imminent and ongoing danger to anyone near them; an unacceptable level of risk in a tolerant society.
Beyond that concept, there’s very little (if any) benefit to society to reforming and releasing this man. Any work that would need to be done to ensure this man could never kill again would take a considerable amount of time. He’s already 66 - let’s say it only takes four years (somehow), then he’ll be released when he’s 70. He already has health complications which likely put his life expectancy well below average, meaning his death is probably impending in the next decade - probably sooner based on substandard penal medical care.
Trying to reform this man is like trying to keep a 21 year old dog alive - sure you can do it, and you’ll probably feel better about yourself if you do, but there’s no real benefit to the dog or society at large. He should have just been handed life without parole instead of 100 years - that seems like a sentence that could be appealed due to the silly nature of how long it is.
Just want to point out that in Canada the stats are extremely clear, murderers are the convicts that are the least likely to commit the same crime that got them convicted again if they get released. Obviously there’s a panel to decide if they’re ready to come out and some of them never will, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be given the tools to reform themselves.
I’ve never thought anything over 10 years was appropriate to a once-in-a-lifetime type of crime of passion. It’s enough time for a decent remediation process to prevent a repeat offense OR prove a certainty that the person cannot be trusted free due to mental issues and put them in a permanent non-punitive form of imprisonment.
In his case, if he didn’t have access to firearms, he wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. Sounds like he needs specialized assisted living, like the old guy who held himself hostage with a shotgun the next town over from me
Nobody can mistake that the 100 years isn’t for the good of society, but to punish him for taking a life.
I think most countries actually do both.
It can be both punitive and reformative.
What the hell are you going to reform in a 66 year old man who needs an oxygen tank? Who made the choice to kill children?
I don’t want to reform someone like that, I want them removed from society and if you cared you’d feel the same way. If you kill children, you lose your membership in society, period. Just throw the key away on him, and if you want to argue about it, go be his bunkmate.
Yeah let’s reform this 66 year old child murderer.
He can repent and do good works behind bars just fine.
US prisons aren’t humane, so it’s impossible to do good work behind bars.
Guess he should just be executed then, since he can’t be reformed and prison isn’t humane.
A 66 year old man who wants to kill his girlfriend and his son is not worth wasting the effort of any decent person to try and rehabilitate.
Let’s spend scarce resources on people who might actually be helped.
reformative
Europe has lower crime rates because of fewer guns, not because of some enlightened prison system. Crime is created by need and opportunity. Punishment barely does anything and rehabilitation doesn’t solve the root cause of crime.
Not true, true, not true. 1/3 is not very accurate.
who needs an oxygen tank.
My first thought upon seeing that mugshot was that a lawyer might be playing up health issues for sympathy. That’s how American this is. Source: American. Sorry, USA. The rest of the continents do not deserve our shit reputation, problems aside.
That does happen, but this person does seem to have confirmed medical issues.
As well as being extremely irresponsible and a complete piece of shit, and, and this is pure conjecture, openly bigot and hard core Trump voter.
It’s okay, just now on the news I saw that a man successfully shot and killed his 21 year old son, so the universe is now balanced.
clearly this 8 year old and that 21 year old should have been packing
Obviously. The solution is always more guns.
the only thing that can stop a bad senior with a gun is a good toddler with a gun
Caught’em slipping.
So this article makes it seem like he’s got dementia and was under the spell of a delusion when shooting his partner & daughter. But it’s written so vaguely that it’s hard to know for sure. So I found another article that seems to be much more clear about what happened:
TL;DR: 66-year-old man is in rough shape; has Hepatitis B, Emphysema, and COPD, and needs an oxygen tank. His partner (a much younger woman), their daughter together (8 years old), and his son from a previous marriage (18) all came to his house. The article doesn’t say what happened in the conversation, but he apparently became enraged thinking they were trying to get him out of the house. My guess is that they were trying to get him to go into a care facility due to his many, many ailments.
Dude saw red, grabbed a gun, and started blasting. Shot his partner, then tried shooting his son, missed, and hit his 8-year-old daughter in the back as she was running away from him.
So it sounds much less like dementia (though that could still very well be a factor), and more like a miserable piece of shit reaching for a gun first to solve all of his problems.
Paradoxically he ended up in a sort of care facility. Some “care” but maybe not the care he needed
It can be both, though. He could be a sack of shit who is now going through dementia.
I mean, of course it’s related to mental health, no psychopathic idiot has ever owned a gun and misused it.
In other worlds….
America.
Why didn’t the 8 year old have a gun to defend herself with? That’s the only thing that could have saved her life!
This is incorrect : she was accidentally shot by a good guy with a gun, who missed and shot the wrong person.
FTFY
The people downvoting you are the same people that argue that if we arm more people, we can solve the gun problem. And each downvote is an acknowledgement that their argument is garbage.
It’s the weather. The cause of gun violence is the weather. You learned it here first, folks. Weather = gun violence.
Or maybe it’s people that think this sort of rhetoric is tasteless when talking about an event where a kid died.
Yes, the man should never have had access to a firearm. But a child died for having the misfortune to be born to this sack of shit. That’s the takeaway here. Not some opportunity to try and stick it to the strawmen in your head.
These sort of “hot takes” are nothing more then mental masturbation, looking for validation from people who already share your own beliefs.
Seriously take a step back and think about the fact that you just built up some fucking narrative to place yourself as the hero against a horde of people lesser than yourself. That’s your response to this news.
You sure showed all the pro gun jackasses! They definitely are bothered by your post and absolutely seething! Whatever makes you feel like you’ve done the superior thing and that you think the right things to think.
Your views aren’t wrong, you’re just being a tool.
A child is dead, and you’re more invested in finding a way to feel superior to others than anything else. Fuck everything about that.
Fuck guns
Fuck religion, alcohol, politics, financial inequality, unaffordable health care and brain dead sports fans.
Yes, but fuck guns extra hard.
Those too.
Except politics, that makes no sense. Politics is literally public debate. You don’t like people trying to solve their problems through open discourse?
I was thinking about most of the bullshit that is part of politics in a more broad sense, I suppose. It would be the hate filled vitriol that keeps spewing out of the mouths of politicians, that I refer to. It’s also lightly referencing how political wrangling has caused endless years of pain in some cases.
To summarize, anything negative you can associate with political dysfunction is what I meant. Putting in a full summary into my short quip probably wasn’t ideal, but since we are talking about it now, cool. Still, it wasn’t initially clear, so it is totally fair to question.
(Politics can refer to actions taken while governing which can relate to debate or discussion: “His decision to arrest the man was purely a political choice.” In that context, an action is taken because of past (or future) debate. Politics, aside from its proper definition, is a little flexible in its use, proper or not. “Political correctness” is a weird usage in that regard as it encompasses an assumed standard.)
All right, I just still think that it’s an empty statement- “I dislike the bad side of X” isn’t exactly stating much, while being actively used as a normative soundbite, something everyone can agree to disagree on while at the same time favoring the position that “all sides are equal, nothing you do matters, everyone is malicious”, which is pretty cynical. Not arguing a case against you or anything, I’m just arguing out loud I guess, but I see these semantic tricks being played out in media that are very obvious when you know what to look for, that manage to infect swathes of people, by far the majority of everyone around me.
So there’s that.
Totally cool, and you ain’t wrong. The way I explained my use of the word “politics” was correct. However, your last explanation may have been my subconscious intent. A very peculiar freudian slip, as it were.
Religion is kinda fire ngl
If you define “fire” as “a tool to oppress people” then sure.
For manipulating and controlling armies of citizens, yes, it’s straight up white phosphorous!
wtaf?
Valez believed that two women had come to the house to evict him and he lost his temper
so… how did that relate to his partner and son?
so confused
daughter in law and his partner were the two women maybe?
article is kinda bad
yet another shining example of the kind of quality republican needed to prove the value of the second amendment
Republicans prove the value of the second amendment everytime they open their mouths.
Trump is the greatest argument I’ve seen for it.
(Just… for the record… I’m generally pro gun control.)
I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
You’re right. If the military comes down on a side, that side probably wins.
You assume that a) such a hypothetical starts with the military and b) I was talking about all out war to start with.
There’s a very large spectrum here.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
I’ll be sure to let North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and most recently Gaza know your thoughts on it, buddy.
Didn’t know they had the second amendment over there.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don’t need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I’m not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I’m pointing out the “the side with the bigger guns wins” argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
like I’m on pure face value argument pro self defense and having a gun if someone is breaking into my house
but imagine your daughter is this bozos baby momma
But he tried to shoot his son? Lmao
so I live around stupid fuckers like this in the deep south
he never intended to kill any of them, he was trying to run them off and was probably not thinking about consequences at all
betting he was also drunk
never intended to kill any of them
“He told police he shot his partner, Heather Hall, until she fell to the ground”
idk, seems like intent to me
probably legally but again stupid + drunk and angry with zero thought beyond the moment
something like ‘they’re not gonna kick me off my own property’ drunk as fuck and was interviewed in shock
I know someone that shot at his own mom cause she wouldn’t give him 20$, they got in a fight and she told him something like ‘shoot me if you don’t believe me I don’t have it’
stupid + redneck + drugs and anger
goddamn I guess it’s gotten crazier since I was last in that region
meth, it’s a fucking mess over lots of rural America and not just the south
Just wanted to make her sit down, duh. If all you have is a gun, every problem becomes a target.
Maybe his intention was just to clear the view, not to kill anyone. He’s allowed to clear the view in his home, right? Anything above waist height has to go, I’ve felt the same many a time polishing my SMG in the garage. Alas, I have neither wife, kids, nor visitors to obstruct my view, for unrelated reasons.
With enough drugs or alcohol involved, this makes sense.
Oh, alcohol and drugs are always involved, very much always.
If you can’t see how this happened without blaming it on drugs, it’s not my problem
I am also going to bet he’s a racist piece of shit and hardline Trump supporter, but that is neither here nor there.
Man did his patriotic duty, shooting his useless kids. Semper fi.
Daughter-in-law? Where’s that coming from?
nope I’m stupid and misread it, totally baby momma not daughter in law
so no clue who the two ladies are
daughter and baby momma?
Let me clear it up. Person 1: Sister / baby-mamma / uncle.
Person 2: Daughter in law/ nephew/ grandmother.
Family relations are kinda interesting in that part of the world.
ok, back to “so confused”
Boomers don’t need guns.
Dementia + lethal weapons. Terrible combination.
Pretty much no one in rich countries need guns these days, no matter the generation.
It’s really depressing. Yesterday I packed out an order for a hidden magnetic gun holder.
Like great. That is wonderful. Someone out there, possibly a paranoid deranged asshole, wants to keep a presumably loaded gun under their bedside table or desk…
Spend some time in Alaska before making comments like this.
Hey look, the exception that makes the “pretty much no one” part right! All the people in the American northern territories (Alaska, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, Nunavik) don’t represent one million in population out of 372 millions for the US + Canada, that’s less than 0.26% of the population or “pretty much no one” and not all of them need one (my uncle used to live in Nunavik, never owned a gun in his life), not all of them are legally allowed to own them and not all of them want one either… Wow, that % is getting smaller and smaller now, isn’t it?
Spend some time in class to learn reading comprehension and maths before making comments like this.
By your very own logic basically no that owns a gun commits a crime with them. Fewer than 500,000 reported gun related crimes against over 100 million gun owners in the us. For a .05% gun offense rate by gun owners, and that percentage gets smaller when you consider how many of those are repeat offenders and people illegally owning a fire arm.
Seems like the math is saying its not guns, but maybe something else these criminal offenders have in common that +99.95% don’t share with them…
That’s… Totally unrelated to what I said.
OP: Boomers don’t need guns
Me: Pretty much no one need guns in rich countries
You: Go to Alaska! They need guns!
Me: Yeah, they might need them, they’re covered by the “pretty much no one” in my first message
You: Rambling about gun crime stats like it proves something about people needing guns
I could have the same argument with someone saying they need a pickup truck or a 5000 sq ft house in the city. There’s a very big difference between wanting and needing and pretty much no one in rich countries need guns today.
I never brought up crime because that’s irrelevant to what I said and you doing it just proves how irrational you’ve become when it comes to this subject. You’re so used to just typing a bunch of stuff on your keyboard whenever someone says they don’t like guns that now that you see someone mentioning that it’s not a need (never mentioning my personal stance on the subject) you’re unable to make the difference, to you it’s just an anti gun message because anything that doesn’t go “yay guns!” is anti guns in your mind and you just can’t help it, you try and pull the discussion in the direction you know and talk about crime and homicide rates.
Again, it’s a discussion about needs and it wasn’t started by me, I just added that it doesn’t just apply to boomers.
How do you define “need” in this context? I’ve “needed” a gun before, when a dude pulled a knife on me in a walmart parking lot I moved my shirt and grabbed the grip, didn’t even draw it, and with that action he decided to turn and calmly walk away instead of stab me and my then-gf. Had I not had it he could have taken my shit, sliced my belly open (which if you’ve never seen that, gruesome, happened to a bartender I dished for one night when he tried to break up a bar fight), or forced my girlfriend at the time into his car for god knows what, instead, he decided “maybe the next one,” and I have a hard time believing that had nothing to do with me grabbing the grip. Did I “need” it because he was clearly threatening our lives? Did I not because I wasn’t stabbed yet? How do you define “need?”
Oh and just to be clear in case you (like me) neglect to read usernames sometimes: I am a different person.
You’re making assumptions about what would have happened after you had emptied your wallet/your girlfriend’s purse so let’s ignore that.
The same kind of crimes happen in countries where guns aren’t prevalent and, if anything, in lower proportions with less victims of physical violence and that person might as well just have jumped on you to not give you the time to pull out your gun vs ran away with your money as soon as you gave it to them. At close range they had the advantage with their knife.
The need here isn’t guns but social programs to help the people who might resort to those means to live.
Now now, don’t go bringing math like “banning ARs would be ineffective because all rifles only account for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr for a rate of 0.2% of our gun deaths” or “Harvard, in an attempt to debunk Kleck and Lott’s estimates at defensive gun use /yr and ‘disprove the good guy with a gun theory,’ have put forth ‘a more realistic estimate of 100,000 dgu/yr,’ which is still 40,000 more than our gun deaths/yr including suicide and 88,000 more than intentional firearm homicides/yr” into this.
deleted by creator
Heck, I mentioned it elsewhere, my uncle used to live in Nunavik, didn’t own one, they had one hunting rifle per work team in their truck, but that’s exactly my point, he didn’t personally needed one, but he needed one while at work because his job would bring him all over the place and they could meet dangerous wildlife. The worst that could happen at home was having a bear on his deck in the morning and he would just call and a couple minutes later authorities were there to make it go away or do a catch and release.
“My uncle didn’t need a gun except when he did every day at work.”
“If there was a bear at his door he’d just call the bear guys and they’d come and make the bear leave.”
This is my favorite take in this entire thread.
deleted by creator
From the get go my take is that a minority of people need guns. My uncle worked for the transport ministry in a location where the biggest town has a couple hundreds permanent residents, his job was to go check all the dirt roads around, no shit he would need a rifle for work. At home he clearly didn’t need one though because well… He was in town, at home!
Yeah, in remote locations the local authorities take care of wildlife that decide to come inside the towns, people don’t just go shooting bears left and right, that’s pretty obvious when you think about it for more than 2 seconds.
But you carried bear spray or didn’t go into nature.
deleted by creator
My brother in Christ, bear mace IS a weapon.
deleted by creator
don’t forget drugs, tons of drugs
As something they need more or less of?
Because with the right dose of sedatives I can’t imagine this story happening at all.
that’s the only explanation that makes sense
They are buying so many of them now too. My dad keeps buying guns, doesn’t hunt, just preparing like the “news” he watches fears him to.
Not all boomers. They had hippies too
If they were really hippies, would they willingly have firearms? That seems very unusual for them.
I am confused by the way this is reported. Did he mistake his son and his ex-partner to be officers who had come to evict him and shoot at them? Or did he hold them responsible for his looming eviction?
Anyway, US really need better gun control. Looks like any nutjob can get a gun there. It is tragic to see a young life ending this way.
Also the fact a mentally healthy person can snap in the heat of the moment.
If there’s a gun nearby that can be all it takes.
Death by cop is quite popular in the States.
Sometimes it’s even voluntary!
That is ridiculous, let’s take a hypothetical example and replace guns with red buttons that fire nuclear missiles- why should responsible nuclear missile button owners have their rights to own nuclear missile buttons be infringed by the actions of a few nuclear missile button owning crazies? Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater, there’s plenty of perfectly normal everyday situations where owning nuclear missile buttons make absolute sense and is in fact to be considered a patriotic duty. So said musket wielding men in wigs 250 years ago, and dang nabbit, so we all say still!
A quote from the judge according to the article:
“I just can’t believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present”
What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you’re not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after “I just can’t believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun”. Full stop. You’re being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don’t belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.
Ugh.
They were just listing all of the reasons why it was a bad idea, not qualifying each reason as “okay if the other ones didn’t occur”.
Look, if it’s an enclosed space with children present it’s okay as long as the rent has been paid in full.
I can fully see your inference, but don’t believe that the judge meant it that way. This was more lamenting the senselessness of the entire situation.
Another way to look it at is that there are situations in which picking up a handgun in a small space with children present is justified; however, being evicted is not one of them.
Agree to disagree
Isn’t that the story of Palestine?
Let’s be real, he intended to shoot everyone. He’s dodging his intent to murder a child before being put in with inmates who will know that.
Good thing there are guns everywhere so a momentary burst of anger turns into a permanent tragedy.
So, Republicans… Where was the good guy with a gun to stop this guy?
He’s supposed to be one of the “good guys” with a gun?
Well he was definitely a guy with a gun. So he was at least half way there I think.
That’s two out of three!
Those kids could easily grow up to be school shooters, so he’s really just a hero before his time.
No?
It’s a rhetorical question. No one is.
Oh, come on now, I’d think the allied forces on D-Day were good guys with guns.
So if someone shot this man dead right before he murdered his child that person would not be a good guy with a gun?
deleted by creator
NEVER EXISTS!
Check mate, atheists.
This is what libertarian thought does to a person. People lose all sense of perspective.
It’s like gaslighting yourself. Huffing it hard. I honestly think it has to do with lower intelligence. You simplify things until they make sense to you, regardless if they make sense in actual reality, because you’re too stupid to comprehend anything more complex than racist Disney cartoons from the 30’s.
Virtually every libertarian I know thinks that he’s a fucking genius, especially the really stupid ones.
I think a lot of it is clever people who for whatever reason learned to fear thinking and all their brain mass has evolved to help them justify not doing it
There’s an amazing book. Combatting Cult Mind Control, but even intelligent people fall for this bullshit because it’s all emotional manipulation.
To a higher or a lesser degree, sure. I’m just saying, the statistics are firmly skewed in one direction.
Out shitty society created this situation. People need a secure place to live, and we need proper social securities in place.
And guns need to be regulated.
