Five family members, including three kids, were found dead in an Ohio home Thursday evening in what police are calling a “domestic dispute that turned deadly,” according to a news release.

The incident is being investigated as a quadruple murder-suicide, police said.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t generally disagree with your point, but I’m not sure why you’re making it here.

    Lets not pretend like this was anything but intentional use of a firearm by a family annihilator, and that the problem in this case is gendered violence, not gun safety.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        32
        ·
        1 year ago

        And I just pointed out that their long spiel about gun safety is irrelevant because this wasn’t a case that could have been prevented with gun safety. This man wanted to kill his family, and he did.

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Pretty sure that he’d have had a lot of difficulty shooting them if there wasn’t a gun around.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Again, they were replying to someone else’s comment about the safety of having a gun in the home. If they’d made a top-level comment saying this, maybe you’d have an argument, but currently all you’re doing is trying to derail the the discussion with irrelevant details.

          It’s not like these were the first people to die of gun violence so who cares whether a tangential discussion applies in this specific instance?

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you can’t see the connection between the dangers of having a gun in the home and what happened here, it’s because you don’t want to.

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you can’t see the connection between gendered violence and what happened here, it’s because you don’t want to.

        (also gun safety, which I literally started my previous reply saying I agree with, had nothing to do with this case, you are just derailing the conversation from the real issue - an epidemic of deadly misogyny. It wasn’t the gun being there that made him kill them)

        • gregorum@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Insinuating gender issues into this when there no evidence of that as a motivation (no suicide note, no knowledge of the motivations) is simply you projecting an agenda.

          As a matter of gun safety, it’s obvious: the best way to keep a home safe from gun violence is to not have a gun in the home.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          ~~Oh no. ~~

          The article is short. It names all the members of the family. Based on the names, there appear to be:

          * One adult male
          * One adult female
          * Two teen females (yeah, I’m calling 12 a teen)
          * One male child

          There is no information in the article about which one of the above was the shooter, and all of them are old enough to be able to handle a firearm (although it’s less likely that the male child, aged 9, would have been the shooter).

          Your comments refer to “him” and “this man,” so you must be referring to the adult male. Unless you have some information about this incident that is not stated in the article, you are assuming that you know who the shooter was, where there is no information to support that claim.

          It seems that you want to believe that it must have been the man, because you believe that men are intrinsically violent. Is it more statistically likely, based on past history? Sure. But you cannot apply statistics that way to come to a correct conclusion about an individual incident.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you bother to watch the video, it states several times that the father was the shooter. How else would he have shot everyone else than himself otherwise?

            I’m operating based on the facts given, not some social agenda or implicit biases. Get your facts straight.