Most Mass Shootings Target Women and Families; Study Finds Men With...

In most shootings of four or more victims, women and families are the victims of men who owned guns legally.

Data suggests that a gun present in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.

A new analysis of 56 mass shootings across America since 2009 finds women and family members are the most frequent victims, and that the shooter almost always acquired his guns legally, in cases where the gun source is known.

“In at least 32 of the cases (57 percent), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member, and at least eight of those shooters had a prior domestic violence charge,” the Mayors Against Illegal Guns report on mass shootings said, suggesting that the problem of gun violence is far more related to violence against women in homes than rampages in public settings such as schools and theaters.

... as we found with the domestic violence situations, there are 38 percent fewer killings of women in states that require background checks for every handgun sale.”

“Assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in at least 13 of the incidents (32 percent),” the report said. “These incidents resulted in an average of 14.8 total people shot... and 8.0 deaths.”

The most striking feature of the MAIG report were the descriptions of domestic violence—in all but two cases by men—who were targeting women: new wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, mothers, and then others in close family circles. It that found 32 of the 56 mass shootings (56 percent) "took place wholly in private residences." Less than one-quarter "took place entirely in public spaces."

... the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling expanded the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment to include the right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. “More than half of the women murdered with guns in the U.S. were killed by intimate partners or family members. It’s 64 percent,” ...  [emphasis mine]

Views: 328

Replies to This Discussion

Indeed, all the talk of video games, gun laws, mental illness,... they're all just a smoke screen that prevents us from probing the real problem, males. And those males who aren't personally violent, are violent by proxy, by letting their peers think that way.

Nobody told me about that secret control I could use to stop my fellow males' violence!

The study points out that easy access to guns, without background checks, costs lives.

Still, it's tragic that people (and women specifically) getting murdered one or two, or four or five at a time, is made invisible because it isn't as newsworthy as the "public space" mass murders.

These horrifying gun sales are not turning females into mass murderers...

I always find it amazing how no male ever personally knows a violent male. Surely someone knows these violent guys??? I do not buy into the myth that violent people show no signs or are invisible before their violence, I just don't buy it.

To some degree, you probably tend to get belligerent, violent males grouping together.  Once someone demonstrates testosterone-heavy, aggressive behavior, I completely distance myself.  Once I see a guy treat a girlfriend like shit, I don't want to associate with him.  So, the introspective, puzzled guys don't see the violent ones, because we don't hang around in those sorts of groups.

I encounter violent, assholish men, but I don't know them.

Ok, from the friend/acquaintance perspective...

But what about family members, work places, any location where we don't choose who we associate with?

Genetics and similar nurturing conditions would probably somewhat promote similarity between family members.  In the workplace, I think violent assholes are more likely to be on their best behavior, and in other public places, there's probably a good deal of self-selection, similar to that in choosing closer associates.  More sane, nonviolent men would tend to stay out of sketchy, redneck bars and other places which violent sorts are more likely to inhabit.

Really? you think one violent brother means the whole clutch is violent?? nope, I don't buy that.

Best behaviour... I don't believe can that easily be hidden, there is PLENTY of bullying in the workplace and passive agressiveness and any other number of tell tale behaviours.

Bars... violent males don't necessarily hang out in sketchy bars.

But I think you've demonstrated the point of the this thread...  men have lots of excuses for not noticing the violence in their peers, possibly most specifically the males who considers themselves to be non violent.

The demonstration has been made time and time again that these violent were right there among us the whole time. I think that as female (or most females), we just can't afford to not notice it. Cuz we're mostly the ones who'll die from that violence.

You seem to be ignoring every conditional and adverb in my post.

Also, you seem to be a bit oblivious to the idea of contrariness for the sake of being contrary.  Someone being silly at the idea of a two-point sample of guys who don't hang out with violent assholes ... sorry, that doesn't do anything to demonstrate the point of this thread.

Sorry, I missed the silliness intent of your post. I also missed the inference that you were simply being contrarian.

Personally, I place a silly smiley... ;p at the end when I mean to be silly... just an idea.

Ta ta then, I thought we were having a serious conversation.

To some degree, there was a vague bit of seriousness, at least in my first comment, since there are huge differences in different social groups.  I have indeed noticed that belligerent guys often group together.

I got silly with my second response, because you got so freaking picky about the details of something that was just a vague generalization.  Besides, how often do people really associate that much with people besides those who you termed friends/acquaintances?

Aside from Christmas, I haven't seen any of my family in over 6 months.  I don't generally hang out with anyone from work, except for the occasional rare person that I select because he/she seems like decent person, at which point we're talking about a friend.  And as I said before, that's generally a woman, in my case.

I don't see how men are going to encounter random assholes in public, either.  Certainly, as women, you can pick out the assholes more easily, since they often do things like wolf-call and otherwise publicly intimidate women.  As a guy, I don't experience any of that.  How would I know how many guys are assholes, when out in public?

In short, I didn't think that any of your other three categories had any kind of relevance, so I started making shit up.  I thought that was obvious.

I dunno, most of my peers are female.  I think there was one other guy, out of ten players, at my last game night.

Then you are probably safer than if your peers are males. However, if you piss off a woman to the point of irrationality, you are likely to be assaulted with a gun or a knife. A well place bullet or blade can get your attention.  




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service