Correlation between fatherless homes and mass shooters

I kept hearing this brought up in some videos I watched, mostly conservative leaning. But I was wondering where they were getting the data from.


Maybe it’s just because I haven’t studied a ton of cases but most of the ones I’ve studied, the shooters came from homes that were intact. Eric, Dylan and even James Holmes had families who seemed really happy and together. There are rumors about the klebolds having problems even before the shooting but all in all they seemed happy.



Article

Here’s one that I haven’t watched yet. Mostly because they put Eric in the thumbnail and they don’t do a good job researching when it comes to Columbine at all...

You’d think with the plethora of information there was about the case there wouldn’t be so many pieces of misinformation Flying around

I wouldn't watch that video, John Doyle is a far-right nationalist who blames mass shootings on Feminism and medication.

To play devils advocate, I think he blames it on feminism because he is saying that it contributes to not having a father in the home. So I assume he put Eric up there because of the medication because 2 of the people in the thumbnail came from loving homes.

Screamingophelia wrote:

To play devils advocate, I  think he blames it on feminism because he is saying that it contributes to not having a father in the home.  So I assume he put Eric up there because of the medication because 2 of the people in the thumbnail came from loving homes.

Trust me as someone who has watched the video he's goes off and blames women's rights for boys being bullied and thinks medication is a product of the left and causes Mass shootings. Both notions that feminism causes fatherless homes and medication makes people more violent is incredibly stupid. Of course John Doyle is just a Ben Shapiro wannabe and is a lunatic.

But there has been studies about medication and kids under 18 that may cause certain anger issues etc. I’m not saying it’s the reason but Eric’s medication may have made him angrier and not have been the right medication?

Also the way that some very extreme feminists talk about a 16-year-old boys being incels is incredibly bullying and mean.

I just like to look at the myriad of things that might be causing mass shootings. Not just guns.

Screamingophelia wrote:

But there has been studies about medication and kids under 18 that may cause certain anger issues etc. I’m not saying it’s the reason but Eric’s medication may have made him angrier and not have been the right medication?

Probably yes, but John Doyle thinks all medication is bad.

Quote :

Also the way that some very extreme feminists talk about a 16-year-old boys being incels is incredibly bullying and mean.

That's more of a problem with bullying than women's rights.

Quote :

I just like to look at the myriad of things that might be causing mass shootings. Not just guns.

I agree but the thing is that John Doyle is a right-wing reactionary, he thinks Women's equality has brought a moral decay to society and makes men more weak and vulnerable.

Interesting... no idea where this is coming from. I have to agree with Tommy, it's probably from the guy's strong views on women. There have been plenty of well documented mass shooters who came from homes having both a mother and a father. Not having a father figure has nothing to do with the reasons anyone commits a mass shooting imo. Someone who has committed a shooting because they are mentally ill (let's take Holmes as an example even though he had an intact family) would not be less likely to commit the shooting or stopped entirely because of the fact they do have a father/mother figure in their life.

I see this argument a lot. I think it does stem from some less than fantastic views on women. Some of the people I've seen argue that a single mother cannot successfully raise a healthy, stable child and therefore father figures are needed to ensure the child doesn't have some sort of mental illness. Some people argue the harsh hand of a male figure would stop a misbehaving child from developing into someone who would become a mass shooter. I think it's all baloney. I think there's a much deeper issue here that has nothing to do with whether or not the mass shooter had a present father figure. Obviously, with people that are suicidal there is an issue here with mental health. That's what we need to be talking about.

Edit: I decided to watch a part of the video. The part where he explains that many mass shooters were "under the influence" of medication seems like a no-brainer to me. If we assume that most mass shooters were people who were mentally ill (of course, you don't have to be to commit a mass shooting) then it should be obvious that these are the people who would be on medication for depression/bipolar disorder/schizophrenia/etc. It seems like a random fact that's honestly unrelated to his point. Some medications do cause violence and those medications should not be prescribed to people who are already having homicidal thoughts in my opinion. But does prescribing every mentally ill person ever with a medicine that can cause anger problems going to mean that person will shoot up their school? No. It's about prescribing the right medications to each individual. I'm a strong proponent of modern medicine especially as someone who is disabled. Without my depression and anxiety medications I would not be able to function. I don't think the answer is as simple as "oh its the medicine" or "oh its the lack of a father figure".

hvernon wrote:

Interesting... no idea where this is coming from. I have to agree with Tommy, it's probably from the guy's strong views on women. There have been plenty of well documented mass shooters who came from homes having both a mother and a father. Not having a father figure has nothing to do with the reasons anyone commits a mass shooting imo. Someone who has committed a shooting because they are mentally ill (let's take Holmes as an example even though he had an intact family) would not be less likely to commit the shooting or stopped entirely because of the fact they do have a father/mother figure in their life.

I see this argument a lot. I think it does stem from some less than fantastic views on women. Some of the people I've seen argue that a single mother cannot successfully raise a healthy, stable child and therefore father figures are needed to ensure the child doesn't have some sort of mental illness. Some people argue the harsh hand of a male figure would stop a misbehaving child from developing into someone who would become a mass shooter. I think it's all baloney. I think there's a much deeper issue here that has nothing to do with whether or not the mass shooter had a present father figure.

I do agree. Plus if you want to talk about a strong male figure. Wayne was a pretty strong military dad or sea. Even when Eric was trying to be a little dark and what not he was still acting like a polite young man who tucked his shirts in and got his assignments done. And he still went on to commit a shooting

Screamingophelia wrote:

hvernon wrote:

Interesting... no idea where this is coming from. I have to agree with Tommy, it's probably from the guy's strong views on women. There have been plenty of well documented mass shooters who came from homes having both a mother and a father. Not having a father figure has nothing to do with the reasons anyone commits a mass shooting imo. Someone who has committed a shooting because they are mentally ill (let's take Holmes as an example even though he had an intact family) would not be less likely to commit the shooting or stopped entirely because of the fact they do have a father/mother figure in their life.

I see this argument a lot. I think it does stem from some less than fantastic views on women. Some of the people I've seen argue that a single mother cannot successfully raise a healthy, stable child and therefore father figures are needed to ensure the child doesn't have some sort of mental illness. Some people argue the harsh hand of a male figure would stop a misbehaving child from developing into someone who would become a mass shooter. I think it's all baloney. I think there's a much deeper issue here that has nothing to do with whether or not the mass shooter had a present father figure.

I do agree. Plus if you want to talk about a strong male figure. Wayne  was a pretty strong military dad or sea. Even when Eric was trying to be a little dark and what not he was still acting like a polite young man who tucked his shirts in and got his assignments done. And he still went on to commit a shooting

Right, Wayne would be considered a very strong father figure who was involved in raising his son a lot. I don't think that contributed any to the shooting. Eric was a straight A student. He played sports as a kid. He wanted to go into the military like his father. He seemed like a kid who would have been relatively "well adjusted", for lack of a better way to put it.