• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    3 months ago

    DeLucia, Jr., who worked as a local auto mechanic, was also a hoarder and the house was packed with tools and other car repair items, Fitzpatrick added.

    At the extreme, could this be a “failure to launch” child, now 57 years old, that continued to live at home being provided for by mom unable or or unwilling to provide for themselves, and finally was being forced to provide for themselves at age? Did the family make overtures to get the man mental help for decades only to be rebuffed by mom or the murderer? Now that mom was gone, the siblings were forced to deal with it?

    The article doesn’t contain enough information to draw conclusions.

      • don@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        How does this keep happening?

        It keeps happening because parenting can get legislated only so much. Inept and ineffective parenting isn’t exactly illegal if the child is relatively unharmed.

    • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      3 months ago

      We (Americans) will never give up our guns, especially if you are working class.

      We should continue to help fund to uphold our 2A rights.

      Gun safety and training should be an option for everyone.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Everyone who makes this absurd argument knows it won’t. They just want to keep their stupid toys and don’t care about the lives it costs, so they muddy the waters to delay actual action on preventing these needless deaths.

          • “Just arm and train everyone bro [so we can keep being the problem].”
          • “Just use ‘clean coal’ bro [so we can keep making billions destroying the climate].”
          • “Just make more plastic recycling plants bro [so we can keep littering the environment with mountain ranges’ worth of single-use trash]”.
          • “Just use EVs bro [so we don’t have to reevaluate how fundamentally terrible car-centrism is]”.

          Every time there’s a systemic problem in the US, someone shows up to make a proposal that puts a very small band-aid on the problem at best while making it much more deeply entrenched in the long-term and consequently more of a problem (in the above examples, we have respectively more guns and gun culture, more investment put into generating energy via coal, more infrastructure for plastic, and more car infrastructure). Basically, “I don’t want my guns taken away ever, so the solution I’m going to come up with is that everyone has them and so the actually effective solution of restricting them becomes literally impossible.” Their solution doesn’t just not work; it actively causes more deaths while serving their own self-interest.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I honestly don’t think, in this specific case, it matters either way. This was a murder-suicide by an insane person. They could just as well have used poison or a knife.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t think guns were the root of the problem in this case. It sounds to me like this guy was fucked and almost certainly not getting the support he needed. If he was living at home and had a “hoarder” amount of tools he likely didn’t have anywhere to go. Assuming he was getting a even cut of the sale1/5 of the return on a house wouldn’t be sufficient to provide for another house to keep that stuff. Obviously he did a horrible thing but this probably could have been avoided by not letting him get into such a desperate situation in the first place. It’s a failure of society.

            • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              “gUnS dOn’T kIlL pEoPle, PeOpLe KiLl PeOpLe” is always fun to see trotted out. This was a failure of society to keep a shotgun out of the hands of a deeply mentally unstable man, and every rational country in this respect is either laughing at Americans who make this ridiculous argument while their gun violence rate is multiple orders of magnitude lower than ours, or maybe they just don’t have it in them to laugh and just feel bad over the mountain of corpses America makes and then just says “well we just need better mental health and then everything will be fine bro”.

              Any mental health professional worth their salt will tell you that giving someone access to firearms simply increases the likelihood for impulsive murders/suicides.

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Okay so say he didn’t have a gun, he’s still in a desperate situation. As long as he only has the capacity to kill himself it’s fine?

                • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago
                  1. I would say that you deeply misunderstood the trolley problem if one person dead is the same as five, but more importantly,
                  2. I don’t know if you’ve never been in a mental health crisis yourself, have never read any literature or listened to any mental health professionals on this matter, or simply missed that I also said “impulsive suicides”, but access to firearms makes it so much more likely for somebody to impulsively kill themselves. I don’t think this needs explaining per se, but you seem confused on this matter. Consider some of the most fundamental methods of intentionally killing oneself: high fall, hanging, stabbing, poisoning, and firearms. I emphasize when going over these that anything that introduces any sort of forethought/planning, latency, fear, or risk (even just a little) dramatically reduces the likelihood that someone will attempt suicide. I cannot express in words how much I discourage all of the following and want anyone to get help if they’re struggling with this; this is just meant to be an objective analysis.

                   

                  • A high fall requires you to find one first, and you need to think about one where you can guarantee you won’t just break every bone in your body and be severely paralyzed for the rest of your life. It’s also ingrained in the public consciousness at this point that you’ll regret your decision the entire way down. It’s also the case that someone will often sit around debating when they finally have everything they need to make the attempt, and for high falls, that can often mean being talked down and rescued if you’re in an area with other people.
                  • Hanging often requires you to learn a specific skill in tying a noose (let alone for many people go out and buy some rope), and it means that you have to set up the rope, hanging location, and the object you’ll stand on then kick away. Even then, there’s a substantial fear that instead of snapping your neck, you’ll hang there asphyxiating, fully conscious and waiting to die. There’s also a fear that it won’t work and you’ll just fall or that – if you don’t live alone – someone could intervene. After all, if someone finds a noose (let alone you tying one or setting it up), it’s game over and you’re going straight to involuntary hospitalization.
                  • Stabbing has easily accessible kitchen knives and tools, and you can guarantee death with reasonable certainty, so there’s not much of a planning, latency, or risk aspect. However, you trade that for an enormous fear of the agonizing pain you’ll be in until you pass out, taking this off the table for many people.
                  • Poisoning requires a ton of forethought and planning into how you’ll go through with it, because even a cursory bit of research will show that just trying to OD on pills is one of the worst ways to successfully commit suicide (it’s often a “cry for help” sort of attempt). You also have a fear of pain, and moreover, if you don’t live alone, one that somebody will notice in time and get you to the hospital, where you could be left with permanent damage.
                  • Firearms (especially a shotgun) can fail but still have a very high success rate, and more importantly, it’s completely immediate when done correctly. Fear is gone because death is immediate (even disregarding possible complications, that’s what someone in this position would believe), and (assessed) risk is about as gone as it can be because there’s minimal chance of intervention or failure. Let’s now consider the other two: forethought/planning and latency. This method requires you to go through the complicated process of obtaining a firearm. If you’ve ever had a documented mental health crisis before, good firearms laws will restrict you from ever owning one or at minimum making it much more difficult to obtain. It also means you need to access the finances for a gun. And any good firearm regulation will introduce latency for exactly this reason: you need to wait a certain amount of time between purchase and obtainment exactly to deter impulsive suicides. So you need to find a place to purchase a firearm, have the funds, pick out a specific firearm from a selection of many, pass a background check, wait to receive it multiple weeks later during which at any point you can decide you don’t want to go through with it and cancel (or someone else can see your mental health crisis deteriorating and intervene), pick it up, go home, and then still decide that you want to load it and pull the trigger on yourself. So as methods go, it’s not ideal either. However, if the firearm is already in your home by the time this starts, then this calculus completely changes, and you suddenly have a method with as close to zero planning, latency, fear, and risk as possible, and that massively elevates the risk that someone will impulsively kill themselves.

                  Mental health intervention is important, but you can’t intervene when someone is dead.

      • macniel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        What did the 2A solve in the modern days though? Where is that need for a Militia?

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Haven’t needed one yet. Might need one in the next few upcoming years if things keep going as poorly as they have been. The second amendment was intended for citizens to protect themselves from invading forces and malevolent American government alike. We haven’t yet had a desperate enough need to exercise it in such a fashion, so instead it’s merely built up a gun nut culture in America. But it’s there for such times as we find ourselves approaching.

          I sincerely, desperately hope it doesn’t come to that. But I’m comforted by the fact that one of the favorite tools of my possible enemy is one that also guarantees I am never defenseless.

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          The same could be said about nukes. You hope they’re never needed, but the fact that they’re there helps keep things in check.

          • macniel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            Does it really though? It certainly doesn’t level the playing field between those who have nukes and those who gave them up to get a guarantee of sovereignty…

              • macniel@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                The military has drones though, that can used against the population at any time. How do you defend against that with arms from the civilian market? Or just tanks.

                • mrspaz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  It is a matter of scale and tactics.

                  For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that’s 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that’s 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.

                  For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.

                  There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don’t need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US… When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.

                  When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as “Rambo,” but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      3 months ago

      In before someone reports this - the person DID kill themselves, therefore this comment isn’t advocating self-harm, so much as “I wish the harm had ONLY been to themselves”

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Using so-called “red flag” laws, local police could have potentially prevented DeLucia from obtaining a firearm if they were made aware he was dealing with mental health issues, Nassau County Police Commissioner Patrick Ryder said Monday.

    And if we had a PreCrime unit like in Minority Report, crime would never happen. What a pointless addition to the article and pointless statement by useles police. These kinds of mental issue are rarely caught in time as the person “seems normal” until they don’t. While long guns are insanely accessible and cheap in most states.

    With the frequency that crazy errant behavior seems to occur with boomer-age people, I truly do wonder if there is a common thread. Leaded gas? Covid causing long-term brain damage from plugged blood vessels? Micro-plastics? Having to face the reality that their retirement is going to erode away because of the climate change they naively accelerated with their spoiled ass lives?

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s not ‘fatally shooting’, it’s killing or murdering.

    Edit: lowered the bodily functions over the life threshold using a portable metal ejecting tool.

    Ok “shot dead”, is that ok?

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I know. It’s just that fatally shot is what policemen or “good guys” gets, a bad guy will get the “killed” headline. That’s what I wanted to convey.

        • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Like how an 18-21 year old woman that murders gets called a woman/adult in the headline, but if she’s the victim, she’s called a girl/young adult. (Similar with guys too.) News author or editor injecting bias (intentional or otherwise) into the article. That’s always annoyed me.

  • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can’t put my finger on it, but I feel we have a word for fatally shooting people.

    I guess we’re avoiding the word gun in titles now…

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What term would you use that’s more accurate than ‘fatally shoots’? The term ‘murdered’ would simply obfuscate the method of killing.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        No but if could have legal consequences. Murder is used both colloquially and legally, and accusing someone of being a murderer or committing murder if they have not been found guilty at trial could be considered, when issued by a news agency of any kind especially, as libel. That’s why you see news agencies using the word “allegedly” all the time. Because legally speaking, they are innocent until proven guilty, even if they were caught red-handed.

        • macniel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Defending against a knife is a tad “easier” than being peng’d to death. Also there is that second amendment those Americans really really love. I don’t see any amendment regarding knives.

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You unable to see the word “shoot” in the title? I doubt it was a blow dart…erm… oh wait. That’s a gun too!

      I don’t think it was a crossbow, or long bow, or a water…damn it. Keep coming back to “gun”.

      If you can’t discern that it’s a gun from the title, there’s not much to do.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          You inject with a syringe but maybe their mind went there since that’s referred to as a shot. I guess they could also assume someone forced them to drink 1.5oz of liquor and died from it. Maybe it’s because I’m American but when I hear “fatally shot” only one instrument comes to mind.