In Texas And Beyond, Mass Shootings Have Roots In Domestic Violence

[Dulcinea]

In the wake of the massacre at a small-town Texas church on Sunday, many people are asking why.

A large portion of the mass shootings in the U.S. in recent years have roots in domestic violence against partners and family members. Depending on how you count, it could be upwards of 50 percent.

We know the Texas gunman, Devin Patrick Kelley, was court-martialed for assaulting his wife and their young child in 2012, although this information apparently was not included in the formal government database that tracks such things.

There are laws on the books preventing convicted domestic violence offenders from obtaining weapons. So why does this keep happening?

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/07/562387350/in-texas-and-beyond-mass-shootings-have-roots-in-domestic-violence

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Well, gosh.

Doesn't it make so much sense for someone who's angry at a spouse to get a gun and go somewhere and kill a bunch of random (or semi-random) people.

And there's domestic violence everywhere. I'm not about to speculate as to whether we have more of it in this country, but what we definitely have more of is guns. And very easy access to guns.

It's laughable to talk about someone who commits a mass murder wasn't supposed to be able to have guns. They're insanely easy to get. Plus, if someone already had guns, then commits an offense that supposedly forbids ownership, I somehow doubt that the guns are confiscated. Or that the person is even politely asked to turn them in.

Nope. Guns and the right to shoot anyone at anytime is clearly more important than anyone's right to remain alive and unharmed.

[Nitram]

3. Not laughable in the least. Any delay in acquiring a lethal weapon could potentially save lives.

Most people would be unable to quickly get their hands on an assault rifle and abundant ammunition if they couldn't pass a background check. this crime could very well have been conceived at the last minute in a fit of anger related to a development in their relationship with the object of their domestic dispute.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. I was not attempting to be funny.

I didn't think I needed the sarcasm thing, but perhaps I do.

Chances are that the actual mass murder Sunday was an impulsive thing. But what if that man hadn't had all those guns in the first place? Of course, not having guns and ready access to guns is unthinkable to too many people in this country. I think that my right to go on living or to not be maimed by bullets ought to be vastly more important than anyone's right to a gun. I know, silly and naive.

Makes you wonder how angry husbands deal with a dispute if they have no guns available. Bet they go out with a claw hammer and a knife and take out a couple dozen people. No? They don't? How bizarre is that.

[Nitram]

5. OK, I have the same problem with people not recognizing my sarcasm.

So we're on the same page.

[Nitram]

2. Some do, some don't. For example, the school shootings at Columbine, Newtown, and

Virginia Tech did not involve people guilty of domestic abuse. But the law against men convicted of domestic violence possessing guns is a very good one. Domestic abusers would seem to have a higher probability of committing gun crimes than the rest of the population.