General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFlorida father with assault weapon forces wife to watch as he kills two sons
Warning! This is very disturbing.A Florida man armed with an weapon that had once been banned under federal law forced his wife to watch as he strangled one of his sons and then shot a second before turning a gun on himself.
Victoria Flores Zavala told Boynton Beach police that 45-year-old Isidro Zavala went to her home on Saturday with a plan to kill her and their two boys because she had filed for divorce last year, according to WTVJ. But Isidro Zavala decide to spare his wife at the last minute so she could suffer while watching him murder 12-year-old Eduardo Zavala and 11-year-old Mario Zavala.
...
She tried fighting him off and begged him to kill her and not the children, he explained. He told her she was going to stay alive and suffer the loss of them.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/04/florida-father-with-assault-weapon-forces-wife-to-watch-as-he-kills-two-sons/
My god what has this country come to.
atreides1
(16,091 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Orrex
(63,220 posts)Until they're not.
hack89
(39,171 posts)interesting way to organize a society - think the worst of everyone and place societal control accordingly.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)I'm not saying that every person is a criminal; I'm saying that every criminal was, at one time, a pre-criminal (to use your term). For that reason "law abiding citizen" mantra so beloved of gun advocates is ultimately pretty ineffectual.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that implies a certain cynical perspective towards your fellow citizens.
There are some here that would like to regulate human behavior based on the assumption that everyone is a crime just waiting to happen - and it is not just guns. Pre-rapist and pre-dunk drivers are good examples.
I prefer to regulate human behavior based on the view that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and law abiding. If nothing else it minimizes government intrusion into our lives.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Orrex
(63,220 posts)Since you're making up a term and blaming me for it, I see no reason to defend that strawman term.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it implies an attitude towards gun owners that is common here - that they are all a crime just waiting to happen. It reflects an attitude that most Americans shouldn't be trusted with guns.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:04 PM - Edit history (1)
The term that you coined and attributed to me ("pre-criminal" implies an inevitability that I didn't express. Therefore I reject the term and will not defend it for you.
Put simply, all people are law-abiding until they are not. That doesn't mean that they must at some point become non-law-abiding; it simply means that if they become non-law-abiding, then at some time prior to that point they were law-abiding.
It's curious that you're so eager to find inevitability in that factual and, frankly, self-evident statement.
panAmerican
(1,206 posts)Couldn't help myself
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But can you deny that someone with a gun - all other factors being equal - has a greater means by which to commit violent crimes?
hack89
(39,171 posts)but that does not justify the constant vilification of gun owners. There is no recognition that the vast majority of gun owners are safe and reasonable. "Gun nuts" "gun humpers" "NRA shills" are common prejoritives aimed at anyone who dares to disagree on iota on gun control.
My only point.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It is two different outlooks on how we view our fellow citizens.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Do you lock your car when you park in an unfamiliar neighborhood? Do you lock your house when you leave town for a few days?
If the answer to either question is "yes," then you view at least some of your fellow citizens as pre-criminal, and one wonders by what criteria you make the determination.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Those are the people I am worried about. Not the average citizen of my part of the city.I trust that most people are trying to live a normal life like I am while being aware that there has always been a subset of the population that preys on others.
LiberalFighter
(51,036 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)This is the bigger point I was trying to make.
I prefer to regulate human behavior based on the view that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and law abiding. If nothing else it minimizes government intrusion into our lives.
It is a common anti-gun meme - the notion that most Americans can't be trusted with guns.
Bake
(21,977 posts)That's what that sounds like to me.
By the way, whether this involved an assault rifle is really irrelevant; he would've done it with a .22 revolver if that had been what he had.
Bake
earthside
(6,960 posts)... that's why everybody needs to be packing a concealed weapon with which to shoot the other pre-criminals when they decided to become criminals.
If we all weren't pre-criminals then there would be no need to own an arsenal of weapons to protect ourselves with.
How is the NRA going to have a 'surge' of discounted new members and how are the gun shows going to do record business if there isn't universal recognition that anyone standing next to you at any given time is a pre-criminal just one trigger pull away from becoming a criminal?
How hard is that to understand?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)It would be nice to have a discussion without it descending into this type of commentary. Truly. I am so tired of the acrimony and I am having a terrible day. Reading posts that are so negative just makes things all that much worse. There is no such thing as a pre criminal. It is all a stupid(IMO) meme.
Peace, Mojo
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)NEVER. NO WAY. NO HOW. UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES.
Every criminal was once a law abiding person, Does not implie that every law abiding person will (or may) become a criminal.
And it takes pig ignorance or a blind agenda (same thing really) to keep pounding away with the same flawed illogic.
hack89
(39,171 posts)"There are some here that would like to regulate human behavior based on the assumption that everyone is a crime just waiting to happen - and it is not just guns. Pre-rapist and pre-dunk drivers are good examples.
I prefer to regulate human behavior based on the view that the vast majority of Americans are responsible and law abiding. If nothing else it minimizes government intrusion into our lives."
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)even if small petty stuff. That is just a popular meme these days IMO
I would bet this man was an abusive husband.
Peace, mojo
Orrex
(63,220 posts)And you're right that many criminals have a history of some sort.
Have you ever downloaded a song without paying for it? Exceeded the speed limit? Used illegal drugs? Littered? If so, then you have a criminal history, even if you haven't been caught. It's all about where you put the goal posts.
Let he who is without a criminal history shoot the first gun.
That's why the go-to label of "law-abiding citizen" isn't really useful in discussions of gun regulation. it tends to be more of a term by which gun advocates identify who is ok to own a gun and who isn't, and the criteria are remarkably elastic.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)In cases like this though there are usually warning signs before the big blowout. The meme that this was a law abiding infers upstanding citizen till this happened is probably imaginary. I am sure that people who have no past do snap every now and then but I don't think it is the norm. I hate that the phrase is used by both sides in the gun issue.
Peace, Mojo
Orrex
(63,220 posts)The term is ultimately pretty useless because it doesn't describe what it purports to describe, and it can be too easily abused by either side of the discussion.
Better to abandon it as a criterion for who should be allowed to own a gun or as a means to prevent sensible gun regulations (e.g., "This will only hurt law-abiding gun owners..."
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I totally agree with you.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)That is the story here. Premeditated murder, and one of the murders was via strangulation.
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)rather than the method.
tblue
(16,350 posts)At least it would be harder to keep the others at bay. There was a gun. It made things worse. That's a fact.
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)at that also. There is a lot more to this story than gunz and I am glad a couple other people here notice that also.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That's a pretty simple, obvious fact. And it's not as if guns and domestic violence, as social issues, can really be separated from each other.
hlthe2b
(102,342 posts)The sheer magnitude of hate in that act is almost beyond comprehension..
I surely hope this woman gets the help/support she is going to need.
thecrow
(5,519 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)Killing their children is rarer, but, sadly, not all that unusual. Sociopathic.
No wonder she was divorcing him.
Those poor kids. That poor woman.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)the blood of children continues to stain their hands.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he used a .38 caliber revolver.
There is no evidence he was not allowed to own a gun. There is no evidence the gun was illegal.
So what additional law would have stopped this?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)One was banned as an "assault weapon" by name (but then sold legally without modification under a different name). That was not the weapon he used.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)The handgun that was once classified as an assault weapon was found in a duffel bag.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, this is a stretch. They said he used the .38, and that a TEC-9 was found. I still don't see why the phrase "assault weapon" is even in the title.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The pyrase "assault weapon" is in the title because an assault weapon was found at the scene. Sorry you are so offended by that.
You seem more offended by the thought of an assault weapon being mentioned than the crime itself. What's the psychology behind that?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We both reacted. The phrase is there to make that happen. Unfortunately "man kills self with handgun", while equally (and probably more) accurate, doesn't get that same response.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...yet you have zero reaction to horrific nature of the crime itself?
Seriously, what's up with that?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The crime makes me sick to my stomach. The choice of headline makes me irritated. Anything else?
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with people? What difference does it make what kind of effing gun the sick bastard used? Fact is, he used a GUN.
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets not forget he strangled both sons first.
Do you think they would be alive if he did not have a gun?
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)So why is the focus on the kind of gun that was found in a bag that he DID NOT use in this heinous crime?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If he'd only had the revolver would the kids be less dead? I can see calling out AW's in cases where the capacity or firing rate makes an actual difference in the number of people injured, or the severity of the injuries. In this case, it makes not one whit of difference. It is simply a pistol.
No difference. Could have used a revolver. Therefore, it is irrelevant, and the primary issue here is Domestic Violence.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)fucking act.
(There is no gun mild enough to point at a child and pull the trigger without horrific consequences, so in this case, it makes little goddamn difference. A 5 shot .38 revolver would have had the same consequences)
crim son
(27,464 posts)might have. Maybe. And if it didn't prevent this tragedy it might prevent the one that will occur tomorrow. How many people must die before you agree something must be done?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)since laws don't prevent crime. I mean really. Why bother to regulate behavior at all? It's not like we have any way to punish bad behavior if someone breaks the law.
I wish we had things like courts and trials and prisons, but we don't.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I just wanted to know what specific gun control laws would have prevented this. You are right that there are plenty of laws to punish such behavior after the fact.
I support gun control - all of the President's EOs, universal background checks and limits on magazine size.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)We could outlaw being an asshole....
Oh wait,....that's the Republican's worse fear....
prohibit carrying, owning or ACCESS to any firearm if a no contact order is issued OR there, are charges of alleged domestic violence, OR other misdemeanor or felonies pending pending. In RI I believe it's 10 years.
Background checks and closing the gunshow/private sale loophole would go a long way.
green for victory
(591 posts)Annex: The Illustrative Medico-Legal Cases
Case 1
In 1998, a new family doctor, unaware of this adverse reaction to fluoxetine, prescribed paroxetine 20 mg to DS, for what was diagnosed as an anxiety disorder. Two days later having had, it is believed, two doses of medication, DS using a gun put three bullets each through the heads of his wife, his daughter who was visiting, and his nine-month-old granddaughter before killing himself....
So- was this latest killer on drugs that come with a warning of violent behavior?
Does anyone care?
maxsolomon
(33,380 posts)Spouse killings and familicides preceeded SSRIs. There's about a 1000 blues or appalachian murder ballads about killing your wife and family.
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... the side-effects of some meds exacerbate 'teh crazy' and having a hair-trigger temper/personality issues AND access to uber-weapons synergize into a particularly dangerous concoction.
maxsolomon
(33,380 posts)Might not have been.
My point was that plenty of these types of murders happen without meds. And without assault weapons.
None of them happen without testosterone.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There are female family annihilators, just not many.
maxsolomon
(33,380 posts)Cambodian grandmother in Seattle, Schizophrenic, used a gun to kill her family.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Family-Grandmother-in-shooting-spree-battled-884335.php
Another case of a schizophrenic with access to firearms. the motivation was completely different than this case, in which the motive was utterly cliched.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And I vaguely remember a few others; drowning and poisoning seem to be more common for female FA's.
maxsolomon
(33,380 posts)This was done to make the wife suffer, so she would experience the pain the narcissistic husband thought she deserved, and leave her with no way to exact justice or find peace. Cruel and typical.
I draw a distinction in the motivations of women who kill their children and men like this.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I posted this downthread but I find it really interesting, a psychiatrist's take on family annihilation and media responses to it:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/8_characteristics_of_family_an.html
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... that drowned all of her children in the bathtub because 'the voices' told her to?
(Can't recall specifics at the moment) ...
AnneD
(15,774 posts)a frequently misdiagnosed mental illness, frequently poopooed as postpartum depression or baby blues.
Lack of sleep, lack of support, lack of adequate mental care, and a hormonal storm surge will do that to even the strongest person.
That was the case that shook Houston's Med Center to it's foundation. Women's and Pediatric care did a lot of soul searching after that case. They do a much better job of recognizing and treating women suffering from it. No one wants to see that happen again.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You want to take the blame off the perpetrator and instead apply republican talking points?
Jaysus.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I'm not sure the Guns caused this particular tragedy.
Bryant
To clarify - i don't think becoming a Mormon did it either (I am a Mormon myself) - I just think he was mentally disturbed.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)With hand guns possibly (he used a 38 apparently on himself) or with knives or something.
Bryant
Recursion
(56,582 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)One of the boys was shot in addition to being strangled, but most likely he was shot after being strangled. Even if this guy had no guns at all, those boys would still be dead.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Really? The gun was used to threaten the family, just because it was not used to kill it was still used in this case.
Remove the gun and how is the guy going to hold back his family and contain them into standing still while he was there killing them.
We have so many unsolved cases of missing persons in this country every year.
How many of these were committed with a gun that we do not know about. Abducted at gun point is the easiest way to subdue someone.....
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)The report I read says the mom tried to fight back and even asked for him to kill her instead. That proves that she was not holding back because of fear of the gun and it proves that he didn't need the gun to stop her. Actually, the easiest way to restrain the family would be to use the duck tape that he had on him. An article I read also says that he didn't take a gun out until he had strangled both boys with a rope.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)So a gun was used in the crime...
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)even if he didn't have a gun. They were strangled. He may or may not have killed himself in another way, but the boys would still be dead.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)Are you saying he had magical powers and a force field.
Did you witness the attack?
Are you saying the gun was not brandished in anyway?
Good luck with that.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Was she scared of the gun? No, she begged him to kill her instead, but he didn't. So in what way did he fend her off with the gun? He didn't shoot her. She wasn't scared of dying. Reports say she DID try to stop him. Brandishing a gun would accomplish nothing at all. All you have is your imagination. Deal with it.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)really sad... I know you are but what am I.... you must have been a big hit in the playground in second grade.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)You need an actual argument if you want an actual reply.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)" Brandishing a gun would accomplish nothing at all."
So a gun nut finally admits to what we all know.
That guns do not deter crime, they are the enablers of it. Thanks for sharing.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)of course brandishing a gun doesn't matter. I can look at facts and apply common sense. You obviously can't do either. Thanks for sharing your ignorance.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)really?
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)You have no argument, so you lost the argument. You were wrong.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)I guess making up details and ignoring facts and then name calling is what you call Winning an argument, then
I will take losing any day.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So, you were wrong all along.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Man-Kills-Two-Sons-Then-Kills-Self-in-Boynton-Beach-Police-Say-189500051.html
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)I always knew one off the boys was shot. He was strangled first and would have been killed regardless of gun.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)'you see he was finished off with multiple shots AFTER he was strangled, thus the gun sparkles with innocence'
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)They come in handy a lot of times for various chores outside in the yard.
CitizenPatriot
(3,783 posts)while he used his hands to kill his kids? Without a gun to hold on her, she would have been free to call 911 if both of his hands were occupied killing someone.
Sorry, but no go.
Lars39
(26,110 posts)small kid would just take one hand, other hand points gun.
CitizenPatriot
(3,783 posts)that's my point. Without a gun, he can't kill and threaten wife at same time. Sorry to be so graphic.
lostinhere
(78 posts)As a divorced man with children, this killing makes absolutely no sense and should have not occurred. Unfortunately assaults or killings like this occur way too frequently. While working as a cab driver at night, I saw way too many domestic abuse crimes.
The news story is light on details, but it sounds like Mr. Zavala did not use the assault style weapon in the killing of his children. The story states that Mr. Zavala strangled one son and shot himself with a .38-caliber pistol. Additionally, the story says that the police recovered a bag containing the TEC-9 pistol. This leads me to believe that Mr. Zavala used the .38 caliber pistol to kill his other son.
I do have a question. If the term "assault weapon" was not used in the title of the article would this article been a post on DU?
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)no gun. harder chance for this act to be carried out.
lostinhere
(78 posts)The weapon is not the question. Intent, dedication and drive are. If all three are present, the weapon used does not matter.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)lostinhere
(78 posts)spanone
(135,859 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)With a non semi auto handgun.
It sounds like he shot the other boy after he strangled him.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)In the top 3 of the NRA's favorite places.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Not sure whether I'm speaking ironically or sarcastically, so I'll just note that as always, it's the guns, stupid.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)gun or no gun before I stood by and let children be strangled. Perhaps she did fight him.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)It wouldn't take long for a grown man to kill the two boys, and, a grown man could easily overpower an unarmed woman. A few punches and she's down.
He STRANGLED both kids.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)But it would be just as horrible if he used a non-assult wepon.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The assault weapon they found was a TEC-9, which became a non-assault weapon when it was called the "AB-10", with no changes whatsoever made to the weapon. And he didn't use it.
He also used his hands on one son. Awful.
valerief
(53,235 posts)have fought him off. GUNS SUCK!!!!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But they'd still both be dead if he had had 0 guns.
valerief
(53,235 posts)2 kids and 1 wife could beat him with shit and either knock him out or run faster than him.
thetonka
(265 posts)Arguing that the only reason this happened is because of the gun ignores other potential issues in this story.
Why was she seeking a divorce? Perhaps he was abusive. Perhaps he was abusive to the point that the wife and kids were too afraid to fight back or run. Perhaps he had them cornered. Perhaps they were/are not legally in this country and the wife was too afraid to call 911.
Using a story like this to promote either side of the gun argument is disgusting. Ignoring the rest of the story in favor of only focusing on the gun will just end up with more of this happening. The gun was not the root cause of this violence, it was just the instrument used. There has to be more to this story than the guy had a gun and killed his kids and himself.
Using the structure of the argument that this would not have happened if there was no gun one could easily argue that it would not have happened if the wife had not filed for divorce.
Some people are so obsessed with guns that they are like kids with over active ADD. As soon as a gun comes into view everything else disappears so they can get on their soapbox and either promote more guns or promote more gun controls and bans.
Our society is failing not because of guns, it's because we can't have a real conversation about anything anymore.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)and you know it.
You feign horror at the thought of a gun, any gun, being 'blamed' in any crime. That is obvious.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)He shot his kids in front of their mother. And every step of the way you're defending the gun.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and a different handgun was used.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)But for Christ's sake, your responses here are disturbingly cold.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)expressing a reasonable facsimile of dismay over a gruesome crime. So, pretty much every comment you've made on this thread.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But your concern is appreciated.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)And shot one after the strangulation, with a .38 revolver, after overpowering his STBE wife. That's what I've read online.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)One multiple times. Gun worship strips away a persons sense of humanity.
Initech
(100,099 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)protect you ,go get an suv - we'll all be safer
October
(3,363 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I think he would have passed a background test - maybe we need to store guns of divorced couples until they reach a settlement.
hack89
(39,171 posts)read the story.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)??
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Why is the phrase "assault weapon" even in the headline?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Assault weapon is used because the TEC-9 was one of the weapons banned under Florida's now expired assault weapons ban.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I highly doubt it, but I admit this is a possibility.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Which is more horrific to you? The actual crime, or the thought of the assault weapon found at the crime scene being 'blamed?'
Recursion
(56,582 posts)You know that.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Just like I can say "which bothers you more, the crime, or the fact that the gun was branded as a 'TEC-9'"? See how pointless that is?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...all of which fixate on the assault rifle being wrongly 'blamed' for the crime. If you are outraged by the crime itself, stop making excuses for the assault rifle and show outrage for the crime itself.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The weapon in question, which was formerly classified as an assault weapon, is a pistol, no more powerful or dangerous than the one he used on himself. I get irritated that we want to ban one and keep the other legal, at great political cost to our party.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Though I must note, you just tried to excuse THAT down thread by claiming both kids were strangled.
You will obviously say ANYTHING to make excuses for the guns used. In doing so, you keep contradicting yourself, thus an easy target to pick apart.
It is hair on fire, use any excuse, tail chasers in the gun community that make all of us gun owners look like nutcases.
I will never understand 'Democrats' that buy into right wing gun madness.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't post gun images on DU, but if you want to see one, google "TEC-9"
It's a pistol, no more dangerous than the pistol he used on himself.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)More attempts to obfuscate.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's banned based on its name and the fact that rap videos showed it a lot.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)and then YOU bring up an unrelated gun, and then you claim that THEY are trying to obfuscate? Some nerve you got.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...the people that heckled the parent of the Sandy Hook parent that was testifying before congress.
That is what gun worship has devolved into.
Sorry if my point went over your head.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)And then invents new ignorant arguments when the facts are pointed out to him. Probably because that's exactly what you are.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Then you may have a clue what I'm talking about.
So, if the TEC 9 is a pistol, and the guy 'only used a pistol' then he must have used the TEC 9, right? It's fun luring you guys into pretzel logic.
Gun nuts are a funny lot. When extreme violence is perpetrated with a gun, they are more worried about the gun than the victims.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the reports say that he killed himself with a .38. TEC 9 is a 9mm weapon.
There were two weapons - the .38 and the TEC 9. The TEC 9 was found in a bag.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...that no assault weapons were harmed in the incident...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)
that got our attention.
If every "assault weapon" was to magically disappear it would not made an iota of difference in this case. Yet you continue to fixate on "assault weapon" while ignoring those weapons responsible for the vast majority of gun death and mass shootings.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
hack89
(39,171 posts)there are many that did not get any further then the headlines. So yes, you are correct.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...and they all posted ad nauseum in this thread.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is clear you want to make it about assault weapons even though the facts don't support that notion.
Raw story created a headline to get the anti-gun faithful whipped up. It appears to have worked.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Nice try .
Come to think of it, the same three or four gun nuts hijack every gun tragedy thread with their assault weapon worship.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why is it so important to you to make this story about assault weapons?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Who is freaked out at the title of the article, you or I? Why is it so important to you that assault weapons always be given a free pass? Why have you adopted Right Wing talking points? I have owned guns all my life and I'm not threatened by gun control. Republican gun positions are sheer madness.
You guys come into this thread not appalled by the tragedy, but googly eyed in mourning for the assault weapon, and spewing Republican gun nut talking points. Then you act flummoxed when you meet resistance? Spare me the outrage.
It isn't like understanding rocket science.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is not a freakout.
At the moment you seem to be in the throes of an arm flapping freakout as you spew every cliched anti-gun insult you can remember.
Have an nice evening. Have a beer - relax a little.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...is one massive freakout.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)this discussion. You don't even know the basics of which gun is what, as you clearly demonstrated by not knowing the difference between a pistol and a rifle. All you see is the word GUN and and start drooling and slobbering all the anti-gun nut memes and talking points.
And just to educate you a little bit, "Assault *RIFLES*", capable of firing fully automatic, have been strictly banned from civilians since the 1930s. You can still own one.. if you have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), have the $2000 transfer fee, the (roughly) $20,000-$25,000 to buy it from another FFL holder, and pass more background checks than it takes to become a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate.
Knee-jerk, reactionary posting with no knowledge at all about what you're talking about doesn't help the discussion one bit. Do us all, and especially yourself, a favor and at least educate yourself on the subject you're discussing so you don't make yourself look foolish again, like you just did in this post.
Thanks in advance,
Ghost
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...knowing no assault weapons were harmed in the tragedy.
I shouldn't be involved in this discussion? I started this thread. You shouldn't be involved in this discussion. You gun nuts hijack every gun tragedy thread with your "assault weapons are sweet and innocent" Republican talking points nonsense.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)the assault weapon was used than about the butchered children. Why do you ask?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And I'd imagine a similar logic applies to the news article it's quoting.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)They said which gun he used. Do they need to name every other thing in the room he did not use?
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)From article:
"The Palm Beach Post reported on Sunday that Isidro Zavala had killed himself with .38-caliber pistol, but police also recovered a bag with a TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun, extra ammunition, duct tape and cutting shears from the crime scene."
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I concede that point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And he shot himself with a .38.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"A Florida man armed with an weapon that had once been banned under federal law forced his wife to watch as he strangled one of his sons and then shot a second before turning a gun on himself."
Typical RW tack to obfuscate and make excuses for the criminal.
To the RW, the thought of the gun being 'blamed' is more horrific than the crime itself.
hack89
(39,171 posts)http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/roommate-provides-photo-of-boynton-beach-dad-who-k/nWD36/
How is this making excuses? I know a gun was used. I was commenting on the inflammatory use of the phrase "assault weapon" in the Raw Story headline. Talk about distorting a story to support an agenda.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)alfredo
(60,075 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Courtesy of the NRA, its members, and its chief hand-blood-stainer, Wayne LaTerrorist.
NickB79
(19,258 posts)With a name like Isidro Zavala, I don't think he'd be welcome at many of their meetings, if you get my drift.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Lot of Cubans who are hardcore, right wing Republicans in Florida.
hack89
(39,171 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)the solution to all problems
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)in domestic abuse cases. Once convicted of even a misdemeanor, the abuser is banned from buying guns and must turn in his old ones. A history of domestic violence (especially when combined with access to guns and drugs/alcohol) is a top factor in most "familycide" cases. I know this case is a little different in that he strangled the boys first, but he shouldn't have had access to a gun either way.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)AndyA
(16,993 posts)The grief the mother is dealing with is incredible. She will never, ever forget. Her life will be changed forever.
Something is terribly wrong with people today, no respect for human life and a penchant for inflicting pain on others.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)This is the reason battered women often do not leave their violent, psychopathic husbands. Killing the children is what these men do to torment their wives beyond the grave.
I'm relatively sure that social spending for battered women trying to escape such men with their children has been cut in their region - and we must not forget that this woman may have fallen in one of the categories of the VAWA that the GOP opposed - hispanic surnames - possibly immigrants - thus no foul, says the GOP.
We have the GOP elected officials saying that women should stay with such men to maintain the family, but really to keep them off the welfare roll. The dysfunction from them staying with these men creates another generation of tortured souls who act out again or end up in trouble.
There are cases where the woman and children had to be given new identities and moved out of state and hidden from their abusers. It requires a commitment of tax payer dollars and a legal system that refuses to allow it to continue.
Some RW states have, for all practical purposes if not literally, repealed their domestic violence laws because they have no money to enforce them and do what the laws were intended to do - prevent this.
Thanks to our Nordquist, Libertarian style of 'starve the beast' iniatiatives, there will be a lot more of this. The issue is lack of support for this woman and her children. I am not 'pro-gun' but that is not what this is about - the true problem is larger and requires tax money, not new laws.
AndyA
(16,993 posts)Usually, it's an easy out for everyone except the tormented family members. Bottom line: the kids will ALWAYS be better off not exposed to an abusive parent with anger problems.
Republicans don't care about poor people, minorities, women, or children once they pop out of the womb. Instead, the money saved by doing nothing for them could go to corporations and wealthy individuals. Things need to change.
Agree completely that more money is needed to address this, to protect the family members from the abuser, and to get mental health care for the abuser. Throwing a gun into such a situation of course doesn't help.
I wonder what today's kids are going to be like when they grow up. Particularly the ones being raised in a household where the parents spew hate speech, anti-government, anti-gay, etc., thoughts constantly. I think it's only going to get worse until a generation grows up where they are taught equality and fairness for all, respect for others, and acceptance of those who aren't just like them.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)This is a domestic violence/murder incident. He overpowered his wife, and strangled both kids, then shot one he had strangled, and then shot himself.
Poverty and lax laws against helping women (and men) escape abusers is what caused this sociopath to be able to do this.
HE STRANGLED HIS KIDS.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Biden has worked to get some more protections, and the VAWA may have helped her. I see some posts saying the man had no problems, was a nice guy, and then whammo. No, that's not the case. It's known that women stay with abusers when there is no support from family or the community to help them and their children make a new life.
Al Franken testified when trying to get the VAWA renewed last year about the number of homeless women and children who were in that situation because of domestic abuse. And how the VAWA was part of funding rape crisis centers and sheltered for battered women and their children.
This should have never happened. There was once a network of shelters and laws to prevent things going this far. Now they are closed down. The woman knew something was wrong, and this man was willing to murder his own innocent children for revenge. That doesn't evolve over night - the signs had to have been there.
GOP lawmakers have vented on women for wanting divorce, child support, housing and protection orders. This is also from a generation that grew up listening to the pure hatred for women that is the province of Rush Limbaugh. He's worse than any of them, Beck, etc. He's still on the air, having inoculated a generation to believe that women are gold diggers and the poor are moochers and no good for other reasons.
This is a national mental health issue - but when it's this big it's not called that - it's culture. I'm not calling him insane unless we are all insane - and we are a little to deny that this requires compassionate pro-active measures. It won't be fixed by name calling or condemning the victims. RWers don't want these folks helped, they want them to disappear and don't care. Now the Earth will take their remains.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)uppityperson
(115,678 posts)To hell with those taking away the help and protection people need to keep themselves and their children safe.
"the true problem is larger and requires tax money, not new laws. " Indeed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That said, the media like to report on only three of these types of filicides: mothers who are psychotic (weak) ; women who are looking to get/please a new man (evil); and fathers committing "altruistic filicide" in which the father thinks he is sparing his family worse suffering by killing them (snapped).
Much more at the link, all insightful.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)be made that gun laws wouldn't have stopped (fill in the blank) shooting and that since the weapon was legal there's nothing to be done. That because the assailant used a hand gun to commit the crime rather than a hammer it's just fine to own a Bushmaster. This line of fallacious thinking is called the argumentum ad absurdum. By this line of reasoning there is no problem with owning a .50 cal. sniper rifle, a minigun or a howitzer. If pro-gun folks are smart they'll take the deal for the background checks and high-capacity magazine ban while they have the chance. Because after what happened at Sandy Hook they might not want to keep ranting about their gun rights too much.
There currently isn't. Should there be? How often are people killed with one?
a minigun or a howitzer
I haven't heard anyone suggesting the laws controlling miniguns and howitzers be overturned. Have you?
If pro-gun folks are smart they'll take the deal for the background checks and high-capacity magazine ban while they have the chance.
If you look at what the pro-gun voices on DU, at least, are saying, it's exactly that. Pass useful laws like the ones you mentioned and stop staking everything on pointless feel-good regulations.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts).50 cal. weapons should be illegal. Use of at least one .50 cal. sniper rifle prompted the authorities to request armored vehicles during the Branch Davidian confrontation and seriously escalated that affair. That no one was killed by that weapon was unlikely due to a lack of intent. The potential carnage such a weapon can inflict is frightening. People are not killed with miniguns and howitzers because they are illegal. You cannot buy one at a gun show. The argument was not about any suggestion on overturning the ban on such weapons. It was to show the logical absurdity of the argument against firearms regulation, and yes, there are plenty of gunslingers out there who feel that way. I know some of them personally, so they cannot be uncommon.
Everyday that passes without federal action on any kind of regulation, meaningful or otherwise, is a victory for the NRA and the gun manufacturers. Everyday nothing is done in Congress increases the likelihood that Sandy Hook will go down the memory hole and the issue will just fade away until the next massacre, at which time the cycle will repeat, and the outcome will be the same.
Recursion
(56,582 posts).50 is a pretty arbitrary line; what will moving it a hundredth of an inch one way or another accomplish?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)make a .51 cal. It does the same think a .50 does. A .49 would do the same thing. Were it up to me I'd ban any long gun bigger than .30 cal.and any handgun larger than a standard .45 cal. No magnums. How's that.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A gun is a gun is a gun, for the most part, and it's the "everyday" ones that do most of the killing. I'm much more interested in keeping them out of the wrong hands than futzing about on their characteristics.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Then you should have no problem supporting a ban on certain types of weapons, and I'll support background checks to keep the "everyday" variety out of the hands of the wrong people.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It depends. What's the political cost and what good would it do? Passing a regulation that makes AR-15's change their grip shape isn't worth losing a House seat over, let alone the whole Senate. Particularly if it ends up increasing sales of weapons like the last one did.
I'll support background checks to keep the "everyday" variety out of the hands of the wrong people.
How about we just do that one, since we probably only get one swing here, and this one will actually do some good?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)a lot of people quickly and is given a choice will not pick a 30/30 over an AR-15. An assault weapon is called an assault weapon precisely because it is designed for war and nothing else. It is designed for firepower and lethality at close range, as are all assault weapons. You're right to criticize something as stupid as banning the bayonet lug on such a weapon and not banning the weapon itself. So, we need to make sure nothing like that happens this time. Part of that problem is there are too many people supporting gun control who think a gun is just a gun. If the Democrats lost the Congress because they supported reasonable restraints on military style firearms then you probably need to buy your own AR-15 and so do I.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They will be called something else and have a different grip shape. And if '94 is any guide, they will sell like hot cakes. Why go that way again?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)that all such weapons be banned for what they are designed to do, not for how they look.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Too bad we have decades-long Senatorial reputations staked on doing it the other way :/
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)begin working to see that there are never more than 39 of them in the Senate. Unless someone in the majority gets the a pair and takes on the filibusterer.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Good point
Iggo
(47,564 posts)Ian Iam
(386 posts)And, after recent events, never shall.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)New Yorker tranplanted by job to Florida.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)They all go together. I don't know what else to say. This is awful.
thetonka
(265 posts)Sounds like this was planned out. I can't imagine what that women and the son who is still alive are going through.
[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/isidro-zavala-kills-2-son-suicide-boynton-beach_n_2615911.html|]
A man strangled his two sons in the South Florida home of his estranged wife, telling her she would live to suffer from the pain of their deaths before he shot himself.
Victoria Flores Zavala unsuccessfully fought to save her 12- and 11-year-old sons from Isidro Zavala, the Palm Beach Post reported. She offered to sacrifice herself if he'd spare the boys, but she couldn't stop him early Saturday morning.
She said, Why wont you kill me? He said, No, youre going to live with this," according to Boynton Beach Police Chief Matthew Immler.
The violence began around 2 a.m. when Victoria was roused from watching television by a loud noise, the Associated Press said. She came upon her spouse choking one of the children.
Cops found the body of Eduardo, 12, strangled in the patio area of the house. 11-year-old Marco's body was found strangled and shot in the dining area.
"This is an unusually brutal type of murder," Immler said.
The couple had been married for 20 years when Victoria filed for divorce in October, according to CBS Miami. Police said there was no history of domestic violence calls to their home where the murders took place.
Police ascertained that Zavala, 45, planned the murder for days. In the apartment he rented, they found a bag stuffed with a semi-automatic handgun, cutting shears, duct tape and a note to the couple's eldest son, who was not present during the killings, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported.
Zavala owned a landscaping business and was described as a devoted, yet demanding father. He was regularly in the stands at his sons Little League baseball games, but removed Eduardo from his team to make him focus on school.
The oldest son Emanuel, 19, said he'd visited his father on Friday and invited him to watch the Super Bowl with him, according to NBC News.
"He was not a bad man," Emanuel said, according to NBC. "He was always a hard worker, trying to give us the best life he could."
FourScore
(9,704 posts)LukeFL
(594 posts)Sometimes I wish some topic and real life tragedy should not be posted here.
We live in such dangerous world that DU should be a place to discuss just politics.
But I understand why is done... I Judy wish these things should be flagged or Red marked as a warning.
Not Me
(3,398 posts)Had he moved to strangle the kids *without a gun trained on his wife* she might have been able to put up some kind of a fight such that one or more could have escaped. She must have been frozen in terror looking into the business end of that gun.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)women relatives do everything they say and want. The tragedy is that many women believe that themselves. I'm certain that the man had displayed a lot of controlling and bullying behavior before that. It's too bad that woman didn't have the support network to pack up herself and her children and leave him before tragedy struck.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Well, I wish it were nonsense.
A year ago I might have blindly declared that the woman should simply have left with the kids and escaped, but in recent months I've learned just how hard it really is. A good friend trying to escape from her abusive husband learned first-hand the difficulty that women face in those situations. She's an intelligent, strong-willed woman who doesn't take shit from anyone, but she was justifiably terrified that he was going to kill her, and when she reached out to local women's shelters and the like, she found how very little they had to offer her.
Only when she told them outright that she would likely be dead within the week did them make an accommodation for her, and many months later she still lives in fear that he'll track her down.
It's easy after the fact for people to say that she should have done this or she should have done that; I'm sure that she did what she could to escape with her children, and I'm sure that she'll spend the rest of her life wishing that she could have done more.
JI7
(89,262 posts)but he went over to her home and did what he did.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)That is exactly what happened. And, sadly, this same thing happens EVERY DAY in this country. Often it's the pet that's killed, sometimes it is the children, usually it is the woman herself.
obamanut2012
(26,111 posts)It is not unusual for violent men to kill a woman's children or pet as revenge. How horrible. How horrible.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)I blame the countries lack of universal mental health csre. It is obscene to bury the military in our tax money while we let people go mad.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)"Who felt he had no choice"..... Let's face it, this patriarchal culture we live in teaches men that women are their property, and so are kids, and they can do whatever they want with them. If a woman dares leave them, she needs to pay - usually these men kill her pets, or the woman herself, sometimes their children. If we take your view of things, there's an epidemic of mental illness among men, and a great minority of men need to be institutionalized.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)
on edit: Not trying to relieve anyone of guilt - just acknowledging the emotional anguish and that someone could have helped him find another way.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I'm just fed up of the typical response to these types of event. Making the perpetrator into a monster, or excusing him by claiming insanity, is a negating of the very real problem this culture (this patriarchal culture) has of men looking at women and children as property. As feminists have been saying for decades, patriarchy hurt men as well as women, and it often corrupts those with underlying issues, as well as denying them adequate coping mechanisms. The mindset of "Men aren't supposed to cry. Men aren't supposed to talk about their feelings. Women cry. Women talk about their feelings. Therefore women are weaker, and worth less than men" is still alive and well and can be found in most cultures. There's a reason why the third leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder by their significant others.
And I know that some might read what I just wrote and say that I'm claiming that the cause is culture, not the men themselves, but we don't excuse people from committing heinous crimes because their culture dictates it (honor killings or FMG) or because they were ordered to (Nuremberg defense.) Men need to change their culture - we feminists can't do everything ourselves. I can't see that any liberal man would want to leave things the way they are right now.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The fact that someone who can find their way to doing something like this can get their hands on a gun is also a problem.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Unfortunately it's so widespread, and their lobbying power is so great that I cannot see how the US can change it without also changing their entire society, in many areas, not just gun control. In American culture, a life is so little valued compared to the values that are espoused (bootstrap puritan 'freedom',) you'd be excused if you thought it was 1813, rather than 2013.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The penetration of the term "assault weapon" as an arbitrary, pejorative, and emotional term in our lexicon is complete, apparently. The screaming headline of the story is the fact that it was committed with an "assault weapon".
Now, probably at least half of the people reading my remarks though an AR-15 or AK-47 was used, and were surprised to find out an "assault weapon" handguns. It also covers shotguns of a certain type, too.
So yeah, despite the fact that "assault weapon" pistols have a shitty layout that the handgun-shooting community has pretty much universally rejected for about a century (heavier, clumsy handling, difficult to holster, hard to conceal), they were banned.
And the fact that the man had, and used, a much older technology gun, the steadfast .38 revolver, in the brutal crime described above in the screaming headline, the focus is on the guy had somewhere in the house a gun that had the magazine in a place that politicians found unacceptable and that the shooting community found stupid.
And those same politicians, having secured the emotional and subconscious reaction in the American psyche, now are trying to expand the definition to include even more guns based on cosmetic features because, hey, it gives them something to run on in 2014. "Standing up to the gun lobby" by banning rifles with pistol grips is surely worth millions of votes and tens of millions of dollars, right? Right?
And it's a welcome distraction from what they didn't do... like regulate the banks, or fight for union rights, or net neutrality, or reforming the campaign finance system, or any of a half-dozen other things they work quietly behind the scenes to subvert. Things they "compromise" with the Republicans with.
I wish they took on the pharmeceutical lobby, or the banking lobby, or the health-insurance lobby, or the carbon lobby, or the prison lobby, with a tenth of the zeal they've spend on banning rifles with protruding pistol grips, or handguns that have magazine mounted outside of the grip.
ANY ONE OF THOSE would save FAR more lives and improve the quality of American life than Feinstein's proposed ban on assault weapons. But... same old story. Follow the money, Lebowski.
The entire firearms industry in America has about $12 billion in revenues (guns and ammunition), and makes about a billion a year in profit.
Bristol-Myers Squibb: $19 billion in revenues, $11 billion in profits.
Astra-Zeneca: $33 billion in revenues, $10 billion in profits
Pfizer: $67 billion in revenues, $10 billion in profits.
Abbott Labs: $39 billion in revenues, $5 billion in profits.
Eli Lilly: $25 billion in revenues, $4 billion in profits.
Follow the money.
Manufacturing jobs that paid decent but not spectacular wages and created decent but not spectacular profits, but jobs that actually created wealth from raw materials, were shoved aside for the sake of high-wage, high-profit industries that produce money but not wealth. Gun makers are the former; pharma and financial services and health insurance... those are the latter. And that's why their precious, precious profits are unmentioned and untouchable by our congresscritters.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Are not part of the problems like banks, Pharma and big CEOs are?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Remember, guns are used as tools to murder, they are not murderers themselves. The motive to murder comes from other factors, such as greed or hate or criminal business interests (drugs) or whatever.
I don't claim the problem with those corporate giants is that money exists, it's what the transnationals do with them.
40,000 people a year died for a lack of health care alone, 3x the number murdered annually.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)and the BOYS (not the men) on this thread are arguing about weaponry.
Sick.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)There's this from California:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014390493
He did it while his wife was traveling overseas.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)she could have shot his ass. just saying.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Ever thought that maybe if there were NO GUNS in the family, it may have turned out different?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Someone needs to get a picture of him and put a huge X though it with the slogan "the number one reason we don't need assault weapons, crazy people."
jpak
(41,758 posts)yup
patrice
(47,992 posts)It appears, validly so or not, to be a joke, an expensive, cruel joke. People are becoming more and more aware of this, even though some of them are still going through the motions, so there is nothing there when they need it and those who are "saved" think that's the way it is supposed to be.