Janney murder/suicide committed with a handgun in DC: Thanks, Scalia

[Anonymous]

The Post reports that the Janney mom killed by her husband was shot with a handgun.

Let’s be clear here:
This woman might well be alive today without the Republicans on the Supreme Court.

The Heller decision, written by Scalia and voted for by Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas, rolled back the District’s ability to get handguns out of DC.

If this was a legal handgun, the shooter literally would not have had the gun without the Republican justices (and the billionaires that put them on the court by funding the Federalist Society).
If it was an illegal handgun, it still would be less likely for him to have it if Heller did not exist. First, Heller made DC reticent about regulating guns. And second, it’s easier for the cops to find illegal handguns if they know that every single handgun in DC is illegal.
(Re: 2nd amendment: it says “militia”. And that was widely recognized before 1980. Chief Justice Burger called the idea that 2nd A applied to individual rights a “fraud on the American public.”)

—-

My heart goes out to those kids and their Mom. This is a terrible tragedy.

But the time to talk about gun control is now. And we should not shirk from putting blame where it belongs. The husband committed a terrible crime. But conservatives helped. The NRA helped. Gun manufacturers helped. And the Federalist Society and Republican judges helped. That mother would be more likely to be alive today if Republicans didn’t use gun identity politics for votes.

[Anonymous]

The United States is a war zone. I agree OP, the time to talk about how to fix this is now. Such a crime wouldn't have happened in other developed countries, where gun licensing often involves interviews, home visits, and interviews of references (i.e. a proper background check).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The United States is a war zone. I agree OP, the time to talk about how to fix this is now. Such a crime wouldn't have happened in other developed countries, where gun licensing often involves interviews, home visits, and interviews of references (i.e. a proper background check).

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States is a war zone. I agree OP, the time to talk about how to fix this is now. Such a crime wouldn't have happened in other developed countries, where gun licensing often involves interviews, home visits, and interviews of references (i.e. a proper background check).

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

Very well said. It's like both sides can't give an inch in the other direction. I lived abroad in a country with a lot of hunters. You could get hunting rifles after a thorough check, but handguns were pretty much illegal. No one worried about being shot since it's pretty obvious if a person's walking around with a rifle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States is a war zone. I agree OP, the time to talk about how to fix this is now. Such a crime wouldn't have happened in other developed countries, where gun licensing often involves interviews, home visits, and interviews of references (i.e. a proper background check).

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

Very well said. It's like both sides can't give an inch in the other direction. I lived abroad in a country with a lot of hunters. You could get hunting rifles after a thorough check, but handguns were pretty much illegal. No one worried about being shot since it's pretty obvious if a person's walking around with a rifle.

The NRA and "gun nuts" won't give an inch because they know the goal is abolishing private ownership of guns. Be real: that is what many urban dealers are "shooting" for. It's the same dynamic with abortion: "pro choice nuts" won't give an inch on regulation because they know some opponents won't be happy until it is illegal all the time everywhere.

[Anonymous]

A friend is an NRA Life Member.

I'm deleting the gift to him in my Will because I don't want it going to the NRA.

[Anonymous]

If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

Agree with this. A few years ago, there was a news story about a man in Pennsylvania who killed his wife with a chain saw and then killed him self with the same chain saw. It was a divorce situation with disputes about child custody. Better mental health care could have made a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

we need all of that, but it's also well-proven that access to guns makes murder and suicide more effective and frequent.

[Anonymous]

DC homicide is lower now than most years in the 80s-90s when the handgun ban was in effect. I would say you have a point about the law if the homicide rate went up after the Supreme Court ruled. But it hasn't. What the PP said about mental health is very important. Sadly this was how it was going to end for this woman gun law or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

we need all of that, but it's also well-proven that access to guns makes murder and suicide more effective and frequent.

I don't disagree with more restrictions but saying that is the primary cause is not. This was a contentious divorce, probably lawyers made it worse as well a the court system and depending on if there was a DV or mental health background, he was probably looking at getting his kids every other weekend/maybe a night a week and basically losing his kids and his entire life as the courts are set up to benefit women depending on the state and judge. We don't know anything but simply put, this isn't a gun issue and its a society issue. Mental health treatment and many other things would have greatly helped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Post reports that the Janney mom killed by her husband was shot with a handgun.

Let’s be clear here:
This woman might well be alive today without the Republicans on the Supreme Court.

The Heller decision, written by Scalia and voted for by Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas, rolled back the District’s ability to get handguns out of DC.

If this was a legal handgun, the shooter literally would not have had the gun without the Republican justices (and the billionaires that put them on the court by funding the Federalist Society).
If it was an illegal handgun, it still would be less likely for him to have it if Heller did not exist. First, Heller made DC reticent about regulating guns. And second, it’s easier for the cops to find illegal handguns if they know that every single handgun in DC is illegal.
(Re: 2nd amendment: it says “militia”. And that was widely recognized before 1980. Chief Justice Burger called the idea that 2nd A applied to individual rights a “fraud on the American public.”)

—-

My heart goes out to those kids and their Mom. This is a terrible tragedy.

But the time to talk about gun control is now. And we should not shirk from putting blame where it belongs. The husband committed a terrible crime. But conservatives helped. The NRA helped. Gun manufacturers helped. And the Federalist Society and Republican judges helped. That mother would be more likely to be alive today if Republicans didn’t use gun identity politics for votes.

"Every single handgun" has never been unlawful to possess in DC. The law requiring registration by a date certain and freezing new registrations after that exempted existing lawfully owned handguns.

Further, even during the years when DC froze registration of new handguns, there were exceptions, as for ex-police. And during all the years before Heller, non-criminals could buy and register long arms.

Further, how do you know that the handgun in question in fact was legally acquired and possessed?

Finally, are you really serious that somehow magically waving a giant gun-seeking magnet over DC would stop murderers? Murder was ubiquitous millennia before firearms were invented.

And you might want to research who the militia included.

[Anonymous]

I favor a repeal of the 2nd amendment. But this country has proven that even the wholesale slaughter of 6 year olds won’t move conservatives. So....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he did not legally have a hand gun, he easily could have gotten one or used another method. You are focusing on the wrong thing. We need better mental health, substance abuse treatment. And not for this family but we need better access to things like affordable health care, QUALITY health care, housing, food and jobs.

we need all of that, but it's also well-proven that access to guns makes murder and suicide more effective and frequent.

I don't disagree with more restrictions but saying that is the primary cause is not. This was a contentious divorce, probably lawyers made it worse as well a the court system and depending on if there was a DV or mental health background, he was probably looking at getting his kids every other weekend/maybe a night a week and basically losing his kids and his entire life as the courts are set up to benefit women depending on the state and judge. We don't know anything but simply put, this isn't a gun issue and its a society issue. Mental health treatment and many other things would have greatly helped.

No, this is very much an asshole-with-a-gun issue. No gun, no impulsive murder-suicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States is a war zone. I agree OP, the time to talk about how to fix this is now. Such a crime wouldn't have happened in other developed countries, where gun licensing often involves interviews, home visits, and interviews of references (i.e. a proper background check).

As someone who has hunted with a (single shot) rifle, 20 years ago I would have said the problem was that red-area hunters didn’t understand that blue-city people actually get killed by handguns, and blue-city people don’t understand that hunting doesn’t really make people less safe. The problem used to be a lack of understanding between communities.

Then the NRA turned into a fusion of rightwing billionaires who want votes for tax cuts (that’s why the Koches and similar give money to the NRA) along with gun corporations that want to increase profit by selling more guns.

Today, we’re up against much more than misunderstandings. We’re up against a well-financed conservative infrastructure that doesn’t care how many people die as long as they make more money — either by gun sales or tax cuts and deregulation.

I feel bad for the average NRA member. 40 years ago, the NRA was truly a gun safety organization. Some of its members still are that group. But today the NRA (and its funders) are literally a domestic terror organization.

Very well said. It's like both sides can't give an inch in the other direction. I lived abroad in a country with a lot of hunters. You could get hunting rifles after a thorough check, but handguns were pretty much illegal. No one worried about being shot since it's pretty obvious if a person's walking around with a rifle.

+1 I also agree that the first PP said it well. I disagree that "both sides" aren't able to give in the other direction. Gun sense advocates are not trying to ban all guns--they're struggling for years to get universal background checks passed. Yet the NRA disagrees and Congressmen going along with them for reasons I can not fathom.