ADVERTISEMENT

Interesting study on mass shooting and potential mitigation strategy (aka don't let domestic abusers have guns)

toursauce

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gold Member
Jun 2, 2019
13,286
11,411
113
Parts Unknown
The linked study below draws correlation between domestic violence and mass shootings. This seems like an absolute no-brainer to pass legislation preventing those with domestic violence on their record obtaining guns. Has this been a part of any legislation we are aware of?


The shooter in CA today had been accused of domestic violence. Apparently, there are many other mass shooters that also have domestic violence propensity.

Abstract from the study:
The strong association between firearms, domestic violence (particularly intimate partner homicide), and additional victimization suggests that prioritization of measures to decrease access to firearms to perpetrators of domestic violence may also reduce the incidence of mass shootings. The majority of mass shootings are associated with domestic violence. The current study by Kivisto and Porter examines whether the use of a firearm in domestic homicide affects the risk that others will also be killed during the same incident. Earlier studies have demonstrated that domestic homicide often extends to additional victims linked to the primary perpetrator or victim, either through a preexisting relationship or through physical proximity to the violence. Based on a national surveillance database, Kivisto and Porter confirm findings from earlier, more limited studies. Firearm use is associated with an increased incidence of multiple homicide victimization, especially in domestic situations. This suggests that additional laws to prevent those who perpetrate domestic violence from purchasing or possessing firearms, and vigorous enforcement of new and existing laws, may decrease the incidence of mass shootings, whether additional victims are inside or outside the home.

 
Considering the length of time between charging and conviction, I see no problem with restricting their right to own a weapon until the prosecution has concluded.
That’s fair as long as there is active movement toward prosecution. Basically nothing like the Supreme Court case with indefinite removal based on one accusation of erratic behavior.

Police are investigating, remove the guns.
 
Should we also remove the accused’s (not convicted, just accused) right to vote, their right to freely assemble, their right to practice the religion of their choice, and their right to freedom of speech? Just wondering which Constitutional rights we are tossing out the window, since Due Process and Bear Arms seem to not matter at all.
 
Should we also remove the accused’s (not convicted, just accused) right to vote, their right to freely assemble, their right to practice the religion of their choice, and their right to freedom of speech? Just wondering which Constitutional rights we are tossing out the window, since Due Process and Bear Arms seem to not matter at all.
I literally only proposed taking guns away from domestic abusers. =)roll
 
  • Like
Reactions: MATF
This all sound
I literally only proposed taking guns away from domestic abusers. =)roll
This all sounds great until you consider that there are an estimated 12 million cases of domestic violence reported in the US each year.

That's an awful lot of guns to confiscate.
 
I literally only proposed taking guns away from domestic abusers. =)roll
You proposed taking guns away from people who have been accused of domestic abuse. So, depriving them of both Due Process and the Right to Bear Arms. Just wondering what other rights we should strip them of based on allegations. Voting rights? Free speech? Interstate commerce? Should they be forced to quarter soldiers? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
 
Considering the length of time between charging and conviction, I see no problem with restricting their right to own a weapon until the prosecution has concluded.

Or we could deport all democrat voting groups. Our gun violence rate would look like Sweden’s. Wouldn’t be legal. But would be 10x more effective than your illegal proposal.
 
You proposed taking guns away from people who have been accused of domestic abuse. So, depriving them of both Due Process and the Right to Bear Arms. Just wondering what other rights we should strip them of based on allegations. Voting rights? Free speech? Interstate commerce? Should they be forced to quarter soldiers? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
And the people they murder in their mass shootings...guess their rights just don’t matter? The legal process is their due process. In the interim, they shouldn’t be able to possess a firearm. Hope that helps.
 
I guess it’s your position that ANY regulation of firearms is...illegal? Very reasonable.
I think there's a leap from instituting reasonable regulations on purchases and targeting classes of people from owning firearms, period.

The main problem I have with this proposition is its breadth. If you get in a fight with your girlfriend you have to surrender your guns? Domestic quarrels are one of the most common police calls.
 
of the domestic abusers who become mass shooters, what percentage of the mass shootings occur prior to a conviction? Seems like low lying fruit to limit the restrictions to after a conviction.
 
And the people they murder in their mass shootings...guess their rights just don’t matter? The legal process is their due process. In the interim, they shouldn’t be able to possess a firearm. Hope that helps.
on 2nd thought, I agree with @TexasLawnghorn. The right to due process trumps everything, subject to the judge's discretion to post or deny bail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Country Horn
of the domestic abusers who become mass shooters, what percentage of the mass shootings occur prior to a conviction? Seems like low lying fruit to limit the restrictions to after a conviction.
Maybe make gun ownership a civil proceeding like they make occupational license procedures after a DWI?
 
And the people they murder in their mass shootings...guess their rights just don’t matter? The legal process is their due process. In the interim, they shouldn’t be able to possess a firearm. Hope that helps.
And what other Constitutional rights should they be stripped of based solely on allegations of wrongdoing? I’m just curious how far down this Constitutional rabbit hole you’re illegally willing to go.

If it helps, pretend like your Ex is going to baselessly accuse you of domestic abuse with the plan to tie you up in court for 5 years, so what Constitutional rights would you like to lose?
 
And what other Constitutional rights should they be stripped of based solely on allegations of wrongdoing? I’m just curious how far down this Constitutional rabbit hole you’re illegally willing to go.
I’ve already answered this question. You need to find a new angle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MATF
I’ve already answered this question. You need to find a new angle.
If it helps, pretend like your Ex is going to baselessly accuse you of domestic abuse with the plan to tie you up in court for 5 years, so what Constitutional rights would you like to lose in addition to Due Process and the Right to Bear Arms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Country Horn
This already prevents one from buying a firearm. Go get convinced of DV (or get a restraining order) somewhere and go try and buy a gun and see what happens. DE-NIED.
 
Should we also remove the accused’s (not convicted, just accused) right to vote, their right to freely assemble, their right to practice the religion of their choice, and their right to freedom of speech? Just wondering which Constitutional rights we are tossing out the window, since Due Process and Bear Arms seem to not matter at all.

The ones that kill others.

Man, that was an easy one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MATF and toursauce
Or we could deport all democrat voting groups. Our gun violence rate would look like Sweden’s. Wouldn’t be legal. But would be 10x more effective than your illegal proposal.
Please for the love of God educate yourself.

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was quite the fan of President Donald Trump before he killed 58 people and left another 500 injured—the worst mass shooting in recent U.S. history.


 
  • Like
Reactions: MATF
Black people commit a disproportionate amount of the gun violence in the US.

If the goal is to reduce gun violence, should we not allow black people to own guns?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HornLegacy
I don’t see how reasonable minds could differ. No downside.
Your statement seems to be proven accurate by the fact that the usual crowd of unreasonable minds, aka Trumptologists, are the lone voices differing. Excellent post.
 
Please for the love of God educate yourself.

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was quite the fan of President Donald Trump before he killed 58 people and left another 500 injured—the worst mass shooting in recent U.S. history.


Education is the last thing in the world that guy is interested in.
 
ADVERTISEMENT