The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 17, 2017, 02:31 AM   #1
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,725
Had a heated debate recently.

Needless to say the topic was gun control. I was against, my friend snd colleague was for.

He made two contentions that I could not really rebuff as I knew nothing about them. I'd like to know if they are true:

Is it the case that there is scientifically supported data saying that there is a strong correlation between men who commit spousal abuse and those who commit mass-shootings?

Is it the case that Canada, or a region of Canada, (based on the data referred to above) that any man applying for a firearms licence must have the application approved by their wife/partner, ex-spouses included?

Now he and I get on well, but you can imagine this is one topic we tend to avoid!
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 04:07 AM   #2
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 21,565
Quote:
Is it the case that there is scientifically supported data saying that there is a strong correlation between men who commit spousal abuse and those who commit mass-shootings?
I don't know that's true in the sense that people who perpetrate mass shootings where all the victims are randomly chosen are more likely to be spouse abusers than not.

However, on the other hand, something like half of mass shootings involve the shooter targeting family members as at least some of their victims--often the initial victims. In those cases there's a pretty obvious a link to domestic violence.
Quote:
Is it the case that Canada, or a region of Canada, (based on the data referred to above) that any man applying for a firearms licence must have the application approved by their wife/partner, ex-spouses included?
The RCMP website appears to be down at the moment.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 04:33 AM   #3
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,725
Quote:
In those cases there's a pretty obvious a link to domestic violence.
Apologies; I was unclear.

He said (my friend) that a man with a history of domestic violence had a very high potential for becoming the perpetrator of a mass-shooting.
As such spouses/partners or ex-spouses/partners have been given a veto on firearms licence permit applications made by men in Canada to stop such men getting access to firearms.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 07:11 AM   #4
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,924
a man with a history of domestic violence had a very high potential for continuing to be an...

Wait, we don't use those words here.

An undesirable human being.
publius42 is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 07:20 AM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,284
There are several facets to the argument that mass shootings and domestic violence are connected. One widely-circulated study in 2014 found that one in five mass shootings had some "domestic" connection.

That's certainly not a "majority." There have been a few "studies" done by gun-control advocacy groups (and these studies are often flawed or downright misleading) claiming a higher percentage, but these organizations also have a looser and more inclusive definition of "mass shooting" than the FBI guideline and they really need to be approached with skepticism.

Simple anecdotal evidence tells us otherwise. The shooters at Tucson, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech were all unmarried men. The Las Vegas shooter may have had some domestic violence issues, but it's difficult to establish whether those were related to his desire to inflict massive indiscriminate violence upon strangers.

The main reason you're hearing this meme is that gun-control groups are now pushing to have people convicted (or, in New York, accused) of domestic violence banned from owning firearms.

[insert pause while tons of people point out that we already have such a ban]

When they want something passed, gun-control advocates flood social media about the supposed dangers they're trying to address. They're long on catchy slogans and emotional appeals, and the audience often assumes their assertions as fact. That's probably what's going on with your friend.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 08:06 AM   #6
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2016
Posts: 64
It seems reasonable to assume that a person that commits mass murder probably wasn't a model citizen prior to the crime.
What is this persons point?
Is he suggesting that a person should be required to prove they didn't commit a crime in order to purchase a product, or that their 2A right is subject to approval of a third party?
Fine Figure of a Man is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 08:18 AM   #7
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,725
Quote:
a man with a history of domestic violence had a very high potential for continuing to be an...
Without a doubt, but is there a stronger correlation of that man becoming an active shooter over other groups of individual with anti-social behaviour issues. That is what I'm getting at.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 08:22 AM   #8
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,725
Quote:
Is he suggesting that a person should be required to prove they didn't commit a crime in order to purchase a product, or that their 2A right is subject to approval of a third party?
His point was:

History of domestic violence = higher propensity to become an active shooter.

He made no mention of whether or not shootings would be focussed on domestic targets. Nor was there any mention of whether or not such a person would have a higher propensity to commit any given violent act, or just more so with firearms.

It's the validity of the correlation that I'm trying to establish.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 09:27 AM   #9
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 5,820
Canada and Estonia are not going to have USA laws.
And,I'm not going to tell Canadians or Estonians how to live.

I include a link to a PDF of the US form 4473. The questions give you an idea of who is already a prohibited person. The background check is run after filling out the form.Its a felony to lie on the form,and another felony to attempt to purchase as a prohibited person.

A history of domestic violence arrest is SUPPOSED to show up in the NICS background check.A person with a history of domestic violence is already a prohibited person.Same with being under indictment or restraining order.

Now,under the plan attributed to Canada,does the abused have the option to say "Well,yeah,he beats me,and he's crazy,but I love him and I can't take his guns away" ?
A recent shooting occurred because our US Air Force failed to submit the records of the shooter being dismissed from the Air Force for domestic abuse.
At issue is NOT the need for more law in the US. The citizens have already compromised Liberty for Security as the law was written. If Government is incompetent or ineffective at administering its own law,misleading the public and layering on more law is not the answer.
If a law is ineffective,repeal it and start over. We have too many laws.

Supposedly,in USA,under our Constitution,we are a nation of laws,not men,or women. By that I mean no one person should have the power to strip a Constitutional Freedom without due process.

There are breakups and divorces every day that involve bitterness and anger.
Or perhaps just a former spouse who hates guns might make a claim,or a denial of the right to keep and bear arms.

I can agree that a person convicted or under restraining order has earned a loss of freedom and received due process via the court.

That power,IMO,should not be in the hands of every begrudged former lover.


Truth has no agenda, and agenda often denies truth.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Last edited by HiBC; December 17, 2017 at 10:02 AM.
HiBC is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 09:49 AM   #10
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
Quote:
He said (my friend) that a man with a history of domestic violence had a very high potential for becoming the perpetrator of a mass-shooting
A "history of domestic violence" in the US is a bit misleading. Most places have laws that can lead to someone having a "history" without any sort of hard evidence being presented.
OTOH, DV is usually due to short temper, over-reaction, depression, frustration, and more serious mental health issues. Also a belief that domination through violence the go to solution. Mass shootings are not an efficient way of killing innocent unsuspecting people. We all should know that. They are an effective way of living out a domination fantasy. Asking people arbitrary questions then shooting them irrespective of answers. Watching from above as the ants run and selecting one to point your magnifying glass at. "I'm finally the one in control and there is nothing you can do about it." That is why active shooters fall apart when confronted. It shatters the fantasy.

Doesn't surprise me at all that there is a strong correlation. I'm also not seeing a strong argument for gun control as DV is one of the most restrictive prohibitions. It is pretty much the ONLY prohibition that affects police officers.

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; December 17, 2017 at 09:56 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 11:48 AM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
He said (my friend) that a man with a history of domestic violence had a very high potential for becoming the perpetrator of a mass-shooting.
First off, there's a saying that "correlation does not demonstrate causation." But, in order for that to apply, there must at least be a correlation.

Secondly, there must be hundreds of thousands of American men today who are either incarcerated or under restraining orders due to spousal/partner domestic violence, but there aren't even hundreds of mass shootings (no matter how much the anti-gun activists try to portray every use of a firearm as a "mass shooting").

My opinion is that your colleague made the assertion, the burden is on him to provide the data to support his statement.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 11:50 AM   #12
jnichols2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2012
Posts: 189
Quote:
I can agree that a person convicted or under restraining order has earned a loss of freedom and received due process via the court.
In the past few weeks, I read an article on this firum stating that several states automatically fole restraining orders on divorcing couples as a "safeguard".

I have lived in this country for 70 years, and served it for 37 years. In the past 15 years, I am no longer sure what Constitutional protections we actually still have. Look at the men currently being tried and convicted, or exonerated, by government officials and/or the press.

Look at the states where a family member can cause a citizen to have his guns confiscated with just a phone call.
jnichols2 is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 12:09 PM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
It's the validity of the correlation that I'm trying to establish.
It's not up to you to establish the validity of the correlation, it's up to the guy who put forth the proposition. Further, after reviewing this thread, it appears that your colleague is talking about Canada -- which actually makes it even easier to disprove the correlation. Somewhere there must be a statistic as to how many men are, now or at any given time, either incarcerated or under a restraining/protective order for spousal/partner domestic violence. I doubt the proportion of the population will be significantly different in Canada than it is in the United States, so my guess is that in recent years that number must be in the tens of thousands at any chosen point in time.

Restraining orders often expire or are removed, and people convicted and imprisoned eventually get out. Yet, at one time, they were all under the umbrella of having committed domestic violence. So our sample population grows -- I'll make a guess that today, even in Canada, there must be hundreds of thousands of living males who are or have been either incarcerated or under a restraining/protective order for domestic violence.

Since your friend seems to be focused on Canada ... exactly how many mass shootings have there been in Canada in the last ten years? In the last 25 years?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 12:57 PM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,308
Hello James! Interesting questions, and sadly, ones to which I do not have direct answers. However I can give you a few points to ponder, which might have some influence on your side of the discussion.

First, under the generally accepted rules of debate, if you make a claim that "studies show" or that something is what you claim it is, it is up to you to provide the proof.

Quote:
Is it the case that there is scientifically supported data saying that there is a strong correlation between men who commit spousal abuse and those who commit mass-shootings?
If he is claiming scientifically supported data, then he should PRODUCE it. Or, at the least, give you a way to find it on your own. (an link to the study, or its name, at the least...)

another point, what is a mass shooting???
At one time (in the US) the FBI counted it as a mass shooting only if 4 or more people were KILLED (which could include the shooter).

Today, the press reports 4 or more people SHOT as a mass shooting.
Shot, not killed. This has a huge impact on the number of shootings that fall into the mass shooting category. If you wonder why the number of mass shootings has ballooned up hugely in recent years, this might be the explanation. (some years back, our doctors changed their definition of obese, and suddenly a huge segment of the population that had formerly been simply overweight was now classified as obese, and we had an obesity crisis!)

The next point is the phrase, "a strong correlation". First, what constitutes "strong" can be entirely a matter of opinion. But more importantly, correlation is NOT causation. CO-RELATED, meaning that there is something in common between the two things. The usual (and minimum) thing they have in common (no matter what correlation you are discussing) is that they are found in the same place, at the same time.

Nothing more is needed for someone to claim a correlation. And be correct that there is a relationship. However, the technically correct claim of a correlation is very often used to IMPLY that one causes the other, or that the presence of both together causes a certain behavior. This is not necessarily true.

One could produce a "scientifically" valid study showing how the overwhelming majority of mass murderers ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of committing their crimes. it would be TRUE, and scientifically provable.

However, claiming (or implying) that eating bread is the cause of mass murder is a fallacy.

Next point, the phrases "more likely to"... and "at higher risk"...
What does that mean, exactly? It is often used to warn of some grave danger or risk, without any kind of specifics.

These phrases are open ended, and very, very seldom used with the actual numbers that might allow one to actually assess the degree of likelihood.

They don't tell you that something is 73% more likely to happen, or just 2% more likely, they leave the numbers out, to allow for people imagination to assume the worst case possible. It is deliberate.

These are a few of the points one ought to consider whenever "studies show" is mentioned. AND, they apply to both sides of the issue. I think our side of the issue generally does a better job of using the truth than the other side does, but of course, the other side thinks they are the good guys, too...

As to what happens in Canada, I cannot say, I don't know the Canadian laws in detail, but I do believe their system included magisterial discretion, meaning that at some point, it is up to the local magistrate's opinion whether or not to issue a license, and each individual magistrate can have differing requirements as to what satisfies their concerns.

In other words, magistrate A might require spousal approval before issuance of a license, while magistrate B, in the next province might not.

Hope this helps with your arguments.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 17, 2017, 03:36 PM   #15
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,231
I agree that if your friend made the claim that he needs to produce the evidence.


As to the claim that spouses must sign off, look here:

The signatures of your current or former conjugal partners is
not legally required. However, if their signatures is not
provided, the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them
of your application for a firearms licence.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old December 18, 2017, 11:02 AM   #16
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,253
Was your debate actually heated? Or was it just at a standstill b/c one side made claims that neither side could verify?
I'm asking b/c a heated argument usually indicates some amount of emotional involvement, maybe your friend had a brush with the wrong side of domestic violence encounter or was robbed with a gun.
Often getting to the root of the emotion will trail back to the source of objection.

I agree that the person who is quoting the existence of a fact has the burden of proof. The challenge doesn't have to be contentious but being able to back up a fact should be an assumption for every assertion.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old December 18, 2017, 02:25 PM   #17
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,637
Stats. can be made to show almost anything. about 20 years ago students at Columbia showed that all death row inmates had eaten meat before their crime. They showed all kinds of different manipulation of data that led to any conclusions they wanted and showed the same data showing conflicting results.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old December 18, 2017, 04:23 PM   #18
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,725
Quote:
Was your debate actually heated?
It got heated because we are both passionate about our respective points of view.

Re the burden of proof, sure it's up to him to provide it, but I'd also like to see it before hand so when he does I have a response....
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old December 18, 2017, 07:08 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 10,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Pasley
Stats. can be made to show almost anything. about 20 years ago students at Columbia showed that all death row inmates had eaten meat before their crime. They showed all kinds of different manipulation of data that led to any conclusions they wanted and showed the same data showing conflicting results.
Heh, heh. I think it was Mark Twain who once said (or wrote), "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 20, 2017, 04:54 PM   #20
fredvon4
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: Lampasas Texas
Posts: 154
Words mater, context matters, FACTS are only FACTS in the correct, context, repeatable, and provable against some standard

IMO problem solving can ONLY be accomplished when all parties agree to the FACTS

Only then are solutions measurable

I have not seen any true effort by either political party to fully understand ANY problem they seek a solution for

I spent my life fixing problems...lawn mower won't start... clutch will not clutch... smoke leaked out of electronics...soldier never on time... and on to many many very complex problems....Was always astounded at even our lower level participants never fully grasping all the facts

Ever General I ever briefed ONLY wanted the FACTS

No point to his post.... FACT...IMO is 100% safe and 100% free (by American Constitution) society are very divergent....I am sure we can NEVER have both...so I prefer FREE

I applaud real deep thinkers who try to define WHY something, some behavior caused a bad outcome... or loss of life happened.... BUT they always seem to miss the point that a Fire Arm is and inanimate item with no more, or less, potential to kill by it self as a simple pencil

Human behavior is NOT well defined fact based science....BUT it is trainable and modifiable

In my own case I used to get so road raged it was dangerous... I was certain the idiot INTEND to kill me or my family.. I would chase down the idiot and be very confrontational...Wife had it,,,I was out of control...never actually hurt any one... but she got my attention and convinced me to see a doc.... learned what was my triggers...had to accept that ALL OTHER drivers were idiots and accept that FACT

"I feel much better now" Night Court
fredvon4 is offline  
Old December 23, 2017, 12:12 PM   #21
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,253
fredvon4:
Quote:
Words mater, context matters, FACTS are only FACTS in the correct, context, repeatable, and provable against some standard

IMO problem solving can ONLY be accomplished when all parties agree to the FACTS

Only then are solutions measurable
Ok, who let the engineer in?
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10028 seconds with 8 queries