HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Remember that guy who sho...

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:35 PM

Remember that guy who shot his three children?

The Sacramento man who killed his daughters had been barred from possessing a weapon. He shot them anyway. The Los Angeles Times has more on the father who killed three of his own children in a church on Monday while seeing them under supervision. The man was under a restraining order by the mother of his children for years of abuse, and was reportedly told in court documents that he was not allowed to possess a gun. Police are still investigating the shooting, but a local domestic violence advocate told the Times it was an all-too-common story. ďIt is left to an honor system [to surrender guns] with a person who has already hurt or threatened a partner being relied upon to abide by the law,Ē said Julie Bornhoeft. ďIt is a flawed system.Ē
Link

A flawed system? Really? Are reasonable people supposed to expect a man who beats his wife to have honor?

Considering that 70 women are shot and killed EVERY MONTH by a domestic partner this should be low hanging fruit. This can be fixed. RESOURCES

31 replies, 3842 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Remember that guy who shot his three children? (Original post)
AndyS Mar 2022 OP
Wingus Dingus Mar 2022 #1
dchill Mar 2022 #12
FoxNewsSucks Mar 2022 #16
Caliman73 Mar 2022 #2
Sancho Mar 2022 #3
Wingus Dingus Mar 2022 #4
3catwoman3 Mar 2022 #15
Zeitghost Mar 2022 #5
AndyS Mar 2022 #7
Zeitghost Mar 2022 #20
AndyS Mar 2022 #22
Zeitghost Mar 2022 #23
AndyS Mar 2022 #27
Zeitghost Mar 2022 #28
AndyS Mar 2022 #29
Zeitghost Mar 2022 #30
AndyS Mar 2022 #31
usonian Mar 2022 #6
AndyS Mar 2022 #8
AZLD4Candidate Mar 2022 #13
IronLionZion Mar 2022 #9
smirkymonkey Mar 2022 #10
colorado_ufo Mar 2022 #14
SunSeeker Mar 2022 #11
ShazzieB Mar 2022 #17
ShazzieB Mar 2022 #18
ShazzieB Mar 2022 #19
CaliforniaPeggy Mar 2022 #21
lagomorph777 Mar 2022 #24
Initech Mar 2022 #25
JanMichael Mar 2022 #26

Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:38 PM

1. Gun nuts are fine with the kids being shot, as long as guns aren't ever confiscated.

As we all know, dead children are an acceptable price for unrestricted gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wingus Dingus (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:54 PM

12. Freedom isn't free! Especially for kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wingus Dingus (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:25 PM

16. Guns in school are OK, Dead kids are OK

just don't make them wear a mask.

I don't know how rightwingers don't realize how stupid and ridiculous their positions are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:41 PM

2. That is ridiculous.

It should not be up to the person who lost their rights because of their own action, to voluntarily surrender their firearms. After they are served with the order, LE should be out at the house confiscating any dangerous weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:42 PM

3. 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 70ís, 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 werenít secured are out of control in our society. As such, hereís what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Iím not debating the legal language, I just think itís 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 itís 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 learnerís 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 driverís 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 12:47 PM

4. This is a good set of ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sancho (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:14 PM

15. You need a license to groom dogs, for gawd's sake!

To serve liquor. To do manicures and pedicures. To sell houses. And on and on and on.

I so wish you were in charge of this aspect of American life/culture, Sancho. Everything you say is completely reasonable. I read it ever time you post it.

Here's another basic guideline that would make sense - If an activity in which you are engaged has the potential to harm or kill someone, you need a incense to engage in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:03 PM

5. The firearm used

Was stolen. The State and LE had no idea he was in possession of it. IIRC there is a State task force here in CA to look into those with registered firearms who are under a DV restraining order or who have been "red flagged", but when it comes to criminals who generally possess stolen and illegally owned firearms, it makes things a bit more difficult because criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:45 PM

7. Two things:

1) He was not a 'criminal' until he shot his children.

2)Good for CA and the task force. What about the other 69 women shot and killed every month?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:53 PM

20. I disagree

He had just been arrested on felony charges days before and was in possession of a stolen illegal weapon in violation of his restraining order. Even with no convictions, he was a criminal. My point being, somebody capable of killing their own children is not going to follow gun control measures and follow ups by LEO's checking to ensure he is complying with the order not to possess firearms isn't going to be very successful if the criminal is determined to obtain one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 04:18 PM

22. So let's just do nothing . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 05:18 PM

23. I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion based on my post

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 05:49 PM

27. Well,

My point being, somebody capable of killing their own children is not going to follow gun control measures and follow ups by LEO's checking to ensure he is complying with the order not to possess firearms isn't going to be very successful if the criminal is determined to obtain one.


What other conclusion can one come to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 06:09 PM

28. That those intent on evil can often not be stopped

And blaming the system, even in places like California where extensive safeguards are in place, isn't productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 07:26 PM

29. CA is an exception and even there the wife beater is expected to

surrender his weapons. The task force you spoke of is after the fact and not an active method of removing weapons from the possession of domestic abusers. APPS cross references registered firearms to criminal convictions and restraining orders after it has bee determined that the guns were not voluntarily surrendered.

There is a federal restriction on PURCHASE of firearms by someone CONVICTED of domestic abuse IF the locality chooses to report it to NICS.

So I ask again given the point of view expressed, ie it can't be prevented with legislation, please tell me why I should not assume you support doing nothing. If that is not the case please elaborate on what you would propose to defend those 70 women a month from being shoot and killed by abusive partners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 08:03 PM

30. CA might be the exception

But this is clear evidence that evil people can still commit evil acts despite our best efforts to put safeguards into place. That's always been true and always will be true.


As to what the solution is, I don't have all the answers nor do I believe there is a perfect answer. I would advocate more education and programs to help victims and potential victims of domestic violence recognize the signs of an abuser and help them get out of bad situations combined with rigorous enforcement of existing laws. But I also know that it will never be enough.


I'm not sure why you've chosen to read far more into my posts than I ever implied, but you're barking up the wrong tree. It seems some are more interested in blaming a lack of government intervention than in blaming the murderous POS that killed his own children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zeitghost (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 09:20 PM

31. Zeit, I have not read anything into your posts that is not there.

Even your last reply reiterates that nothing can be done, alas, bad people will be bad people and government can do nothing.

You don't have all the answers so your answer is to abdicate all responsibility.

Follow that process and laws are all pointless. Murder is against the law but people still murder. Theft is against the law but people still steal. Traffic laws are all pointless because people still speed, ignore stop signs and refuse to get liability insurance on their autos. It's all pointless. Give in and take it all on yourself. Government can't protect you, it's all up to you. It's the victim's fault for not being educated.

Going down that line or reasoning leads to buying a gun and taking it all on yourself.

As long as we don't take the guns away . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 01:35 PM

6. Is this doable?

The proposals for gun controls above haven't the chance of a snowball in hell of being adopted. People are nuts for their armament.

This transcends the "gun" matter. The Qanon wacko who killed his two children with a spear gun comes to mind.

What's then doable?

The idea of a "restraining order" is useless, IMO. Too often, it's used after the fact (murder) in the courts.

Is there ANY way of providing children and their guardians some real protection?

IDEAS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usonian (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:46 PM

8. This is the fallacy that gunners use to do nothing.

Laws couldn't prevent this incident, so laws are impotent to do anything, therefore let's just do nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:55 PM

13. Watch them come out with "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument

followed by "new gun laws will not prevent this because criminal don't care about laws when they commit crimes."

My counter argument is always: "If that's the case, why have law at all? Tax frauds don't care if there are laws stopping it. Thieves don't care if there are laws against it. Murderers don't care either. Neither do rapists. Your argument are laws are meaningless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:48 PM

9. Children pay the price of freedom

because Republicans are pro-life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:48 PM

10. Sick bastard!

 

Those poor little girls. They didn't stand a chance. What an evil excuse for father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:59 PM

14. In a church yet.

Hard to wrap one's head around such evil, but there is so much more.

Why, why, why? So much mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 02:54 PM

11. Sickening. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:47 PM

18. This is side issue, but does that asshole "father" have a name?

I've been googling to find out more about this case after getting stopped by the LA Times' pay wall, and EVERY article I'm pulling up calls him "the man who shot his three daughters," or something of that sort. I don't understand why the identity of this disgusting piece of garbage is being withheld. He sure as hell doesn't deserve it. //end rant

I just. Don't. Get. It.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:53 PM

19. LA Times now says he's been ID'd.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-01/father-who-killed-kids-at-church-had-restraining-order-gun

I can't read their articles because pay wall, but thought I might as well share the link.

I imagine his name will be all over the internet soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 03:57 PM

21. His name was David Fidel Mora Rojas. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 05:22 PM

24. People that dangerous need to be jailed.

Restraining orders only work on sane people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndyS (Original post)

Thu Mar 3, 2022, 05:27 PM

25. And yet the right is more concerned about trans people using the bathroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread