Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Three Dead in Wisconsin Day Spa Shooting, Guns Not to Blame

Posted by on Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM

At least three people were shot dead and several other wounded at a suburban Wisconsin day spa:

Police have released a photo of the suspect, identified as Radcliffe Franklin Haughton, 45, of Brown Deer. ... The shooting occurred about 11 a.m. Sunday at the Azana Day Spa, a two-story, 9,000-square-foot building across the street from the Brookfield Square Mall in a middle- to upper-class community west of Milwaukee.

Haughton's father, Radcliffe Haughton Sr., who lives in Florida, told CBS News that the alleged shooter's wife is Zina Haughton, and she works at Azana.

Another senseless, unpreventable tragedy that guns obviously had absolutely nothing to do with. I mean, it's not like anybody could have possibly had any idea that the suspected shooter might turn violent...

Haughton Sr. said he knew they were having problems and that Zina had taken a restraining order out against him last week in court.

Oh.

UPDATE: The alleged gunman was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Good thing he had that gun to protect himself.

 

Comments (51) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I know the right likes to say blame people not guns and the left like to says ban guns, but maybe we should focus on improving the mental health system in the country, that might do us a lot of good.
Posted by Seattle14 on October 21, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Goldy 2
@1 Sure. But we can also use the opportunity to remind people, that on average, owning a gun does not make you or your family safer.
Posted by Goldy on October 21, 2012 at 2:27 PM · Report this
3
@2 actually I think it makes you less safe statistically.

But the point remains unchanged as ever: Gun's don't kill people, spas do.

;)
Posted by Swearengen on October 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
lark 4
Goldy,
It's been one violent week/weekend. I read this piece in this morning's ST:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/…

Apparently, the perpetrator is still at large. And, there were 3 killed in Cupertino, CA and 6 six in Minnesota. These killings seem to be workplace or domestic related grievance shootings. Senseless. I agree with your last sentence. Indeed, owning a firearm can be one of the most dangerous things one can do in the USA.
Posted by lark on October 21, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
5
Not that gun control laws aren't a good thing ( http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=… ) but banning guns isn't going to do anything to cut down on the number of crazy people.
Posted by notsosupermario on October 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 6
Yes, owning a gun pre-supposes that you're an adult, competent, and self-aware. So does voting.

Would you rather live in a place where you're presumed competent until proven otherwise, or one where you're treated like a four-year-old?
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 7
And actually, statistics pretty clearly show that the single most dangerous thing you can do in the USA is drive a car.

OK, enough. I'm done.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
8
It's nice and easy to blame guns. And OF COURSE guns are the primary mechanism of all these senseless deaths. But Seattle14 above has a great, often-overlooked point. The *root* cause is mental health and non-existent social institutions.

The left would probably be better off forgetting about guns in the short-term (long-term political goals could still include the eventual elimination of guns) and concentrate on reduction of poverty-crime cycles and improving social institutions.

Due to the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership, banning-guns is a short term political dead-end and the lazy way to out (e.g., throwing up hands and saying, "here we go! those damn guns again!").

It would go a long way to helping real people and save lives if the left would just shut up about guns for the short term and strive to really fix our society's many problems. Just saying...
Posted by just and idea on October 21, 2012 at 3:04 PM · Report this
venomlash 9
@7: I bet I could legally do more dangerous things than drive a car in this country.
Posted by venomlash on October 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM · Report this
10
Things in Wisconsin have really been wonderful since they voted Walker in and passed that conceal and carry law.
Posted by Justin on October 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 11
Three dead? Wonder if that will even make the news?
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 21, 2012 at 3:47 PM · Report this
12
9
reproduce?
Posted by here's hoping your sister has PlannedParenthood on speedial on October 21, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
internet_jen 13
@9 - like subsidizing the cost of producing red meat? Driving, though, is the leading cause of death among teens. If you survive teen driving then it's a long slow death of heart disease or cancer. But these dangers don't strike the senselessness chord.

@12 - comedy
Posted by internet_jen on October 21, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
14
2

Goldy is right.

All these people were shot because they own a gun....
Posted by whada asshole on October 21, 2012 at 4:03 PM · Report this
15
According to the CDC about 30,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds each year. On the other hand the use of tobacco products results in about 440,000 deaths per year. Second hand smoke alone kills about 49,000 Americans a year. So why do liberals want to ban guns but not cigarettes?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 21, 2012 at 4:13 PM · Report this
16
Yet another murder-suicide done in the wrong order.
Posted by Prefunk on October 21, 2012 at 4:15 PM · Report this
17
20% of sexually active homosexual men get and give HIV.

Does Goldy advocate banning that very very dangerous deadly behavior?
Posted by guess who is full of shit on October 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
internet_jen 18
@ 15 *cough* smoking ban in public business *cough*

And wasn't there talk about banning it in King County Parks? It was some local park system.

Posted by internet_jen on October 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM · Report this
19
Those who would give up liberty to gain security deserve neither.
Posted by GermanSausage on October 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM · Report this
20
I'm done being surprised by any of this. The mental illness, the random killings, the calls for different guns laws, the pro-gun lobbying points, all of it.

This is just going to keep happening. We're paralyzed to stop it. Our society isn't ready for any possible actual solution.

My prediction is that this will happen again and again and again and again and it will never stop and we will never figure out any real solution. Heck, we won't even begin to figure a possible solution we're willing to try out.
Posted by SLCamper on October 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
21
Perhaps ownership of guns and voting are rights best left to women, and only women.
Show me the ratio of women entering the workplaces of their partners and opening fire to men doing the same.
Show me the popularity ratings of presidents vastly preferred by men compared with the popularity ratings of presidents vastly preferred by women.
Show me counts of stories of women police officers leaving their loaded guns in cars or night tables for their children to get hold of, and the counts of stories of men police officers doing the same thing.
Tell me, aggrieved, aggravated, bitter exes, why your target's work colleagues have to die too. Tell me how shooting them helps their families and friends. Tell me how it is your constitutional right to ruin innocent people's lives so you can have something metallic and deadly in your hands. Show me the connection between a well-regulated militia against government tyranny and opening fire in a spa.
Just because one has male-defining sexual genitalia does not mean one is emotionally mature, sane and responsible enough to own and use a gun.
Posted by I'm right because I have a gun to solve my problems! on October 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 22
@21 thank you, said it better than I could.

@everyone else, please read 21's comment.

@21 please register a name. Because of the utter dipshit trolls that occasionally crap up Slog with their mentally defective droolings most folks have visibility of comments by unregistered users turned off.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on October 21, 2012 at 5:08 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 23
Oh, and 5280-the go fuck yourself repeatedly with something sharp and rusty until you die. Fuck you, tou goddamn asswipe, and fuck the guns rhat you love so much.

Lets hear you defend this- innocent people die because some fuckstick with a gun copped the 'if I cant have her no-one can' attitude, and an innocent woman is dead.

What if that was your daughter, 5280, or your granddaughter? Remember that it is highly unlikely (as born out over and over) that anyone with a concealed carry could have stopped this.

And yes, statistically, other things kill more people than nuts with guns. But still. What if it was someone you loved, 5280? Lets hear you justify that hypothetical case.

"Guns are so great, I would still love them even if some nut with a gun shot someone I loved!"

Or go fuck yourself.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on October 21, 2012 at 5:17 PM · Report this
24
FBI stats show that 50% of all gun killings in this country are committed by 6% of the population: black males. Seems having one of those around the house or neighborhood would be the most dangerous thing to do. That's why I live in Seattle.
Posted by Whitopia on October 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM · Report this
25
@23 Societies often make public policy choices that they know will result in the deaths of innocent people. The 55 MPH speed limit was shown to save lives, but we got rid of that. Many European countries don't discourage tobacco use as aggressively as we do in the US and in those countries more people smoke as a result. Is it possible that private gun ownership is a freedom that Americans value more than public safety?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 21, 2012 at 6:00 PM · Report this
26
You know, mental health treatment is all well and good, but it's not a panacea. I'm probably the most laid back guy you'd ever meet, but I've had one or two days in my life when I've been so God-damned spitting mad at someone that perhaps I could have killed. And I guarantee that everyone here has had a time or two just like that at some point. There but for the grace of dog....

Fine: take away all the guns in the hands of the citizenry. Then what do you do when murder still happens? When people kill by other means? When guns are smuggled in?

People are not perfectable. And all the laws, government interventions (or religion, churches and social stigmas, if you're a social conservative) won't change that. Christians call it original sin. Evolutionary biologists might look at it as holdovers from our animal ancestors and from our pre-civilized hominid background. It all amounts to the same thing.

People are broken.
Posted by Corydon on October 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
27
Horse. Dead. Stop.
Posted by Russell http://lovinglyhandmadepornography.com on October 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM · Report this
28
Guns don't kill people -- people with guns kill people.
Posted by judybrowni on October 21, 2012 at 6:16 PM · Report this
29
@2
"But we can also use the opportunity to remind people, that on average, owning a gun does not make you or your family safer."

And no one is claiming that owning a gun makes your family safer.
I know, one time there was that one guy who told you that and you've been holding onto it ever since.
But if you want to keep dragging him into this then why don't you just call him when you feel compelled to post a story like this?

1. The USofA is not going to ban guns.

2. Ranting is not insight.

3. Life is unfair.

So instead of ranting against something that no one is claiming, how about you start offering plausible ideas on what can be done?
No, you won't, will you?
Because snarky ranting is so much easier than rationally examining a complex issue.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on October 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM · Report this
venomlash 30
@17: You have HIV, chlamydia, syphilis, and The AIDS.
What, is it not okay when I make shit up?
@24: Being male is a better predictor of violence than being black. Why are you going after blacks instead of men?
Posted by venomlash on October 21, 2012 at 7:03 PM · Report this
31
"Being male is a better predictor of violence than being black. Why are you going after blacks instead of men?"

Why not be thoroughly honest and combine the two: blacks and males? Far more dangerous than having gun in the home. Statistically speaking that is.
Posted by Evanston Pooftas on October 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM · Report this
Goldy 32
@29 I know how to write a good rant. This post wasn't a rant.

And in all the posts I've written about guns, I'm pretty sure I've never advocated for a total ban. But I have suggested pragmatic things like closing the gun show loophole, allowing local municipalities more authority in regulating guns within their boundaries, requiring mandatory gun proficiency and safety training for all gun owners, and requiring gun locks or gun safes.

But mostly, I just use these posts to point out that the number one risk factor for being killed or injured by a gun is having one in your house.
Posted by Goldy on October 21, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
33
#29 - Are you shitting me?

Gun nuts -- official and unofficial -- always claim keeping guns, the more the better, laying about the family fortress will keep you and yours much safer from the rampaging hordes, than those lily-livered wimps who forgo an arsenal and leave their loved ones at the mercy of the wolves.

Whereas: own a gun(s) statistically you, your family members, and the neighbor's kid are more likely to get bullet-shaped holes made in their person.

Odd, I know, but reality often works in strange ways its' logic to portray.
Posted by judybrowni on October 21, 2012 at 8:19 PM · Report this
34
@32
"This post wasn't a rant."

Yes it was. And again, why not propose some plausible ideas on what can be done?

"But I have suggested pragmatic things like closing the gun show loophole, allowing local municipalities more authority in regulating guns within their boundaries, requiring mandatory gun proficiency and safety training for all gun owners, and requiring gun locks or gun safes."

First off, no you have not. You go off on a rant about how "guns make you safer" is wrong.
In your latest rant you have not shown how ANY of those items (which have all been brought up in previous discussions by OTHER people) are applicable in this case.

Let's take it by the numbers, shall we?

1. closing the gun show loophole - do you have anything showing that he did not purchase his gun through a licensed seller including having a background check?

2. allowing local municipalities more authority in regulating guns within their boundaries - do you have anything showing that the voters there would approve of more laws that would have prevented that?

3. requiring mandatory gun proficiency and safety training for all gun owners - do you have anything showing that he did not take such or that he would not have passed such?

4. requiring gun locks or gun safes - not applicable since he took the gun from wherever he kept it.

So, once again, you're off on an anti-gun rant with NO rational proposals for dealing with issue illustrated by the story YOU chose to link to.

"But mostly, I just use these posts to point out that the number one risk factor for being killed or injured by a gun is having one in your house."

Three people died in a spa.
That was not someone's house.
So that story fails even that test.
No. You link to those stories because you want to rant against guns.

Instead, how about you pick a REAL proposal and link to stories that would support that proposal?
More...
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on October 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM · Report this
35
@32: "But I have suggested pragmatic things like closing the gun show loophole"

How would you do that, pragmatically? The "gun show loophole" exists because I, a private citizen, can legally sell a firearm to another private citizen, if I have no reason to believe that they are unable to legally own that firearm. That is, I can sell a hunting rifle that I no longer use to my friend who would like to start hunting. Now try to come up with a pragmatic law that keeps that exchange legal, but outlaws one private individual selling a firearm to another if they met at a gun show. I'm all for closing the loophole, but saying "I'd like to close the loophole" is not really "pragmatic" in any sense of the word.

One example of a step in the right direction would be requiring that buyers of handguns in in such a transfer would have to show valid and current carry licences, as it's already the norm in private handgun sales.
Posted by doceb on October 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM · Report this
36
@35
"One example of a step in the right direction would be requiring that buyers of handguns in in such a transfer would have to show valid and current carry licences, as it's already the norm in private handgun sales."

I don't think there's a single step or law that would address that.
You have a good start with that one.
1. But it also needs something along the lines where the LAST registered owner is partially responsible for any crimes committed with that gun (tracked via serial number). Don't want to be responsible? Make sure the ownership is officially transfered.

2. Being caught with any gun without a serial number needs to become an even bigger crime.

None of that seems to be applicable to the story that Goldy linked to, BUT it is a good start for the next "keep guns out of the hands of criminals" discussion.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on October 21, 2012 at 8:55 PM · Report this
37
@36 Agressive police tactics like 'stop and frisk' have a proven track record of reducing gun violence.

You can read more about that here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
Posted by Ken Mehlman on October 21, 2012 at 9:34 PM · Report this
38
The shooter signed Scott Walker's recall petition, so it could have been deduced that he was, in fact, potentially violent and mentally unstable as a Left wing nut job.
Posted by delbert on October 21, 2012 at 9:36 PM · Report this
Pick1 39
@31 Before you debate that point, please brush up on the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation…
Posted by Pick1 on October 21, 2012 at 9:37 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 40
Why bother raising this event as a point? No more tragic than a car wreck, but just as certain as statistics. Indeed, many more are on the way.
Posted by Lew Siffer on October 21, 2012 at 10:06 PM · Report this
seandr 41
Another man who lost his way in this modern world.
Posted by seandr on October 21, 2012 at 10:11 PM · Report this
McBomber 42
I'm glad that I enjoy the personal liberty to use whichever drugs I choose, marry whomever I choose, employ a sex-worker if I decide to and own a machine whose only purpose is to injure or kill other people. Wait.
Posted by McBomber on October 21, 2012 at 10:39 PM · Report this
43
@37:
"Stop and frisk" being effective at lowering crime rates doesn't make it less of a 4th amendment violation for the 90-something percent of people who were not doing anything wrong when they were stopped.
Posted by doceb on October 21, 2012 at 10:57 PM · Report this
44
@36: I don't personally have an issue with firearm registries, which are necessary for point #1. I already have a carry permit (which I very rarely use, it's mostly for the purpose of helping to expedite background checks), so I'm in "the system" somewhere - I've been fingerprinted at the courthouse and certified as criminal-history-free. As an aside, I used to believe that the background check to get a CPL meant something; not so much after the last year. Ian Stawicki killed 5 people and Dinh Bowman allegedly killed Yancy Noll, both with valid carry permits, and both more or less in my neighborhood. I am not sure what sort of background checks we can do when people who need psychological help can't (or won't) get it.

Anyway, #1 would be a weird case, as you'd be holding someone criminally liable, entirely base on the actions of another. If you're going to have a registry, why not just make it legally required to register the transfer with the State? You can assign penalties for failure to register the transfer, without hinging it on the other person deciding to do something illegal.

#2: Is that a common occurrence? My understanding is that it is a pretty rare thing, specifically because it's a pretty big deal. I could be wrong, either way it should be a stiff penalty.
Posted by doceb on October 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 45
You know, the problem with arguing about guns is that it becomes an emotional issue (witness @23). You can't really have any kind of a serious discussion with someone who's ranting like that.

30,000 firearm deaths a year? Yep. But 60% of those are suicides. And there are no numbers on how many of thee remaining 40% were legitimate self-defense scenarios, like shootings by cops and such. But you know it happens.

You guys have mostly impressed me here. Lots of intelligent comments. Thank you.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on October 22, 2012 at 6:33 AM · Report this
Canadian Nurse 46
@19: Congrats on misquoting one of the 2 most often misquoted sayings bandied around (the other being money is the root of all evil).

The actual quote is,
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.


The actual quote means something different than what you said. Within the context of the actual Franklin quote, we can talk about things like, "what are essential liberties?" "What is the difference between temporary and long-term safety?" "What is the difference between a little and a lot of safety?"

It's like Franklin understood nuance, or something.
Posted by Canadian Nurse on October 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM · Report this
47
@44
"I am not sure what sort of background checks we can do when people who need psychological help can't (or won't) get it."

At the moment, I don't think there is anything we can do.
I think the first step would be to get universal health care. At least mental health care.

"Anyway, #1 would be a weird case, as you'd be holding someone criminally liable, entirely base on the actions of another."

Yep! Well, not exactly "entirely". You can remove your responsibility by officially completing the transfer.

"If you're going to have a registry, why not just make it legally required to register the transfer with the State?"

I support that. And the responsibility for crimes committed is the incentive to complete the paperwork.
Just a legal requirement will be enough for most gun owners. But they aren't the issue. They're the 99.9% that you don't read about.
A fine will be enough for some of the remaining owners.
Having your name linked to a manslaughter charge or such should be enough for the rest. Or enough to find and prosecute the "straw buyers". But that is a different issue that isn't part of Goldy's story.

"Is that a common occurrence?"

Not that I'm aware of. And it is already illegal. But it gets back to the "straw buyers" that don't appear in Goldy's story.

Anyway, thanks for having a rational conversation about this.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on October 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM · Report this
venomlash 48
@37: The wall around the West Bank has reduced violence in Israel. Doesn't mean it's RIGHT.
Posted by venomlash on October 22, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
49
@48, not a good analogy. The wall separates the majority of the West Bank and Israel proper. As such, it's not wrong, and it's been effective in reducing bombers entering Israel. Unfortunately, it walls some parts of the West Bank into Israel, which is wrong.
Posted by sarah70 on October 22, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this
Goldy 50
FYI folks, you know what I said about how we should close our state's gun show loophole? Well, it turns out that the shooter exploited Wisconsin's gun show loophole to buy a gun the day before his rampage, without the background check or waiting period that would have been required had he attempted to purchase his weapon from a licensed dealer.

Will it take a similar tragedy here before our legislators act? Probably.
Posted by Goldy on October 22, 2012 at 4:38 PM · Report this
51
@50 - who disagreed? I just said that it's a little more complex than "make it so."
Posted by doceb on October 22, 2012 at 7:18 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy