Man bought gun, killed family 3 weeks after wife called cops

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Man bought gun, killed family 3 weeks after wife called cops

Megan Trimble, Associated Press

Updated 4:27 pm, Monday, August 15, 2016

LEESPORT, Pa. (AP) — A Pennsylvania man bought a gun one day after police responded to a domestic dispute at his home and used it less than three weeks later to kill his wife, three children and then himself, authorities said.

Megan Short, 33, told police she was afraid of her husband when they came to her home on July 18, investigators revealed Monday, and was in the process of moving out.

The bodies of Mark Short, 40, his wife and three children, 8-year-old Lianna, 5-year-old Mark Jr., and 2-year-old Willow were found Aug. 6 in the family's living room in Sinking Spring, about 50 miles northwest of Philadelphia.

The children — whom he had taken to an amusement park a day earlier for an employer-sponsored family day — were still in their pajamas. Their dog was also killed.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Officials-to-give-update-in-family-s-apparent-9142592.php

[Sancho]

1. Here we go again...

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

4. None of that can happen as long as owning a gun is a "right".....

Rights don't require permission by the government.

You have to get the Supreme Court to link the two halves of the 2nd. Amendment and deem it antiquated right up there with the stuff about pirates.

[Sancho]

7. Dangerous people do not have a right to guns...

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html

Scalia clearly stated in Heller that the right to bear arms had boundaries. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” he wrote. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For example, he cited laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or that forbid them in places such as schools and government buildings, or impose conditions on their sale. He also wrote that his decision did not overrule the holding in the 1939 Miller ruling that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time, and that the “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” was still permissible.
In other words, even one of the modern era’s most conservative justices says gun enthusiasts are wrong when they claim that any limitation on firearms is unconstitutional. Government can place restrictions on firearms with the intent of protecting society.
Unfortunately, the NRA has been working for years to make sure lunatics and felons can obtain guns as easily as possible. After the deadliest shooting in American history took place at Virginia Tech (32 dead), Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. When introduced, the legislation called on states to submit mental-health records to national databases maintained by the FBI. The NRA declared this violated the Second Amendment and, through intense lobbying, limited the definition of mental illness only to people institutionalized or found by a court to be a danger. Even if a psychiatrist believed a patient posed a threat, nothing could be done to keep a gun out of that person’s hand.

Read this:

The Second Amendment: A Biography Paperback – May 26, 2015
by Michael Waldman

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

This makes no sense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=YN6rjamk0Q0

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Right-wingers believe that not only does every citizen have the RIGHT to own a gun....

But a RESPONSIBILITY.

There are even a few towns that have imposed mandatory gun ownership.

They feel ownership is okay by default and the bar has to be set really high to remove the right.

Free speech however is something they would like to take away.

[Aristus]

2. It's a good thing no one infringed his 2nd Amendment rights.

That would have been a real tragedy.

But his wife and children - didn't they have any rights?...

[LonePirate]

3. The 2A fanatics believe one's right to a gun outweighs another's right to live. It's demented logic.

[beevul]

6. False.

The 2A fanatics believe one's right to a gun outweighs another's right to live.

False. The ONLY people that think that ones right to own a gun and anothers right to live are on conflict, are anti-gunners who make the statement you just did.

The rest of us know theres a difference between owning something, and illegally misusing that something.


The term "demented logic" definitely applies to that.

[LonePirate]

8. You couldn't be more wrong.

When gun nutters and their terrorist leaders in the NRA and Congress even refuse to discuss let alone support common sense gun control measures requested by super majorities of Americans, then it's not gun grabbers like me who are the problem here. I have no idea what reality you're living in but it is not the same gun ravaged America that torments the rest of us.

[beevul]

10. I'd have to actually BE wrong first.

When gun nutters and their terrorist leaders in the NRA and Congress even refuse to discuss let alone support common sense gun control measures requested by super majorities of Americans, then it's not gun grabbers like me who are the problem here.

"Common sense gun measure requested by super majorities of Americans." That's all it took for me to know that you're full of shit. Support in a poll, isn't quite the same thing as "requested", at least in the world I live in, where words mean things.

I have no idea what reality you're living in but it is not the same gun ravaged America that torments the rest of us.

And "gun ravaged America" is a confirmation.

It must be nice to blame the gun, so you don't have to address the tiny minority of people (much less than 1 percent) that misuse them.

But then, its all meant to distract from this:

The ONLY people that think that ones right to own a gun and anothers right to live are on conflict, are anti-gunners who make the statement you just did.

The rest of us know theres a difference between owning something, and illegally misusing that something.

Saying that's wrong, and proving that's wrong, are two very different things. You did one, but not the other.

[LonePirate]

11. You're oblivious to the fact that you are patently and offensively wrong.

Last edited Mon Aug 15, 2016, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Gun nutters have had 240 years to prove they can own a gun without abusing it and they have failed to do so. It's time to change course. It's time to repeal the 2A, confiscate every gun in the country and imprison anyone for life who refuses to comply. Gun nutters have no solutions for America's gun problem - and neither do you apparently. It's about time we flipped the script and enact some major change since gun nutters refuse to let the rest of us live our lives in peace and without fear. If they can't use their "toys" and fetish objects responsibly, then they need to be taken away forever.

[beevul]

12. You are asserting that I am, with zero evidence.

You're oblivious to the fact that you are patently and offensively wrong.

You are asserting that I am, with zero evidence, so I am dismissing without evidence, what you have asserted without evidence.

That sure was easy.

Gun nutters have had 240 years to prove they can own a gun without abusing it and they have failed to do so.

That's a neat assertion, however, it fails the reality test. There are over 100 million gun owners in America, in possession of over 300 million guns. Less than 1 percent misuse firearms resulting in death.

That's proof enough for me, that you're completely, factually, hilariously wrong.

It's time to change course.

Go hunt that whale Ahab.

It's time to repeal the 2A, confiscate every gun in the country and imprison anyone for life who refuses to comply.

Somehow, I doubt that those who wont comply will be interested in going to prison for owning the same guns their fathers and grandfathers did.

Gun nutters have no solutions for America's gun problem - and neither do you apparently.

Of course we don't. That's because it isn't a GUN problem. Its a behavior problem. I'm not interested in solutions from those who can't even be bothered to correctly identify the problem due to stupidity, hate or bias. Nor are most Americans, in my experience.

It's about time we flipped the script and enact some major change since gun nutters refuse to let the rest of us live their lives in peace and without fear.

Bullshit. The ONLY people that interfere with others living the rest of their lives in peace and without fear, are those who misuse firearms. But you aren't interested in them, you'd rather fight with the 99+ percent that don't kill other people.

That's the textbook definition of bias.

If they can't use their "toys" and fetish objects responsibly, then they need to be taken away forever.

On a case by case, individual by individual basis, I agree, but collective guilt and collective responsibility for crimes that roughly 100 million of us do not commit, is bullshit, and will ALWAYS BE bullshit:

[LonePirate]

15. The vast majority of 18 yos were responsible drinkers but the few bad eggs took away their purchases

If you want to claim it's a behavior problem, then all of you death machine, er gun rights supporters have FAILED to control the behavior of your fellow gun fetishists. You have also failed to propose any solutions whatsoever. You've had decades to do so but it's been nothing but crickets from your crowd. I can only surmise you are pleased with all of the gun violence in this country because you have done nothing and want to do nothing about it. It's about time you abandoned a belief system for Somalia and Afghanistan that has no place in a modern society. I am on te side of peace while gun rights advocates are on the side of death. That's pretty clear to everyone.

[NutmegYankee]

16. By that logic (fallacy) right there, all Muslims are responsible for acts of terrorism.

You are using a fallacy that creeps up over and over in many topics, like religion I mentioned above. Nobody is responsible for the acts of others - Period. Neither for religion, nor ownership of guns. Or the other topics this keeps popping up for.

[beevul]

18. No.

Last edited Mon Aug 15, 2016, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

The vast majority of 18 yos were responsible drinkers but the few bad eggs took away their purchases

No. Some collective guilt/collective responsibility true believer asshole did that. Not to mention, possession of alcohol isn't constitutionally protected.

If you want to claim it's a behavior problem, then all of you death machine, er gun rights supporters have FAILED to control the behavior of your fellow gun fetishists.

Bullshit. Its not MY job to control other people, nor is it yours. Its the job of people to control themselves.

If they fail to do so, that isn't my fault, nor is it my responsibility, nor is it the fault or responsibility of gun owners in general.

Do you blame others when you decide to run a red light?

You have also failed to propose any solutions whatsoever.

Untrue, and asserted just to be nasty, and the proof is in the fact that you didn't have time to search my posts and see what I have or haven't proposed. I hope you enjoy doing that, as much as I enjoy pointing it out, because we'll be able to continue this until they lock the thread or you give up - because I wont.

You've had decades to do so but it's been nothing but crickets from your crowd.

Another lie. As I've said many times over the years, nobody is stopping any resources from being poured into suicide prevention using "pro-gun" as a reason - and pouring those resources into it, would attack 2/3 of all gun deaths, directly, and without pro-gun resistance.

Anti-gunners are declining to do so, because they are focused like a laser - on the gun, just like you are.

That aint crickets, sweetheart, although I expect you to accuse me of using nra talking points for saying that, in an effort to convince yourself that crickets are all you hear.

I can only surmise you are pleased with all of the gun violence in this country because you have done nothing and want to do nothing about it.

And I can only surmise that you are pleased with all the gun suicides, because rather than pouring resources into suicide prevention, you'd rather fight with people like me who aren't the problem in the first place and make it about guns - a fight you're guaranteed to lose.

Two can play at that game, and I can play it better than you can.

It's about time you abandoned a belief system for Somalia and Afghanistan that has no place in a modern society.

And its about time you abandon a belief system in which a blind eye is turned toward guilty bad actors who actually commit gun violence, and your full sound and fury is turned toward those that don't.

I am on te side of peace while gun rights advocates are on the side of death.

Theres nothing remotely peaceful about blaming and penalizing everyone except the guy that commits gun violence.

That's pretty clear to everyone.

Speaking for everyone now are you? The majority of America disagrees with your stance, and your viewpoint is way WAY outside the mainstream. A full 3/4 of the American people disagree with you on the second amendment.

[Marengo]

20. Do you own a knife? What action have you taken to prevent this...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/5-family-members-found-dead-oklahoma-house-article-1.2301476

[Marengo]

21. Why life in prison?

[UpInArms]

23. excuse me - I have to be the grammar police,

because reading your writing makes my head hurt

people or individuals are WHO not THAT

things are THAT

please do not objectify people by saying - people that

alter your phrase to

people who

thank you

(going back to my corner)

[beevul]

44. Now that I can reply...

You understood what I was saying, did you not?

Communication then succeeded.

[LanternWaste]

19. That's certainly the stock allegation often used

"The rest of us know theres (sic) a difference between owning something, and illegally misusing that something...."

That's certainly the stock allegation often used, regardless of its veracity or accuracy.

[Marengo]

22. Is it not true and/or accurate?

[beevul]

43. The appeal system works.

Bravo DU admin.

[Paladin]

27. That's the crux of the matter.

Pro-gun militants have no problem with the tens of thousands who die every year in the U.S. via violent usage of firearms. They view such carnage as a more-than-fair tradeoff for their having ready access to all the guns and accessories they desire. That's the mindset that advocates of gun control are up against.

[beevul]

42. Doubling down, I see.

Pro-gun militants have no problem with the tens of thousands who die every year in the U.S. via violent usage of firearms. They view such carnage as a more-than-fair tradeoff for their having ready access to all the guns and accessories they desire. That's the mindset that advocates of gun control are up against.

Doubling down, I see.

Ok.

Anti-gun militants have no problem with the tens of thousands who die every year in the U.S. via gun suicide. They view such carnage as necessary in their war against guns, and more-than-fair tradeoff for being able to go whole hog against guns, rather than dedicating their resources to combat the lions share of gun deaths - gun suicides.

Oh, and before you accuse me of using an nra talking point, it seems that "mental health" an accepted talking point down in GCRA. So much so that they bolded this part:

Can we maybe talk about at least limiting, even if it turns out to be only a symbolic gesture, the nearly unfettered ability to legally purchase weapons of unlimited caliber and capacity for carnage? Maybe add reasonable waiting periods and background checks onto that, along with some renewed teeth in mental health services and regulations that can more readily identify and assist powder kegs such as Elliott Rodger?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211269

[scscholar]

28. And the cops are either too scared or lazy to make reasonable actions...

to protect the public. They should have collected all of those things from that violent person as soon as the wife looked scared. She shouldn't have had to say a word. The Republicans want to make it nearly impossible to take someone's property because they love property more than children.

[SoCalMusicLover]

34. They Love The Unborn Child, Just Not Post-Birth nt

[RobinA]

36. I'm No Gun Nutter,

but it's hard to make a case that stronger gun laws would have changed this outcome. Even a waiting period - he already waited after the purchase, this was no heat of the moment, run out and buy a gun thing.

[maxsolomon]

5. Waiting Periods. Lengthy waiting periods.

And notification of purchase and background check application to next of kin.

If he'd had to wait a month to take possession, and in the interim his wife knew he'd bought a gun the day after she called the cops on him, she'd have grounds for a restraining order. Maybe.

From the Simpsons:
Clerk: [Homer grabs for his gun, but the cashier holds onto it] Sorry, the law requires a five-day waiting period. We've got to run a background check.
Homer: Five days? But I'm mad now!
(the cashier pulls the gun away from him)
Homer: I'd kill you if I had my gun.
Clerk: Yeah, well, you don't.

[cstanleytech]

9. Blanket lengthy waiting periods would probably get thrown out by the courts.

Now one that says only applies to people who have had a recent domestic violence charge filed against them by the DA within say the last year and or multiple arrests for such might manage to squeak past.

[maxsolomon]

25. why would 30 days get thrown out? 6 months?

there are already accepted restrictions on the RKBA - no handguns under 21, 3 days waits, special license for full-auto. how are those not thrown out?

I say we find out if you're right.

[cstanleytech]

26. Blanket ones that apply to everyone for no valid legal reason probably would get

tossed.
Now if you provide a reason like a history of being arrested multiple times within a reasonable time period over the past 10 years and other things like being recently being arrested for a crime involving violence, stalking or domestic violence within the past 180 days that might squeak by the courts.

[maxsolomon]

30. again, why?

CN has 2 weeks for long guns. FL has 3 days in their Constitution. CA's DOJ can impose 30 days. have those been challenged in court? they're not "tossed".

[cstanleytech]

32. Because the courts would probably rule it a violation of due process to reduce

the Constitutional right people have to own a gun.
You might be able to get the law past the courts if it applies to people who have already broken major laws involving violence or have a history of violence but if it's to broad it will likely get thrown out.

[maxsolomon]

33. i don't think you're reading what i'm writing

those three states ALREADY DO IT to everyone who wants to purchase a firearm.

how have they gotten away with it if it violates constitutional rights? RKBA types are too lazy to take them to court?

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-dealer-sales/waiting-periods/

[cstanleytech]

35. Yes but those are state laws not Federal.

[maxsolomon]

37. did I say Federal? no, i did not.

I would like to see if such a law is overturned, but I'm not naïve enough to think that the filibuster could be circumvented on a federal waiting period.

[Kennah]

13. John Stewart said it well

[beevul]

14. Disingenuous.

Nobody is stopping any resources from being poured into suicide prevention and using "pro-gun" as an excuse - and pouring those resources into it, would attack 2/3 of all gun deaths, directly, and without pro-gun resistance.

Anti-gunners are declining to do so, because they are focused like a laser - on the gun.

[Duckhunter935]

29. The person up thread

Is talking about taking all guns. In fact many on DU are for that.

[leftyladyfrommo]

24. The most dangerous place for a woman is her home.

That is the awful truth.

[EL34x4]

40. Huh?

Unintentional injuries are the number one killer for women under 35 (and I suspect car accidents account for most of these unintentional injuries). Homicide is the cause of death for less than 10% of women who die under the age of 35. From 35-44, it's 2% and 45 and above, it's not even in the top ten.

For all women, homicide is the 35th leading cause of death, sandwiched between cervical cancer (34) and esophageal cancer (36),

Might make for a great bumper sticker but it's not the awful truth.

[coffeenap]

31. It is too late for gun control--

it's time for ammo control.

[Marengo]

39. Interested to know what you might propose.

[hack89]

41. A meaningless distinction.

Ammo is covered by the 2A.

[Blue_Tires]

38. Who does that? Who puts a gun to the head of a two-year-old and pulls the trigger?