Police: New Mexico teenager fatally shot 2 adults, 3 children
Source: KOB4
Posted at: 01/20/2013 9:36 AM | Updated at: 01/20/2013 9:45 AM
By: Shaun Griswold, KOB.com
A 15-year-old boy has been charged with the murder of two adults and three children, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office said.
Last night, police found five people dead at a South Valley home in the 2800 block of Long Lane SW.
A man, a woman, two girls and a boy were found in the home with several gunshot wounds.
Multiple weapons, including an assault type rifle, were found nearby, police said. The investigation is ongoing.
Stay with KOB.com for more on this developing story
Read more: http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2902776.shtml
= new reply since forum marked as read
That is local to me. 
Another tragedy--and surely another ridiculous and despicable discounting by NRA and its apologists.
Always trying to bring trifling gun "facts" in to derail a cogent point or realistic concern!
Just kidding mperrin...I get it.
I really don't. It's too tragic.
Just pointing out that given NO ONE is calling for a ban on ALL FIREARMS, this statistic is meaningless, while technically true, most of the deaths were done with weapons NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTING (i.e. pistols). According to FBI statistics, 69% of all murders or other unlawful killing are done with handguns, 95% of all deaths by by firearms (including Assault Weapons) are done with pistols. The number of people killed by Rifles (Single shot, Bolt Action, Lever Action AND semi-automatic "Assault weapons"
is less then then the number of people killed by knives OR clubs (The number of people killed by Shotguns is also less then the number of people killed by Knives or clubs).
Yes, Newtown was a tragedy, the issue should we use a one time event as the basis for a change in firearms law, or should we just look at WHO IS BEING KILLED AND BY WHAT, and use that data as the basis for a change in Firearms law (i.e. restrict Pistols instead of restricting what is rarely used in crime, assault weapons). Yes, an assault weapon was used in Newtown, but is the better way to address Newtown is increase spending on Mental Health Care then doing an almost meaningless act of abolishing "Assault Weapons"? i.e pass an assault weapon ban, but someone like the shooter in Newtown is till unable to get the mental health treatment he needs, so next time he uses a car full of gasoline or some other means to commit a mass murder?
The problem with firearms in the US has to do with pistols and a lack of mental health care more then any other single factor. No one wants to increase spending on Mental Health (including setting up the supervised local "halfway" homes that were suppose to replace the old mental health hospitals when such hospitals were closed, such half way homes were NEVER built) and thus you end up with people with severe mental health problems and no treatment. Families have to deal with these people, and are stretched to the limit to do so, when the families ask for assistance they are told none is available till the person with the mental health problem commits a crime. i.e. families are told to keep the person from doing something criminal, but that any real help will only occur after that person does a crime.
When I first started my practice dealing with Mental Health issues and children, I was appalled by how Massachusetts handle such children in the mid 1600s. In Colonial Massachusetts it was the law, that if a parent decided his child who was not yet age 14 was bad, that parent was to turn the child over to the state for execution. I was appalled when I first read of that ancient law, but now that I have practice in the field for 23 years, I can make the comment at least Colonial Massachusetts addressed the problems of children with severe mental disorders, unlike today when such children are just ignored. How this affects family is best stated in the following:
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother
Thus we have to have increase spending on Mental Health Care, which requires a willingness to pay increase taxes. The right does NOT want to see Assault Weapon banned nor does it want to pay taxes, so it is against both. The problem is one or the other, but as long as the Right can get both, you will see no action in regards to assault weapons or Mental Health Care. The real fight is when the Left starts to make a point that it is one or the other, the right will crack on which to support. The Economic Right hates taxes, the Social Right wants to keep their guns. The Left has to be careful NOT to push one or the other, but that BOTH are alternatives. The Social Right are the voters the Right needs to win elections, the Economic Right is the actual head of the GOP and they want low taxes.
I have to admit, I prefer increase mental health care over any Assault Weapon ban but the threat of BOTH will cause the right to have to pick one. The act of picking one is what will divide the Right (and may even get some Right wing gun nuts to vote Democratic instead of Republican).
One last comment, more people die in Auto Accidents then are killed by Firearms, AND the states with the highest level of Firearm Deaths also tend to have the highest level of Auto Deaths.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths#table-tab
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
Through that is expected to reverse by 2015:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
Please note, Firearm deaths have been on a slight upward movement since 1999, while Auto Accidents started to drop like a rock around 2006 as the price of Gasoline went through the roof. Thus this is more the result of the high price of gasoline (Which is expected to drop over the next year) so the even may NOT occur (i.e. lower prices for gasoline, leads to more driving which leads to more deaths in auto accidents, reversing the trend since 2006, firearm deaths went down during the boom years of the Clinton Administration, the Bush bad economy parallel the slight increase in firearms deaths, thus a economic boom may see another drop in firearms deaths).
... according to this SMH article, the only person he killed with the -15 was his father.
He had previously used a .22 rifle to shoot his mother and siblings to death.
Apparently his plan was to then to take both longarms and "... drive to a populated area to murder more people" and to "shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement".
It is so heart-warming to see how a gun can give a kid a chance to dream.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/annoyed-with-his-mother-teen-allegedly-shoots-parents-and-siblings-dead-20130122-2d4xo.html
Why cannot the people who make this weapon available to the general public be brought to justice?
A rifle commonly used for hunting squirrels and rabbits.
Doesn't make it any less horrific though; the fucker shot a 2-yr old girl in the head
Could you imagine what this country would look like if we had another party that stand up for the silent majority. Oh wait we do have another party but they don't have any balls.
cuz they make you do good honorable things?
Not trying to an obnoxious troll or anything.....
How Many Of These Mass Shootings Have Been Done By Those With 'BALLS'...
vs Those W/O THEM ???
After all, hammers are more deadly than guns, right? 