>

So you think it is excusable to murder your entire family if your wife cheats on you?
Didn't this just fucking happen in utah? >

yes, in my town. Probably the only thing anyone will ever associate with this town now. >

If you plan on killing yourself and your family, always start with yourself. >

They don't plan on killing themselves. They plan comitting the act of ultimate ownership and control of their children and wives.
The suicide is just the exit after that fact. >

It’s the dead weight of reality setting in.
The fucked up ones are the ones who keep on as normal, pretending their loved ones are missing, and that they’re aiding in the search. >

Yep. Chris Watts comes to mind. >

Also Scott Peterson >

These cases are always so sad. His kids were 18, 16, and 10, old enough to realize that their father had mental problems. He was committed last year? Why or why didn't they remove his gun? >

Because that would be against the 2nd Amendment and that is the only thing that matters in 'Murkia. >


According to records, High Point police received calls to the home as far back as 2014. Police said that two of these were domestic calls, with fights that did not lead to any arrests. In January 2022, they received a medical call and then a request for an involuntary commitment.

If he was actually committed, you are wrong, it is prohibited by federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4)) for someone who has been involuntarily committed to possess a firearm. Someone in the chain dropped the ball. >

My coworker was involuntarily committed, but he still has his guns. >

That’s the state failing to do its job, a solid personal example. Every day he possesses those firearms and ammunition he is committing a felony, unless he went through the legal process to get those rights restored. >

Yeah, he hasn't. Not sure how that's gonna shake out for him. I think someone's holding onto them for now, but he could demand them back at any time. >

If that person gives them back they would also be committing a felony by furnishing a firearm to a prohibited person >

Good to know, I'll pass that on >

I used to live in the area in Michigan. I taught the kids. It’s still something I am trying to process right now. I feel so lost on what I can do to prevent this from happening again. >

Good lord, another family annihilator? This is what the 3rd or 4th one the last week. >

they happen all. the. time. Most don't even make the news.
Gun owners need to realize their guns will mostly kill them or their loved ones. Guns don't protect people. >

/r/dgu guns do protect people. If they didn’t, police wouldn’t be issued them.
That said, most intentional gun deaths in the USA each year are suicides, something magazine capacities or so-called assault weapon bans will not fix.
(gunviolencearchive.org) >

DGUs are incredibly rare. There are only 300-400 justifiable gun homicides per year >

Criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use. 
All these DGUs claims are bogus, you can't have survey ranges of 60,000 to 2.5 million and think your research has any sound methodology. It's a joke. It was a ridiculously small study by Gary Kleck (pro-gun zealot) and highly flawed even Kleck came out and said his work was trash. Subsequent study of those survey results showed that most of the reported DGUs were in fact illegal gun use, like brandishing.
Edit:

According to research commissioned by the Obama administration, defensive gun uses are easily in excess of 100,000 per year. 

Sorry but no research was commissioned. A survey of existing research was collected. Kleck's claims were later removed because they were debunked. >

I'm intentionally not referring to Kleck's work, but rather NCVS survey itself, and a study published by David Hemenway, which I can't seem to find at the moment.
I prefer to useeither neutral or "the other side's" research to make my points, rather than controversial pro-gun researchers.
The original claim was "DGUs are incredibly rare." This is simply false, according to any research on the subject. >


I'm intentionally not referring to Kleck's work, but rather NCVS survey itself, and a study published by David Hemenway, which I can't seem to find at the moment.

You literally linked to Kleck's work.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). 

Because they are so rare, there is no definition for a DGU and there is no consensus on how to measure them. Sorry but DGUs are exceptionally rare. >

Like you said, it is a survey of existing research. If you exclude any of Kleck's work, the other research surveyed supports the notion that defensive gun use is not "incredibly rare." >

In the US there are around 10 million arrests for crimes each year. That doesn't count criminals who weren't arrested either. So your claim of 100k DGUs represent less than 1 percent. 
1 percent is rare. >


The shooter was the target of a Jan. 3, 2022, involuntary commitment, officials said, though police are still seeking more information about that case.
"He was suffering from some mental illness," Welsh said. "I can't speak to the reason under the involuntary commitment. But we do believe it was taken out by the family."

WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE GUNS IN THIS HOUSE? >

I haven't been committed for years and even I don't keep a gun in the house. >

My husband and I both have chronic anxiety and depression and we don’t keep guns. Way too easy to find that permanent solution to a temporary feeling. >

Is it me, or am I really hearing more of these lately? >

I feel like there was one of like 8 people just last week. >

That was the Utah one. Since it was so many I’m wondering if their FLDS or something. >

They were mainline LDS (edited-not much less culty, tbh).
FLDS isn’t really in much of Utah, plus one look at the clothes they wore in pictures you can tell they are definitely not FLDS. >

Involuntary commitment and still had gun access to kill his family.  Fuck the authorities for not securing his means of murder. >

I'd be more angry at gun rights activists, tbh. >

It's the authority's job.  Blame is 100% theirs to bear. >

If the authorities aren't allowed to legally take someone's guns away, how can they be at fault? >

Where does it say they're not allowed to take them? >

The default policy is authorities cannot take away guns.  The question should be "where does it say they ARE allowed to take them".  This what  the 2A zealots have been pushing for for years. >

I'd love to see where this so called default policy comes from. Especially considering federal law says people who have been involuntarily committed can't legally own guns. Which means that yes, cops can take them. >

default policy I was referring to was the Second Amendment. >

So you're cool with brushing responsibility off the authorities just to stick it to the "second amendment zealots"? >

Involuntary commitment and still had his guns. Yeah let's make some more laws that won't be enforced. The police chief's concern is the effect the crime scene will have on his officers too. Well perhaps if those officers ha done their respective jobs prior to the shooting perhaps they wouldn't have to worry about the shock of seeing a family's annihilation.
*words >

Men.... Just walk away. No need to kill your families. >

But then, the wife would find someone worth her time and respect. Can't have that. >

Oh my god, get railed.
I’m not condoning what the man did, but none of us have any idea what happened. He might’ve found out his kids weren’t his. Maybe she’d been cheating on him or molesting one of the kids. Maybe he was and she found out. Point is, we don’t know, and this ‘taking sides based solely on genitalia’ needs to stop. 
He might’ve just been a very unwell human being,  but people seldom snap and kill their family for no fucking reason. >

So if someone cheats on you, you are justified in murdering them and their children? >

I literally just said I’m not condoning what he did. I also posited that he could be entirely out of his gourd or a child molester. I swear none of you psychopaths can read.
The person said ‘But then, the wife would find someone worth her time and respect. Can't have that,’ based solely on her gender. For all we know, she was just as messed up as her husband was. That’s literally my entire point. 
Nobody should ever kill anybody. Can’t believe I have to explain that. >

Dude nobody need to “both sides” a fucking murderer. Nothing his family could have done excuses or explains his actions. We can all read just fine. The problem here is you. >

Clearly you can’t, because you’re trying to argue things I’ve already stated we agree on. You’re all clearly incapable of discussing this with any degree of nuance or impartiality. 
What the guy did was clearly wrong. Whether it was inexcusable or not remains to be seen.