[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future has shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

Nomad wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this. I feel like the motive here is clear, but most of you vehemently disagree. I respect that and do not wish to further argue about it.

What "preventative measures" should we take, Nomad?

Lock up atheists because they all secretly hate and want to kill Christians? Have the NSA surveil non-religious people and make sure they don't post anything critical of religion on social media because that really means they're getting ready to shoot up another church? Only let god-fearing Christians own firearms?

Only the evil ones with a penchant for absurdly large helmets.

This isn't even remotely in the realm of funny. You should just apologize for the earlier disinformation.

What about his questions? What would you do to prevent gun violence if it turned out he was anti-Christian?

DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this. I feel like the motive here is clear, but most of you vehemently disagree. I respect that and do not wish to further argue about it.

What "preventative measures" should we take, Nomad?

Lock up atheists because they all secretly hate and want to kill Christians? Have the NSA surveil non-religious people and make sure they don't post anything critical of religion on social media because that really means they're getting ready to shoot up another church? Only let god-fearing Christians own firearms?

Only the evil ones with a penchant for absurdly large helmets.

This isn't even remotely in the realm of funny. You should just apologize for the earlier disinformation.

What about his questions? What would you do to prevent gun violence if it turned out he was anti-Christian?

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole. You guys don't need me for that, you can attack straw men well enough without me.

Nomad wrote:

Or maybe the obvious fact that he chose a church during a Sunday Morning service and killed people there indiscriminately is a compelling reason to think he hated Christians.

I realize that is a very unpopular conclusion to make here, but popularity is not a determining factor in truth.

He chose a church his wife went to. If he hated christians why didn't he just go the nearest church? Given his history it makes more sense he was trying to hurt his wife by going to her church.

Nomad wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this. I feel like the motive here is clear, but most of you vehemently disagree. I respect that and do not wish to further argue about it.

What "preventative measures" should we take, Nomad?

Lock up atheists because they all secretly hate and want to kill Christians? Have the NSA surveil non-religious people and make sure they don't post anything critical of religion on social media because that really means they're getting ready to shoot up another church? Only let god-fearing Christians own firearms?

Only the evil ones with a penchant for absurdly large helmets.

This isn't even remotely in the realm of funny. You should just apologize for the earlier disinformation.

What about his questions? What would you do to prevent gun violence if it turned out he was anti-Christian?

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole. You guys don't need me for that, you can attack straw men well enough without me.

Then what was the point of spreading disinformation about his motives in the first place?

DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this. I feel like the motive here is clear, but most of you vehemently disagree. I respect that and do not wish to further argue about it.

What "preventative measures" should we take, Nomad?

Lock up atheists because they all secretly hate and want to kill Christians? Have the NSA surveil non-religious people and make sure they don't post anything critical of religion on social media because that really means they're getting ready to shoot up another church? Only let god-fearing Christians own firearms?

Only the evil ones with a penchant for absurdly large helmets.

This isn't even remotely in the realm of funny. You should just apologize for the earlier disinformation.

What about his questions? What would you do to prevent gun violence if it turned out he was anti-Christian?

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole. You guys don't need me for that, you can attack straw men well enough without me.

Then what was the point of spreading disinformation about his motives in the first place?

I didn't spread any disinformation. I asked a question about something I saw in a google search. I was very clear that I did not know at the time if the information was accurate, although as news reports continue to reveal more details, it is clear that some are. He wasn't looking for just family, he was shooting everyone.

article wrote:

At one point, the shooting stopped. From the ground, Solis saw a man's feet walk by and thought maybe the police had arrived.
But it was the killer, walking pew by pew looking for more survivors to shoot.
"Everybody was saying, 'Be quiet! it's him, it's him!'" Solis said.
Not everyone could keep quiet. Young children in the church couldn't stop crying,said Solis' husband, Joaquin Ramirez. So the gunman found the children and shot them point-blank.
As the massacre continued, Ramirez made eye contact with Annabelle Pomeroy -- the 14-year-old daughter of the church's pastor. She was crying for help, Ramirez told KSAT.
Realizing Annabelle might get shot, Ramirez motioned with his finger for stay quiet. It didn't work. Annabelle was killed.

Nomad wrote:

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole.

Is it safe to assume you concede there is no evidence that Devin Kelley had a history of hatred toward Christians or Antifa ties?

(I get that it's not fun to have been hoodwinked by compelling propaganda, but surely by now you see that, whatever your source was, they were lying to you?)

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole.

Is it safe to assume you concede there is no evidence that Devin Kelley had a history of hatred toward Christians or Antifa ties?

(I get that it's not fun to have been hoodwinked by compelling propaganda, but surely by now you see that, whatever your source was, they were lying to you?)

At this point I haven't seen any credible sources connect him to Antifa.

Nomad wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Nomad wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this. I feel like the motive here is clear, but most of you vehemently disagree. I respect that and do not wish to further argue about it.

What "preventative measures" should we take, Nomad?

Lock up atheists because they all secretly hate and want to kill Christians? Have the NSA surveil non-religious people and make sure they don't post anything critical of religion on social media because that really means they're getting ready to shoot up another church? Only let god-fearing Christians own firearms?

Only the evil ones with a penchant for absurdly large helmets.

This isn't even remotely in the realm of funny. You should just apologize for the earlier disinformation.

What about his questions? What would you do to prevent gun violence if it turned out he was anti-Christian?

I'm not about to get roped into any more fiascos where anything I say is bent and twisted into a gargantuan mass of straw man hyperbole. You guys don't need me for that, you can attack straw men well enough without me.

Then what was the point of spreading disinformation about his motives in the first place?

I didn't spread any disinformation. I asked a question about something I saw in a google search. I was very clear that I did not know at the time if the information was accurate, although as news reports continue to reveal more details, it is clear that some are. He wasn't looking for just family, he was shooting everyone.

You asked a question about something you saw in a google search, reposted it and then when called on it continued to defend it with your theory that he was an anti-Christian atheist extremist. In other words you helped to spread disinformation.

It's really vital right now, at this time in our history as a people, to not spread disinformation.

Nomad wrote:
article wrote:

At one point, the shooting stopped. From the ground, Solis saw a man's feet walk by and thought maybe the police had arrived.
But it was the killer, walking pew by pew looking for more survivors to shoot.
"Everybody was saying, 'Be quiet! it's him, it's him!'" Solis said.
Not everyone could keep quiet. Young children in the church couldn't stop crying,said Solis' husband, Joaquin Ramirez. So the gunman found the children and shot them point-blank.
As the massacre continued, Ramirez made eye contact with Annabelle Pomeroy -- the 14-year-old daughter of the church's pastor. She was crying for help, Ramirez told KSAT.
Realizing Annabelle might get shot, Ramirez motioned with his finger for stay quiet. It didn't work. Annabelle was killed.

Yeah. That's horrifying. We should find every gun and melt it down and turn it into something useful. I still don't now what this says about his motivation. Anymore than anything I've ever read says about the motivation of the Sandy Hook killer, the Vegas killer or the Orlando killer. The one throughline is access to high powered guns with huge magazines.

Nomad wrote:

I didn't spread any disinformation. I asked a question about something I saw in a google search. I was very clear that I did not know at the time if the information was accurate, although as news reports continue to reveal more details, it is clear that some are. He wasn't looking for just family, he was shooting everyone.

What I am seeing in your posts is a very strong desire to make this an attack on Christians generally rather than his family, or some other reason. You seem to be posting some very sketchy information to back up your "question" and you keep circling around to the Christian aspect. It actually seems like of important to you that he be seen as attacking Christians.

Why?

You said earlier that knowing motives was important so as a thought experiment - what if his motives was a hatred of Christians? For you, how does that help us prevent future killings?

Clearly what Nomad is getting at is that since this is an atheist shooting up a church we must assume it’s because of his atheism, and likewise we must assume that any Christian who has ever shot people anywhere outside a church is doing so explicitly because of his Christianity.

Is it ironic that me looking for a certain motive in the shooting is bad, but it is perfectly acceptable for people here to declare my motive in a way that fits into their own worldview?

Nomad wrote:

Is it ironic that me looking for a certain motive in the shooting is bad, but it is perfectly acceptable for people here to declare my motive in a way that fits into their own worldview?

Again - You said earlier that knowing motives was important so as a thought experiment - what if his motives was a hatred of Christians? For you, how does that help us prevent future killings?

EDIT: meh

Nomad wrote:

Is it ironic that me looking for a certain motive in the shooting is bad, but it is perfectly acceptable for people here to declare my motive in a way that fits into their own worldview?

Is it ironic that you're comparing a motive for mass murder to figuring out what someone on a forum really means from the literal words they write to express themselves?

No. No it is not ironic.

I'd like everyone to get off the Nomad train now, please. It's going in circles.*

*This includes Nomad.

farley3k wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Motive is key to understanding why these things happen, and future possible preventive measures in terrible situations like this.

Yeah, I don't agree. Mostly because I believe mentally ill people will do mentally ill things. Understanding that John Doe heard voices telling him to kill doesn't give us any helpful information to prevent future events.

How is that not helpful? I mean, taking measures like restricting access to firearms for the mentally ill opens up a whole Pandora's box of secondary concerns such as creating a disincentive for people to seek mental health treatment, but it seems reasonable to at least consider.

As a side note though, I think very few of these mass killers have actually been psychotic in the sense of hearing voices or delusional. The Washington Naval Yard shooter in 2013 was one clear example. Possibly Adam Lanza? Potentially these people could have benefitted from some kind of mental health intervention, but it's hard for me to imagine exactly how that would have come about.

Unfortunately though, I suspect for most of these people, the one constant is sociopathy. Which technically is a mental health disorder, but in practice is not one that can be effectively treated even if these people seek help for it, which they don't.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.

But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

Continue reading the main story
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. And Mr. Lankford, in an email, said countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

Whether a population plays more or fewer video games also appears to have no impact. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country.

Racial diversity or other factors associated with social cohesion also show little correlation with gun deaths. Among European countries, there is little association between immigration or other diversity metrics and the rates of gun murders or mass shootings.

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

Skeptics of gun control sometimes point to a 2016 study. From 2000 and 2014, it found, the United States death rate by mass shooting was 1.5 per one million people. The rate was 1.7 in Switzerland and 3.4 in Finland, suggesting American mass shootings were not actually so common.

But the same study found that the United States had 133 mass shootings. Finland had only two, which killed 18 people, and Switzerland had one, which killed 14. In short, isolated incidents. So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.

This means an American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times as high as Japan’s. That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.

The United States also has some of the world’s weakest controls over who may buy a gun and what sorts of guns may be owned.

Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, about half that of the United States. Its gun homicide rate in 2004 was 7.7 per million people — unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders, but still a fraction of the rate in the United States.

Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned. Such laws reflect more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, as something that citizens must affirmatively earn the right to own.

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 incident. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

*Edit* Jumping off the train, boss.

Motive, mental illness, etc etc etc are all well and good to consider - after we begin to acknowledge the fact that it is the guns that are facilitating these mass killings.

It drives me crazy that people always skip to other issues when there are firearms involved - especially firearms whose only purpose is to kill as many human beings as fast as possible.

I don't see a fix to this anytime soon I'm afraid. At least unitl a majority of Americans start to acknowledge that guns might just play a part. Guns are simply part of American culture.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't very obvious when it represents a serious flaw in a society or culture that you love and hold as a part of your core identity.

Oh yeah, I saw this article earlier today and it led to several minutes of profound depression at how far things have come:

A private school in Florida is offering a unique item for its students: a bullet-resistant panel that can be slipped into backpacks. Florida Christian School in Miami is making the panels available to students for $120.
Students are trained to hold their backpacks over their chest in the event of an active shooter. Gulla said the school also has sound-enabled surveillance cameras, uniformed security guards patrolling the campus and active shooter drills, all of which started after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School where 20 first graders and six staff members were killed.

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

Violence and mental illness: an overview

CONCLUSIONS
Several general conclusions are supported by this brief overview. First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.

Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence.

Third, substance abuse appears to be a major determinant of violence and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. Those with substance disorders are major contributors to community violence, perhaps accounting for as much as a third of self-reported violent acts, and seven out of every 10 crimes of violence among mentally disordered offenders.

Finally, too much past research has focussed on the person with the mental illness, rather than the nature of the social interchange that led up to the violence. Consequently, we know much less than we should about the nature of these relationships and the contextual determinants of violence, and much less than we should about opportunities for primary prevention (30). Nevertheless, current literature supports early identification and treatment of substance abuse problems, and greater attention to the diagnosis and management of concurrent substance abuse disorders among seriously mentally ill as potential violence prevention strategies (25).

thrawn82 wrote:

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

I agree that it's misplaced. It would be a forgivable though if all these politicians who are quick to say it's a "mental health issue not a gun issue" were actively engaging in efforts to improve mental health care in some way to reduce violence. It's painfully obvious though that they're using this as an excuse to wash their hands of responsibility entirely.

Vox: The link between domestic violence and mass shootings, explained by a gun policy expert

One characteristic in particular links Kelley to a long line of mass shooters before him: a history of domestic violence. In 2012, Kelley was discharged from the Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico for assaulting his wife and child, according to Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek.

Kelley fits a pattern. In June, James T. Hodgkinson fired 50 rounds of shots from a military rifle and handgun at a group of GOP leaders at a congressional practice session in Alexandria, Virginia. He had been arrested in 2006 for domestic battery and discharge of a weapon after reportedly punching his daughter’s friend and shooting at her boyfriend. The charges were dropped, but he later lost custody of his daughter. Omar Mateen, the Pulse nightclub shooter, allegedly beat his wife. Robert Lewis Dear, who shot up a Planned Parenthood in 2015, was accused of physical abuse by two ex-wives.

According to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, a majority of mass shooting victims from 2009 to 2015 were an intimate partner, ex-partner, or other family member of the shooter. And research from Boston University shows that in states with more gun owners, there are more homicides — and women are more likely to be the ones killed.

There is an interview with Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York Cortland and the author of several books on gun policy, included with this article that is worth a read.

gewy wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

I agree that it's misplaced. It would be a forgivable though if all these politicians who are quick to say it's a "mental health issue not a gun issue" were actively engaging in efforts to improve mental health care in some way to reduce violence. It's painfully obvious though that they're using this as an excuse to wash their hands of responsibility entirely.

And why are they making it easier for people with mental health issues to get guns if they think the shootings are caused by mental health issues.

Also how did they determine it was a mental heath issue in less than 24 hours of the shooting or even at all?

Baron Of Hell wrote:
gewy wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

I agree that it's misplaced. It would be a forgivable though if all these politicians who are quick to say it's a "mental health issue not a gun issue" were actively engaging in efforts to improve mental health care in some way to reduce violence. It's painfully obvious though that they're using this as an excuse to wash their hands of responsibility entirely.

And why are they making it easier for people with mental health issues to get guns if they think the shootings are caused by mental health issues.

Also how did they determine it was a mental heath issue in less than 24 hours of the shooting or even at all?

The guy has a history. Unfortunately, our society doesn't automatically treat men that beat their wives and children as having a mental disorder.

Jayhawker wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
gewy wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

I agree that it's misplaced. It would be a forgivable though if all these politicians who are quick to say it's a "mental health issue not a gun issue" were actively engaging in efforts to improve mental health care in some way to reduce violence. It's painfully obvious though that they're using this as an excuse to wash their hands of responsibility entirely.

And why are they making it easier for people with mental health issues to get guns if they think the shootings are caused by mental health issues.

Also how did they determine it was a mental heath issue in less than 24 hours of the shooting or even at all?

The guy has a history. Unfortunately, our society doesn't automatically treat men that beat their wives and children as having a mental disorder.

I don't think you can call violence in of itself a sign of a mental disorder. Sure if he beat his wife thinking she was enemy because of PTSD. However, it sounds more like he was just a bully but I don't know all the details.

To conclusively say it was mental disorder I would think we would need a doctor diagnosing him with something or more evidence of him doing crazy things. Otherwise all acts of violence means you are crazy. I would however support unlawful acts of violence as a reason to not let someone have a gun.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:
gewy wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I think the focus on mental illness may also be a bit misplaced.

I agree that it's misplaced. It would be a forgivable though if all these politicians who are quick to say it's a "mental health issue not a gun issue" were actively engaging in efforts to improve mental health care in some way to reduce violence. It's painfully obvious though that they're using this as an excuse to wash their hands of responsibility entirely.

And why are they making it easier for people with mental health issues to get guns if they think the shootings are caused by mental health issues.

Also how did they determine it was a mental heath issue in less than 24 hours of the shooting or even at all?

The guy has a history. Unfortunately, our society doesn't automatically treat men that beat their wives and children as having a mental disorder.

I don't think you can call violence in of itself a sign of a mental disorder. Sure if he beat his wife thinking she was enemy because of PTSD. However, it sounds more like he was just a bully but I don't know all the details.

To conclusively say it was mental disorder I would think we would need a doctor diagnosing him with something or more evidence of him doing crazy things. Otherwise all acts of violence means you are crazy. I would however support unlawful acts of violence as a reason to not let someone have a gun.

The article I linked to on the last page is about him escaping from a psychiatric hospital a few years ago. But I agree we cannot allow mental illness to get blobbed together with a penchant for violence.

What I was trying to get at with that paper, and something important to keep in mind as we discuss this, is that having a mental illness is not a strong predictor for violent behavior. Like down near the single digit percents of predictive value.

This guy may have had a mental illness, he was a person who beat his wife and child. Beat them badly enough or often enough that his commanders noticed. I'm not sure how strongly we can say that those two things are connected, besides that there is strong evidence that being a person who beats their family IS a strong predictor for further violent behavior.