We need to find out if the weapons used were purchased legally by this guy. It
appears that he had only a record of misdemeanors. If that is the case, he
could have had legal "rights" to possess the gun(s).But
remember, we don't need any reform of our Second Amendment "rights"
to kill any time we want to.Nope.
Lets hope that Texas does what it has in the past. Fast justice and equally fast
execution. The perpetrator deserves execution which he would probably never get
in Utah unfortunately. But, he is in Texas now, and lets hope Texas does not let
Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and one of the highest murder
rates. These "anti-gun" laws only affect law-abiding people.
Criminals, like this guy will break every restraining order and law to do what
he wants anyway as seen here, including getting a weapon illegally, if
necessary. The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st Amendment for freedom of speech
applies to all citizens, whether we agree with the speech or not, whether we
want to own a gun or not. The criminals and mentally deranged are the
problem. The tool they used is not the criminal, unless you want to ban all
knifes, hammers, cars, ad infinitum...
So when will we recognize the need for greater mental health services and the
need to suspend the gun rights of the mentally ill?
It doesn't matter what weapon he used. He could have killed them with
anything. The problem is we don't take domestic violence seriously.
Restraining orders are just a piece of paper if they are not enforced.
Why is this discussion about gun rights? This was the first reported use of a
gun. As for mental health, he was to get an examination so he could be with his
kids, but he didn't undergo that. Can't one be ordered? The man was reported a hands on physical threat to the ex-wife, to his own
mother and sister. The court had ample opportunity to see that the man was
dangerous and threatening. What did the court do, restraining orders and all?
Nothing that took control of the man, just took away powers from him.By fleeing to a shelter, the wife protected herself & her kids, but what
did that do to the husband? Not being with the children inflamed him, adn the
served order on the day of the murders, set him off. What does a
violent man have to do to have the court stop him before acting out?
It's time to take the guns away from guys like this. He loses his rights
when he becomes violent.
If he had been dealt with properly by the State of Utah or the State of
California no one would be dead in the State of Texas. Horribly tragic story. I
pray for the surviving girl.This article is very confusingly
Ann Blake Tracy, the only “therapy” the article refers to is a
court-ordered evaluation warranted by Haskell's violent behavior. There is
no indication that he ever received antidepressant medication or even
professional remedial therapy. It seems that when a story such as
this is reported, someone will show up in the DN comments to claim
antidepressants as the cause of the perpetrator's actions. It happened when
the Joshua Boren story was first reported, and yet in the last few days we
learned that no medications were found in his body. But we never see those
commenters come back to admit their speculations were wrong. Some people
willfully overlook the most likely cause, mental illness, in order to promote
their anti-meds agenda. You make some bold claims about
antidepressants but provide no citations to support them. You also refer to
yourself as “Dr.” What exactly are your credentials in this area?
Why do we call him an ex-Utahn? How about an ex-Californian, since that is
where he lived last?I lived in Arizona for a few years, but don't
call myself an ex-Arizonian. Just wondering.
Why was this man free to continue his violent behavior? He attacked people. He
was violent in the presence of children. I fail to understand how a protective
order was adequate to stop this threat to the community. He needed to be in
prison with those that had also been violent. Is violence upon your spouse less
a threat to society than if he would have randomly walked into a place of
business and started hitting strangers? Read the frightening history in this
story. No home, no community and no society should have the least bit of
tolerance when it comes to abuse--whether that be to family or strangers. To me,
this is the true story. This is the honest and hardline question that must be
answered by our society. We need to take a hardline with the judicial system
about this. We need to let them know that we expect to be protected from people
with such violent historys by removing their presence and putting them behind
bars. Help them to understand society takes their violence seriously. A piece of
paper is not adequate in stopping someone with this kind of frightening
Another shooting,, very sad for this family.. Obviously this fellow had
problems.. It is unfortunate that we can't zap up a solution to regulate
crazy.. It just doesn't work.. Who gets to decide the criteria? If someone demonstrates (like this fellow) a violent act.. the system
already flags them and the NICS / FBI background check will deny the purchase of
a firearm through a FFL. If a person is on meds,, does that revoke their right
to own?Anyone who has purchased a gun legally knows that the FBI
/NICS application for a firearm specifically queries the purchaser as to any..
domestic violence convictions..felonies, citizenship,,etc.. The article stated
that this fellow had priors with domestic violence, a judge was involved so one
would think that his problems are of record. If not, the system broke down,,
like the Navy yard shooter.. Some folks here tend to believe,, guns
are the problem.. I disagree,, the facts do not support it.. This fellow could
have used any weapon to inflict harm and death on his estranged family.. We will have to learn more as the "facts' actually manifest
Good example of the failure of our judicial system in domestic violence cases.
Good example of the failure of this country to protect its citizens. Good
example of bad gun control laws.
Texas can't execute this guy fast enough. Killing people that are totally
and completely innocent and not even involved in his problems is beyond the
Chicago DOES NOT have the toughest gun laws in the country. The Chief of Police
has been calling for tougher gun laws for a long time. In the meanwhile, the
Bottom line: Guns DO kill people. If this perp had been armed with a knife,
yes, someone would likely be dead. But not 6. The time it takes to kill
someone with a knife or another object would have given the others time to
escape. A gun is a much more efficient killing tool than any other legal
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. In this case a sick and
violent man did this horrific act. Let's fix the people problem and stop
trying to legislate something that won't work, is costly, and
If coming to the door of the victim's house dressed as a Fed Ex employee
doesn't show pre meditation, I don't know what does.
I want to say how thankful I am for the atonement of Jesus Christ. Our temporal
experiences are all directly related to the great plan of salvation that was
ordained before the foundations of this world and the effects of the fall of
Adam are all around us. Lucifer seeks the destruction of us all and is the cause
of intense misery and woe when anyone chooses wickedness over faith and
obedience. The great blessing is the knowledge of the redemption made effective
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must have hope in the face of such
awful misery. I pray and hope for all who are affected by this
tragedy an over abundance and added measures of hope and comfort by the Holy
Ghost and an overshadowing of Love from the Savior and Redeemer.
Here we live in a country more willing to watch people shoot and kill each other
than give up their so called right to bear arms. Australia set a good example
when they said no more after their shooting in Port Arthur. Guns do kill people.
Why else were handguns made? Or assault rifles? In fact 3/4ths of murders in the
US are committed with a firearm, and yet we're unwilling to bury the
weapons of war. For members of the church in particular, it's even more sad
considering the many times in the book of Mormon where they were more willing to
beat their weapons into plowshares and bury them beneath the earth than say it
was some right of their's. Shame on us for allowing people like this to be
able to obtain firearms.
@ SaltandVinager,For members of the church in particular, it's
even more sad considering the many times in the book of Mormon where they were
more willing to beat their weapons into and bury them beneath the earth than say
it was some right of their's. Shame on us for allowing people like this to
be able to obtain firearms.First, the example you site is the
onplowsharesly time in the Book of Mormon where the people gave up their
weapons, specifically to keep a covenant that they personally made, not
"many" as you claim. Second, You forget that the children of those who
entered into the covenant were not under the same obligation. Third, the sons of
those who entered into the covenant armed themselves in defense of an enemy
attack. Fourth, defense was at the heart of self preservation for the Nephites.
Justifiably, by the Lord and prophet leaders they used deadly force to disarm
(no pun intended) their enemies.The families and friends of this man
should have been encouraged to defend themselves even with deadly force if
necessary to preserve their own lives.
Never mind a mental health diagnosis. How many times was Haskell arrested, then
let go? How many violent acts does a person have to commit before the courts
realize he is a danger to society and they prosecute him for the crimes he has
already committed? Whose idea was it for his ex-wife to
"compromise" and let go of the order of protection? Why was he allowed
any visitation with his children, supervised or otherwise? How many people have
to die before we take these people off the streets, and keep the extended
families safe?The man isn't sick. He is evil!!! Let's
treat him as such.
@JDLReally? Are we also unwilling to covenant with the Lord and
ourselves to destroy the weapons of war that plague American streets? I'm
certain Jesus Christ would not be down here preaching that the Stay family
should have defended themselves (assuming they would have had an opportunity
considering he held them at gun point and tied them up)? Or would he preach that
we should commit as a nation to removing the vile things that the mentally ill
are using to kill others with? That's the real question we should be asking
I'm with -- DrAnnBlakeTracyHenderson, NV10:02 p.m. July
10, 2014....on this one.Check the media reports, police
reports, and FDA reports.Meds sometimes DO have a very serious adverse
side-effect.That is why the FDA requires a Black Box warning label
be put on each and everyone of them.Let's see if this comes up
[or even gets mentioned] in the investigation.
I am going to keep this short and simple. My heart and prayers go out to this
family and I hope they will heal. I am saying this out of respect to them, and
not to turn this into a circus by stating my "opinion".
Entirely too many LDS men view their wives as property instead of treating them
as equals. Actually many other religions have the same problem. I am sick of
hearing about young wives and mothers being murdered just because they want a
divorce from their abusive husbands.
Open Minded Mormon, concerning the perpetrator's use of medication you say,
“Let's see if this comes up [or even gets mentioned] in the
investigation.”Oh, it always gets mentioned. You just have to
wait for the autopsy report. For example, you made this comment on January 21 on
the DN story "You look for understanding, and there is none" about
Joshua Boren:“Sure there is, Checks what meds he had been
taking.” Well, they checked, and the toxicology report was
negative for any medication. say, “Check the media
reports,” so I did. Neither Adam Lanza, Jason Klebold, Seung Cho, nor
Darion Aguilar were using medication. There are undoubtedly more. Darion Aguilar
wanted mental health treatment but never got it. According to the
New York Times, after Jared Loughner pleaded guilty to killing 6 and wounding 9
in 2011 in Tucson, he told his doctor he wished he had taken the antidepressants
he had been prescribed long before the shooting.
Open Minded Mormon, you say, “Meds sometimes DO have a very serious
adverse side-effect.That is why the FDA requires a Black Box warning label
be put on each and everyone of them.” Actually, the reason for
the warning is an attempt to balance the small risk posed by antidepressants
against their well-documented benefits. In 2006 the FDA conducted a review of
2,200 children taking SSRIs and found that about 4% experienced suicidal
thinking or behavior—twice the rate of those taking placebo. No suicides
occurred, and since 2006 new studies have shown that the benefits of
antidepressant medications likely outweigh their risks to children and
adolescents. There is NO warning in the black box about violent or
homicidal behavior for any age. It ONLY concerns suicidality in young people up
to age 24. You can read it yourself online. Many studies have found
that SSRIs may reduce the propensity for violence. See George DT et al, January
2011; Stark LJ et al, April 1989; Coccaro EF et al, May 2009; Marcotte DE et al,
September 2009. A 2006 UCLA study shows that antidepressants have saved the
lives of thousands of people. But their stories don't make the news.
Revenge killings have been going on for thousands of years, long before there
were guns or anti-depressant medications. We have yet to see any reason other
than premeditated malice behind these horrific homicides. I can imagine no
other reason why someone would tie up a four year old and execute him.
Certainly he wouldn't have been a risk as a witness.Those of us
who knew the Stay's mourn their passing. We need to leave it up to the
legal system to determine motive, judgement, and punishment.
I have a relative who went absolutely crazy on the first day he took an
anti-depressant. It was so scary the police had to be called three times that
day. He did no physical harm, but threatened it. He was sane again the next
day. Wow, what a medication. What a reaction.
SAlt and vinegar,Again you miss the point. Self preservation is a
justifiable condition by the Lord himself through the prophets. It was
justifiable in the Old Testament, it was justifiable in the Book of mormon. A
resounding YES that the Stay family was justified in preserving their lives and
fending off the brutal attacks by an unstable aggressor as was the wife, the
children, the mother and the sister way before the incident in Texas.
Truth about some of the above comments:1 - Chicago's gun
problems start across the border in Indiana, where straw buyers can purchase
unlimited numbers of weapons. 2 - No, he couldn't have killed six
people "with anything". A gun is expedient, does not require close
contact, and was obviously a surprise. Holding a knife on one of six people,
and someone else can get away.3 - Congress, at NRA money-direction, has
essentially defunded the NIH statistical databases as well as the mental health
databases used for background checks.4 - WHY did this guy still have a
gun? Why was he let off so easily in Cache County when he was clearly a threat
to his wife and children? If he had been any other religion or race,
he'd have been in prison.
Here we go again: it wasn't the predator at fault, it was the dreaded gun.
Yeah, I'm sure he would have been as harmless as a new-born bunny were it
not for the firearm. You bet. When are we going to start blaming actual
perpetrators instead of tools, society, and a million other scapegoats?
Of course the predator was at fault, but there's no question his gun made
him even more dangerous than he already was. Taking away his gun would not have
rendered him harmless, but it would have significantly reduced his ability to
harm, and it would have increased his victims' ability to defend themselves
and increased their likelihood of survival. Keeping guns out of the hands of
people with demonstrated violent tendencies is not the be-all, end-all solution
to the problem of mass killings, but it ought to be an important part of the
solution.Another issue is that we have a legal system whose main
remedy is to dole out threats (like restraining orders) and punishments (like
prison time). Once someone (perhaps someone who is mentally ill) reaches the
point where they feel they have nothing to live for, threats and punishments
don't carry much weight. Again, I'm not absolving Haskell of any
fault. I'm simply asking whether there might be changes to the way our
system responds to initial expressions of violence that would be in
everybody's best interest--are there different, earlier interventions that
might yield better outcomes for society?
RE: Saltand Vinegar,I like how you use the Book of Mormon to pull
out principles to use in everyday life. I try to do that also. I don't
know if banning firearms would really make our country a more moral country.
Isn't THAT the real issue? People who use firearms to kill innocent people
have a moral/psychological issue. Banning a firearm is not going to get to the
root of the problem. You mentioned how in the Book of Mormon the people buried
their weapons of war. What was not said was how these particular people had
been a bloodthirsty people who had previously delighted in killing. It was good
that they buried their weapons of war (or weapons of rebellion). Yet, when
their children, with God's blessing, defended their rights and their
families against their enemies, did they not use weapons to do so? What is the
difference? That is the real underlying principle. How can we use that in our
own society? I've never personally heard of a gun shooting and killing a
person all on its own, making it the responsible party.
A Utah connection to the Texas shooting...........I think I would just keep that