When Domestic Violence Becomes a Mass Shooting

It happens more often than you think. So why don't we ever talk about it?


Why don't we talk about it? Because gun violence is much less prevalent today than it was 25 years ago. This trend has been declining since then. Gun violence is at a low in the US, right now.

When the media sensationalizes every single gun-related incident, it's clear that the media is paid to convince the public that the 2nd Amendment needs to go away.

Considering that central bankers have either controlling stakes in, or direct control, over most of the world's mainstream media, and that these central bankers are anti-Constitutional for the purpose of replacing individual rights with community rights that will be defined by the bankers, it's clear what's going on.

Where are the sensationalized news stories about the 300,000 Americans who die a slow, painful, financially-debilitating death from cancer every year in the US? This trend is increasing. Where is the news coverage?
Yes, and if you could only now ask Crystal Brame "Judson" about this very topic.
The whole Domestic Violence Protection Order scheme is a sham. Why? Because a piece of paper doesn't protect anyone. Further, women lie. They lie in what they write in these petitions for DVPOs. I've been witness to it. I've read the court paperwork after having been witness to the incident in question, and I'm here to tell you: women lie and are never held to account for it. I would like to ask the prosecutors interviewed in this article how many women they have prosecuted for perjury for lying on their petitions.

I find it so ironic that statist-progressives want to empower women - except when it comes to protecting themselves. "I am woman - hear me roar!" - oh but go ahead and make it harder for me to obtain a gun to protect myself, and ridicule me for carrying a gun in self-defense.
Oh, yay. The bitches of the Stranger blame every woe on men (week 2!)
Just remember this: It's always the guy's fault. Always.
Siddha, how about for actual facts from unbiased sources? No? Than shut the fuck up.
"It's basically impossible that you don't know someone who has been affected by domestic violence," Starr continues.

But it is not impossible to know someone affected by it and still be a clueless, inconsiderate, deflecting rotter of a SLOG commenter. I wonder how many of the above commenters have abused their partners and didn't think it was that big a deal because guns weren't involved.
Is this really an appropriate article to include your newspaper's personal ads in? If I had advertised for romance with your paper, and found my ad featured in a story on domestic violence that had escalated to murder, I would not be happy.
Great article. It's really a shame that such a progressive state like Washington could be so backwards when it comes to common-sense measures to reduce gun violence.

I hope this article at least gets a few more people thinking about the situation.
Maybe bitches shouldn't hang out with/date/marry/have kids with/ run back to dirt bags. Oh, wait. Women have no responsibility for their own actions.
Let's hear more of you misogynistic fucks show just how much you really hate women.

Keep going, assholes.
The above posters seem to know very little about intimate partner violence, statistics, and cold hard data, or have trouble accepting reality because to do so would create a strong case for relinquishing their irrevocable "right" to carry and use a deadly weapon, and taking some responsibility for a system that allows women to die at the hands of their intimate partners at disturbingly high rates. Women lie? Men lie. People lie. Stfu and stop using misogynistic generalizations to minimize a very real problem. Babies cry when you enforce rules by taking away their toys, adults look at the facts before them and make decisions accordingly.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Anna. This story is absolutely why the Violence Against Women Act, established in 1994, must be kept actively enforced so that people can get the protection they need against domestic violence.

Individuals of either gender can and do lie, and are equally capable of committing violent abuse. But nobody asks to get brutally raped or blown away by a loaded firearm.
I love how men are getting all butt hurt about how there have been TWO articles about women's issues. Oh boo hoo, you whiny little babies. How many articles have we had to endure in the Stranger about how we should try out every porn-fueled dude fantasy because it's not porn that's the problem, it's us, or how we need to just accept that all guys want to fuck multiple women, blahblahblah...

How many ads featuring half-naked women do we see every single time we open this site? How many Charles M. sexy lady posts? This ain't exactly Jezebel over here, dickheads. It's called equality, and I think this issue's a lot more newsworthy than what kind of blow job you feel you deserve.
"When the media sensationalizes every single gun-related incident, it's clear that the media is paid to convince the public that the 2nd Amendment needs to go away."

Not exactly.
More like "if it bleeds, it leads".
The more sensational the story, the bigger the audience which means more advertising money.

"Where are the sensationalized news stories about the 300,000 Americans who die a slow, painful, financially-debilitating death from cancer every year in the US?"

Occasionally you will see stories like that.
But someone dying over 6 months is not as sensational as a shooting.
And cancer usually hits later in life so there's not much "his life was cut short" that can written.
And most "journalists" want to do as little work as possible to get a "story" out.

So what? Why do you care? A domestic violence protection order simply tells the accused to stay the fuck away from the accuser. It's not a prelude to a criminal investigation, it's not a jail sentence, it's just telling an individual to stay away from another individual. If some batshit liar got a DVPO against me under false pretenses, I would *want* to stay the fuck away from that person. But then, I don't have an ax to grind against battered women.
This article reminds me of how frustrated and angry I get every year on May Day, and every time I talk to an anarchy-minded person who thinks *we don't need police*

"Just call a family friend," one anarchy fan once told me.

When you're getting your face pounded in, or god forbid, watching your mother getting HER FACE pounded—by someone who's eyes are blank with pure, blind rage—the last thing on your mind is to call your Auntie or that nice mailman down the street to come and make it stop.

I think the people who scream "FUCK THE POLICE" at every protest have never really ever needed to call one.
@10 — I know you're a troll, but think about what you just wrote.

Just wow. ALSO: Fathers and Step-Fathers?
My goodness some of the comments here.
Yes both male and female can and do inflict abuse upon one another.
But when this Abuse and Violence is use to "Control" another person true intervention needs to take place.
In many circumstances Domestic Violence will escalate to out of control behaviors by the perpetrator, then sadly will lead to a victim's, and if others are on the scene, maiming or death(s).
Just ask anyone in law enforcement which type of 911 call they take extra precaution responding to.
And the Fire/Medics Department will stand by and do not enter until a scene is secured.
Everybody talks about statistics but never sources them. Could someone just spoon feed me some of them, please? I'd really appreciate having them bookmarked.
Thanks for a well-written article about an important topic. I'll be a pedant about one issue: Why can't we get a picture or depiction of the actual graph described in a paragraph of text instead of numbers and some emphatic phrasing? It would make this part much more effective.
@3: Holy fuck you are an asshole. I'd respond to your points, except there are so many lies and so much victim blaming that I'd get caught in the muck. It would be like debating the ethics of sexual violence with a rapist.
@3: Oh, and do you know why shit like this occurs? Because of people like you who think women are always lying about abuse. Please fuck off and die.
@16 "So what? Why do you care? A domestic violence protection order simply tells the accused to stay the fuck away from the accuser. It's not a prelude to a criminal investigation, it's not a jail sentence,"

"Shall not be deprived of life (the ability to defend oneself with a gun) liberty (the ability to purchase or carry or posses a gun) or property (the gun itself) without due process of law"

Heard of that? It's from the Constitution. A typical temporary DVPO issued without court review and without the chance for the respondent to challenge, defend himself, or confront his accuser is a due process violation, pure and simple.

A DVPO is usually issued as a consequence of a criminal complaint being made. "My boyfriend of 3 weeks raised his voice to me causing my eyes to water a little bit" may be all that is needed for a criminal investigation and a DVPO to issue, since violence apparently no longer requires physical contact.
"The above posters seem to know very little about intimate partner violence, statistics, and cold hard data, or have trouble accepting reality because to do so would create a strong case for relinquishing their irrevocable "right" to carry and use a deadly weapon,"

My fundamental human rights to life and self-defense are not subject to anyone's data or statistics, or a public vote. That's not how we run this country. Same with someone's right to marry: not subject to data or stats or a public vote, right?
This is a one sided article. It seems that women are never respondents in restraining order cases according to this article. But some are. Some women drop their restraining order cases after a few days and then ask for divorce, child support, the house and the works.
And sometimes people, male and female, lie in these petitions. Or lie in response to these petitions.
So a good question to ask is what is the standard of proof in a restraining order case. And the answer is the petitioner wanting it. Even if we have the two week hearing, if the petitioner continues to want the restraining order and claims that her husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend threatened to kill her but no one else witnessed this, the black robe can find this to be sufficient evidence that "domestic violence" did in fact occur, being the verbal threat that no one but the petitioner witnessed. The respondent can deny this all day long but the very fact that he/she seems to be a little bit emotionally affected by such accusation seems to indicate that the petitioner is "more likely" telling the truth than the respondent and thus the restraining order is granted.
There is no jury in a retraining order case.
Which the respondent would get if he/she were to be charged with perjury for denying the accusation in the court hearing. Funny how that does not usually happen.
Therefore, for the purpose of restraining orders, we can say "There is no excuse for raising your voice and sounding irritated" for that after all is considered sufficient proof of sufficient "domestic violence" to justify granting the order.
Here is another good question to ask. What percentage of restraining order respondents actually go out and use their guns to commit a violent crime? All of them? No. A majority of them? No. Even 1% of them? No.
Just compare the total number of restraining orders granted with the number of murders and attempted murders and other violent gun crimes and do the math.
So here is the scoop on restraining orders: For those FEW cases where they are actually necessary, they are completely ineffective. Why? Because a man, or woman, intent on murder will find a way to do it. He or she will almost never buy the murder weapon at a gun show. That is why closing the "gun show loophole" will have zero affect on this.
But for everyone else, the restraining order is a gross violation of the Constitution, starting with the complete lack of genuine due process of law in the granting of it.
you boys are SO sensitive! you'd think we were trying to cut off your dick! you need to chill out and get laid.
@25 and, of course, in your world the 'lying woman' has no rights to protect herself from her abusers.

Gotcha. No one mate with dean.fuller.

And smile! You look so much more handsome when you SMILE!
I'm thinking that the guys who wrote the anti-woman posts in thread are the sort of guys who, when the cheesy singer in the country-western bar sings "You picked a fine time to leave me, Lucille", join in by chanting "Bitch! Slut! Whore!".

Some of them probably WILL kill a woman at some point.

Seriously, dudes...switch to decaf.
In fact, I'm kind of amazed we've made it this far into the comments without somebody posting
"What about battered men?".
Perhaps we could ask Travis Alexander what he thinks of all of this.
Perhaps we can get in touch with him with a OUIJA board. Or perhaps sitting around a table with burning candles and holding hands.
I have neighbors who argue a lot and sometimes it sounds like domestic violence. I asked my landlord what to do. He said talk to the police if it's noisy. I called a domestic violence hotline. They said talk to the police. I talked to the police. He took notes but said he can't do anything unless there's actually domestic violence happening. I can't ever be sure of that because it's just muffled violent-sounding voices through the wall once every 2 weeks. I thought about knocking on the door and asking what's up. I read an article where a guy did that, got into a fist fight, and went to jail for assault while there was no effect for the real assaulter. More than anything I just wonder, "Why does this woman stay with this man? What possible reason could there be? Is she afraid of being beaten? She might already be being beaten. Is she afraid of more violence? Why doesn't she just go to the police? Why doesn't she call the domestic violence hotline?"
Women initiate more violence than men in relationships, and women's initiation of violence is the best predictor that they will be injured.

@32: Actually your example undercuts your argument. The reason this case got so much attention is because it was a novelty. Men kill the women they are involved with every single day. When the situation is reversed it is cause for a network circus because it happens so seldom.
But you know that.
I am a man. I am a man who thinks we need a men's movement, who sees *some* real anti-man discrimination in the world (as a conscientious father who's paying attention, you can't NOT see it). I really do. I also see blind spots that represent damaging double standards for men in our society. I also also think that many of our institutions are built to guarantee the failure of a unnecessarily high percentage of boys and men. There are loads of facts and data to support this.

But my experience, the numbers, facts of my family, my community, etc don't lie: men also have a violence problem and gun culture makes it exponentially worse. I also think rape culture is a real thing and is men's problem, not society's or women's. That's relevant here too. Great article.
@34: It's ok if women hit men!
said NOBODY EVER when discussing the problem of intimate partner violence.
Oh wait I take that back!
Stupid people say that, which is why smart people don't take that sort statement into account.
Which makes you.........?
I love when the MRA crowd shows up to trot out research studies presented out of context as proof teh menz are being oppressed... because reminding folks these douchebags exist becomes less of a hassle when they do it for me.
@37 The number of tv shows, movies (Sideways, Waiting to Exhale [yes, destroying someone's property counts as domestic violence]), popular songs (Before He Cheats), etc. that use female violence against men as a punchline or portray it as a justified response belie your claim that no one thinks it is ok for women to hit men.

But that aside, if we asked the average person what the gender ratio of domestic violence was, what do you think they would say? 80% male perpetrators 20% female? And the average feminist would probably guess 90%/10%. After all, we have a national Violence Against Women Act and major public figures making "there is no excuse for violence against women" PSA's, with nothing similar for men.

If you look at the true numbers, intimate partner violence is about even between the sexes. Don't you think, if we are going to talk about this issue, we should use real facts, not grossly wrong assumptions?
@38 Yet the MRA have no tears for their fellow men who were gunned down by crazy men with guns and domestic violence charges: what's up with that? You'd think men would believe they have a right to live without some crazy or angry SOB w/gun shooting whomever in a frenzy because of relationship trouble. You'd think they'd post about that. You'd think they'd garner some support from women who also believe they have a right to live without some crazy or angry SOB w/gun... so why do we see so few of those posts, while the trolls post shrill inanities? Where is the challenge to the ways traditional, patriarchal policies adversely impact men?

I'm suspecting they are poorly paid astroturfers who, unable to participate in a fruitful discussion about how domestic violence hurts innocent men and women, settle for misogynistic issue misdirection. Certainly they aren't persuading anyone.
@39- I'd love to know where you found those numbers. I don't believe it for a second, but will change my mind if I can peruse the data.

The numbers I use in my safe dating curriculum presented to 8th grade students is "95% of known victims of intimate partner violence are females abused by male partners." also "Intimate partner violence is the most common cause of injury for women ages 16-44 in the US, more than car accidents, muggings and rapes combined" Those both come from the DOJ.

There is, sadly, quite a bit of science behind the claims that boys, especially minority boys, are set up to fail in our current education and juvenile justice systems. 'The War on Boys' was a pretty good read.

Could you tell me where I could find those figures showing that intimate partner violence is about even between the sexes? I find this really hard to believe, but if presented with solid evidence I will believe it. But that evidence is needed.

As for all of the misogynistic comments on the thread. And all of the "but women hit men too" comments. Once you start to question the patriarchal society we live in, and once you start to call into question the oppression of women, and once you bring to light the violence perpetrated by men against women, then all of the men who feel threatened by the possible loss of power and priviledge come crawling out of the woodwork.

In my opinion we should be talking about violence against women committed by men (like in this article), but also a second discussion would be in order discussing men's violence in general. Men behave violently toward women, but toward other men as well. Why are men so violent in general and what could be done about it?

I am a man.
@41 here's enough numbers to keep you busy for awhile:


And the CDC found in 2010 that 4.7% of men experienced "physical violence" from an intimate partner in the last 12 months, vs. 4.0% of women. When rape and stalking are included, the numbers are 5.0% men vs. 5.9% women.


(see tables 4.1 and 4.2 on page 48.)

So you might not believe that it is 50/50, but it certainly looks like your 95%/5% number is way, way, off. Where does it come from?

From the CDC report:

More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

You provided the evidence, I stand corrected.
@39: I wrote a short post which you did not read.

Nothing in your response refutes mine.
STUPID PEOPLE think that it's ok for women to hit or abuse men, which is why, when discussing intimate partner violence, SMART PEOPLE, don't make that argument.
Since no one here is making that argument, because we all agree that it is NOT OK for women to hit or abuse men we are force to conclude that you are bringing it up in bad faith.
Or that you are stupid.
Orr both.
I'm going to go with both.
So only stupid people like that Carrie Underwood song, or enjoyed the movie Sideways, in which Sandra Oh beats the hell out of Thomas Hayden Church with a motorcycle helmet? Or the car commercial where the sexy female robot drop-kicks a guy into a wall, and it is played for laughs? (Visualize that with the genders reversed).

It's even on TV Tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Ma…

But hey, boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them.
I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to $85 per/h. Without a doubt this is the easiest and most financially rew. job I've ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life. Here's what I do http://going1.com
@43: Jesus Christ, not this again. You have cited the same article you did before and YET AGAIN you have failed to look at section 5!!!!!!

This would completely undermine your entire point, right? You are not an honest person. You cherrypick parts of reports and then ignore their conclusions.
@44: Read section 5 (or better yet, the entire report). Adversary cherrypicked the one part of the report that would support his conclusion. He then ignored all of the other parts that ripped it to shreds.
Delirian, what is your fucking problem? The report says exactly what I said it says: men experience as much or more intimate partner violence as women. If you think other numbers in the report are more important, make your case. Personally I think the counterintuitive fact that women hit men as much or more as men hit women, in a world where most people believe men are more violent by far (and where that has major legal and social consequences), is pretty important.

And it isn't just this study. I cite this one because it comes straight from the government, so it doesn't get attacked as some kind of MRA conspiracy. But if you'd like some other studies confirming women's violence, here's a link to 286 of them, with 371,600 total participants:

Here's a nice link from noted MRA serpents' nest, The Huffington Post:

That last one shows that the biggest risk factor for women getting injured (which I guess is what you are latching onto, that women are more likely to be injured) is women's own initiation of violence.

Relationship violence is a problem. But it isn't the one-sided problem of men abusing women that it is portrayed as.
@50: You lie out of your fucking ass. You glossed over the 'minor' part of the report that showed that women suffer PTSD symptoms 4 times as often as men, are injured 4 times as often, and needed medical care 5 times as often as men.

Fuck off troll.
How about we think about the victims? There are women, children, men, extended families, and friends that domestic violence affects. This article can help to raise awareness about domestic violence and work towards finding solutions to the loopholes that allow further domestic violence to occur. Obviously this article isn't saying ALL men smack women around or ALL women sit there and take it or ALL women/men lie about it. We do need to start talking about domestic violence, talking about healthy relationships and what they look like, and offering our support to those who may need to escape emotionally or physically violent situations/environments. It's not always as simiple as walking away and staying away.
@51 Not talking about what you think I should be talking about is not "glossing something over." Accurately reporting figures from reputable studies is not "lying." You sure are touchy when your sexist stereotypes (men are brutes, women are innocent victims) are threatened.

You are entitled to prioritize and place more value on some numbers than I do, just like I am entitled to think other numbers carry more weight. But you aren't entitled to your own facts. The numbers on use of violence are there in black and white and I have cited them accurately. Stamping your feet like a toddler because it isn't what you want to hear isn't going to change anything. Don't blame me, blame the hundreds of social science researchers who are doing the studies.
@53: You don't think it is important that that women suffer PTSD symptoms 4 times as often as men, are injured 4 times as often, and needed medical care 5 times as often as men? You didn't think that was an important part of the report?

You are a fucking liar.
@54 read the Huffpo link. "...the most likely [scenario] to result in future injury to women is when she initiates violence against him and he responds..."

'...of women who were in a battered women's shelter, "67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year."'

Women getting hurt because they attacked their partners is rather a different picture than women getting beaten by abusive men, wouldn't you say? The fact that you needed medical care doesn't mean you aren't the one at fault.

Earlier in this comment thread we had someone who teaches a safe dating curriculum talking about women as victims 95% of the time. That is far from true. Anyone who truly cares about reducing intimate partner violence, not to mention not unfairly stigmatizing men and boys as violent abusers, should care about what the real data says.
@46: Again, in a discussion regarding the problem of intimate partner violence, which, of course, none of the examples you have cited happen to be, no one but a stupid person would make that argument.

And I never said boys were stupid, I said you, personally, Adversay, were stupid.
@55: Why don't you think it is important that that women suffer PTSD symptoms 4 times as often as men, are injured 4 times as often, and needed medical care 5 times as often as men?

Your answer: "because they deserved it".

You are a misogynist and a liar.
@49 Okay I need to take the time to read the entire thing. I picked up the stat from the report´s intro.

It might be that men and women get abused at somewhat the same rates, but women then appear to be injured seriously more often? But are we talking about intimate partner abuse or severity of injury?

It would also be nice to see some data on rates of death as a result of intimate partner violence. I have the feeling that women end up being killed more often by their male partners than the other way around, but this time as well I will wait to see (find) the evidence before jumping to (incorrect?) conclusions.
I never cease to be amazed at just how quickly any article on DV becomes a giant bitch fest over stats.

Wake up folks. This is what the MRA crowd does and they do it on purpose.

If everybody is arguing about stats nobody is actually doing anything about the problem.
@59 Don't you think that "Understanding what the problem is" should precede "Doing something about the problem"? If you believe the problem is 95% men abusing women, like @41 thought, that suggests pretty different solutions than if you believe that women initiate most violence in relationships, and are most often injured after violence they initiated. Which is what the research I've cited actually shows.

If that research is correct, "Doing something about the problem" could mean *arresting more women for domestic violence.* For one thing, they are starting it; simple justice demands they get arrested. For another, put yourself in the shoes of a man whose female partner gets crazy and violent with him. The one thing he *cannot* do under present conditions is call the police. If he does, he'll be the one to go to jail.

So, without law enforcement to turn to, he may wind up defending himself in a way that hurts her. Paradoxically, if men knew that they would get fair treatment from cops and courts (rather than confronting a system that believes they are the abusers 95% of the time), fewer women would get hurt.

I agree, let's do something about the problem. Let's arrest the real-life Sandra Ohs and Carrie Underwoods of the world.
Here's a paper arguing that domestic violence against women is more common than domestic violence against men.


Here's a paper arguing that the surveys used to determine rates of violence by gender are inaccurate because of under-reporting.
Here's some papers showing that women are roughly 300% more likely to be murdered by a partner/spouse than men.




@61: In Washington State if a man calls in a DV on his female partner she will be arrested because intimate partner violence is intimate partner violence either way you slice it.
But you knew that.
@63 Sure, that is the way it is supposed to work. You are naive if you think it works that way in practice. I am a criminal defense attorney who used to practice in Washington State. I rarely ever saw a woman prosecuted for DV, and saw a lot of questionable prosecutions of men.

Here's a study in one major city that found that 47% of women arrested for DV against a male intimate partner had their cases dismissed by the prosecutor; another 16% were dismissed by the judge. "Female defendants arrested for offending against a male intimate partner were treated more leniently than male defendants and women arrested for domestic offenses involving other types of relationships..."

Have you heard of the "primary aggressor" doctrine? See, what happened is, feminists got mandatory arrest laws passed, requiring police to make an arrest if they had probable cause to believe domestic violence had occurred. To the feminists' surprise, this led to "a proportionately greater increase in arrests of women compared to men...." So they argued for a policy of requiring police to determine who the "primary aggressor" was.

Here's a study that found that "primary aggressor and dominant aggressor laws, although written in gender-neutral language, are gender biased (mostly against men)..."

But I guess you didn't know about this?
I too am sick to death of these gender advocacy stories, especially on domestic violence. The 2011 CDC survey on intimate partner violence (they didn't use the term "domestic violence," obviously for political reasons), showed that nearly as many men as women reported to be the victims of domestic violence; in fact, it reported that in the prior twelve month period, 25 percent more men than women reported being the victim of domestic violence. At that rate, in another ten years more men than women may report to be the victim of domestic violence, and still everyone will ignore it. The Jodi Arias murder case, if nothing else, showed that women can lie about domestic violence, and their advocates are so biased that they will believe anything they say. It also showed that the reason why advocates ignore domestic violence by women--that men are "bigger"--is much less a factor than the myth; "smaller" women can nullify any size "advantage" by attacking men when they are in a vulnerable position--including taking advantage of a "passive" temperament. And let's be real about these "studies" that women's advocates always use to back-up their claims: They are compiled by advocates who use twisted "definitions" that always insure that their claims are "proven."
hmmm my ex wife got caught messing around when i went to file for divorce a flood of domestic violence charges followed.i was arrested every time i turned around, even the cops in my district told desk cop "no we know that guy if that big mother effer hit her you would know it! she just came in here looking like she was a ebony fashion fair model" when a baltimore county female judge told her "lady i thought told you get a divorce attorney your marriage is over!!"she ran into the city of baltimore lying to them.women have lied so much in baltimore they are less safe today that the late 80's when my ex was doing all this lying. now the courts do not rush to kick men out of the house making women less safer today
Oh, and I should point out one other thing about that CDC report: Also in the prior 12-month period of the survey, 75 percent as many men as women reported "serious" injury from domestic violence incidents--not the 10 percent as some fanatic here claimed from another female-biased "study."
This article would have been better balanced if the mass shooting that occurred in September 2010 in White Center was also evaluated. It was a grandmother that shot her family.
@68 The grandmother shooting would be better suited to a "mentally ill people shouldn't own guns" article, lots of Seattle-area material for that. I didn't see any domestic violence charges for Chhouy Harm/Saroeun Phan, but she had been in and out of institutions. I did not see Chhouy/Saroeun's name in Seattle Municipal Court, nor Washington State court records, so she was not charged with domestic violence while living in this state.
Another thought about why articles about DV turn into "giant bitch fests" over stats:

Suppose people regularly wrote articles proclaiming that the vast bulk of child sexual abuse was committed by gay men. I would certainly hope that each and every one of those articles turned into "giant bitch fests" over stats. Similarly, each and every article proclaiming global warming a myth should turn into a "giant bitch fest" over the stats/science.

As long as people keep hiding the ball on the facts, the bitch fest will continue.
Step 1: Men, over the course of centuries, create a culture where their dominance is assumed, and where women are treated as delicate, emotional, manipulative, untrustworthy, and in need of protection from men.

Step 2: Men are shocked, SHOCKED to find that they are assumed to be the aggressors when violence involving "the weaker sex" occurs.
Thank you for this article. I am Justine`s mom. We struggle with grief each and every day. People need to learn to respect each other, to treat others the way you'd want to be treated. Justine, and the other victims, didn't deserve to die the way they did. No one deserves to suffer from dv, whether physical or verbal. I would not wish what we are going through on anyone. Thank God we have Justine`s memories. Her ashes are home with us, in a handmade wooden urn, where they should be.
Oh, I see the women-are-worse-at-DV guy found his way into this thread, citing the same, isolated statistic that contadicts the remaining data of the 50+ page report it came from. One would think that, were this one figure representative of reality and not an outlier, he would have more than one stat from one report. But of course this would require that one could think.
@72 (susanmeyer), I'm so sorry for your loss.
@73 One would think if you could read, you'd read up higher in this very thread @50, links to hundreds of other studies.

E.g., Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households . In terms of measures: subjects were asked "how many arguments during the past year resulted in 'you hitting, shoving or throwing things at a partner.' They were also asked how many arguments ended with their partner, 'hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'" Author reports that, "victimization rates are slightly higher among men than women <9% vs 7%> and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were identified as perpetrators <2% vs 1%>.")

And Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)

"In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…

So how about this: all you smug assholes with your sexist ideas about men as brutes and women as innocent victims, give me one--just one--study showing men as, let's say, 80% of the perpetrators of domestic violence. This must be a social science (not criminological) study with a significant sample size, done by an independent governmental or academic body (not an advocacy group). C'mon, you can do it. I've given you hundreds of studies. You're so sure of yourselves. I am sure you have facts to back it up.

Come on, just one little study.
@75, I've been over this with you before. I am an epidemiologist. Conducting and analyzing large studies is what I do for a living, so I bristle when people from outside the field play loose with epidemiological research for their own ends.

The list you posted (which you've posted before) was curated with prejudice by someone seeking out studies that arrived at a specific conclusion; it is not an exhaustive analysis of all available data, nor does it offer any insight into methodology of any of the papers on the list. All it tells you is that sometimes studies contradict the larger body of evidence, which is not a controversial or entirely rare event in scientific research. If I were so inclined I could compile a bunch of studies that show there is no link between smoking and cancer, but that wouldn't tell you anything resembling the truth.
@75, BTW, there are currently 6502 replies to the query "domestic violence" on pubmed, which means the 286 studies on your list represent about 4% of available, published research into the topic.
@77 ...and still not one study. I didn't think so.
@78, What? If you want to actually understand this topic on its own terms, go to www.pubmed.gov, type in "domestic violence" and have at it. It is not my responsibility nor my concern to educate you.
@78: I googled "domestic violence perpetrator statistics"; this was the first hit:


It states that "85% of domestic violence victims are women." The footnotes show that the number came from here:


This might be too criminological for you, but it's interesting because it directly addresses the role methodology plays in differing measurements:

NIJ researchers have found, however, that collecting various types of counts from men and women does not yield an accurate understanding of battering and serious injury occurring from intimate partner violence. National surveys supported by NIJ, CDC, and BJS that examine more serious assaults do not support the conclusion of similar rates of male and female spousal assaults. These surveys are conducted within a safety or crime context and clearly find more partner abuse by men against women.

For example, NVAWS found that women are significantly more likely than men to report being victims of intimate partner violence whether it is rape, physical assault, or stalking and whether the timeframe is the person's lifetime or the previous 12 months. [3] NCVS found that about 85 percent of victimizations by intimate partners in 1998 were against women. [4, 5]

The studies that find that women abuse men equally or even more than men abuse women are based on data compiled through the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), a survey tool developed in the 1970s. CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence. [6, 7]

A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of "systematic, persistent, and injurious" violence is perpetrated by men.

BJS reports that 30 percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5 percent of male homicide victims, and that 22 percent of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3 percent are male. [9] Researchers that use city- and State-generated databases for analysis, however, attribute 40–50 percent of female homicides to intimate partners. This discrepancy likely results from omission of ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends from the Federal Supplementary Homicide Reports that are used by BJS. Ex-boyfriends account for up to 11 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by men, and ex-girlfriends account for up to 3 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by women.

My conclusion from this is that if you ignore severity (serious injury and death), men and women perpetrate domestic violence on a somewhat equal basis. If you take severity into account, men are the main (but not the only) perpetrators.

Minard's article is specifically about DV abusers who go on murder sprees, so severity is a relevant consideration for the matter at hand, regardless of your personal feelings on the subject.
@80 Interesting link. I followed from the link you provided to the source document, here:

On pages 22 and 23 it talks about the difference between the methodology of the National Family Violence Survey, and the methodologies of the National Violence Against Women survey and the National Criminal Victimization Survey. (NFVS shows gender parity in committing DV, the others show men as majority perpetrators.)

The difference is, the NFVS asks about both what acts you *committed*, and what acts you were a victim of. The others only ask about victimization. In the NFVS, if a woman says she hit her male partner, that counts as a male victim. But in the other two, a male victim only gets counted if the man himself says he is a victim.

I.e., the evidence for gender parity comes from *women themselves* saying yes, I hit/kicked/threw something at my partner. It stands to reason that men are unlikely to admit being victimized by a woman (or even to perceive the act as an assault). I'd compare this to sexual assault: it is widely accepted that women are reluctant to report sexual assault, due to socialization/shame/etc. The same socialization may lead men to under-report physical assaults by women.

2 other points: regarding murders, while it does seem that more men kill their female partners than vice versa, the discrepancy isn't as extreme as this makes it sound. In 2010, 241 men and 1095 women were killed by intimate partners. That means of the total 1336 people killed by intimate partners, 18% were men. Stating it as a percentage of total murders, rather than looking at the percentage of domestic murders, magnifies the difference, because men are much more likely to be murdered overall.

The number of women who kill their partners may also be understated, because cases where women hire killers, or get boyfriends or some local teenage boys to do the deed may be counted as multiple-perpetrator homicides rather than intimate partner homicides.

Finally, as for the CTS not capturing motives, such as control or coercion, here's a report indicating that motives like anger, control, and jealousy are significant factors in women's use of intimate partner violence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…

E.g., one study found that "38% of women who used IPV stated that they had threatened to use violence to make their partners do the things they wanted him to do."
The same socialization may lead men to under-report physical assaults by women.

But there's a difference between failing to report a crime to the police and lying in a survey. I don't think I've ever see anyone suggest that rape victims (or domestic violence victims) under-report in surveys, though I would assume there are instances where respondents fail to recognize their experiences for what they were.

That means of the total 1336 people killed by intimate partners, 18% were men.

Since murder isn't vulnerable to under-reporting bias, your statistic demonstrates that women make up 82% of DV murder victims, which is consistent with the 80-90% range for female victimization cited by various sources.

The number of women who kill their partners may also be understated, because cases where women hire killers, or get boyfriends or some local teenage boys to do the deed may be counted as multiple-perpetrator homicides rather than intimate partner homicides.

Or the number of women perpetrators could be overstated if the statistics include cases where a woman kills a man in self-defense. Since the 82% number tracks pretty closely with the ratio between male and female murder perpetrators generally (90% male in the US), I don't see any reason to be overly suspicious about gross underestimation or overestimation here.

I have to say, this whole men vs. women fight is a major derail; Minard's article doesn't suggest that laws (or law enforcement) should be gender-specific. So why does it matter who abuses more? Even in the examples Minard cites, at least four of the victims were men who got too close to someone else's domestic violence. It would seem both men and women would benefit from depriving abusers of guns.
I never said women are not killed more often by intimate partners than men are. My original claim was, "Women initiate more violence than men in relationships, and women's initiation of violence is the best predictor that they will be injured."

It's true, I was not responding to the article itself, but to the beliefs I felt were being expressed in the comments.
as soon as you get the "why are we talking about this, why arent we talking about bankers, etc" the discussion goes over to the wingnuts.
@72 (susanmeyer): I'm really sorry to read about the loss of your daughter, Justine, and of all the grief you and your family are experiencing. My heartfelt condolences for all.

@83: What on earth makes you think that women exclusively initiate domestic violence in sexual relationships with men?! Neither gender ever asks to get brutally raped, beaten, or blown away by a loaded firearm. Have you ever been in an abusive relationship, before? Well, I have and my ex was the one--NOT I---who repeatedly wanted to "bring it on", and send the "game" into double-overtime. Despite his highly stressful job way back when, my ex had a serious anger management problem and was damaged goods long before I foolishly married him. I finally had no choice but to leave him, and am fortunate that I never had any children with him.
Ahhh, shit--wrong choice of words.
I meant "In addition to his highly stressful job..." instead of "Despite".

But seriously, nobody asks to get raped, beaten, or shot.
@85 Not "exclusively." Just "more often." And what make me think this is the social science research.

"As in many studies of IPV, the OYS found that much IPV is bidirectional (meaning both are violent), and in unidirectional abusive relationships, the women were more likely to be abusive than the men."

@87 Adversary: Um, okay. You can bring on all your IPV studies and data you want, but I'm still sticking with my comment @13. Glenn Sack's analysis tells some, but not the whole story, and from what I read, it's a bit distorted. Not everyone's situation is exactly the same. While I agree that BOTH men and women can and do lie, and BOTH genders are equally capable of committing violent abuse, contributing equally to toxic unhealthy relationships, the likelihood of just who is most guilty of initiating the violent abuse cannot be pinned exclusively on either sex. Blanket statements often prove inaccurate in their analyses, and Glenn Sack's article reads to me like a vicious backlash on women who have faced abuse from dangerously violent intimate heterosexual partners.

In the number of reported domestic violence cases surveyed and used statistically in Glenn Sack's article, was the majority of IPV victims female? Was this finding determined by a number of incidents in which the cops showed up JUST in time to see a female abuse victim getting caught hitting her attacker back in self defense after FINALLY HAVING ENOUGH? And if female abuse victims, particularly those with children by abusive spouses or boyfriends, start defending themselves after their expressed non-violence only proves ineffective, and that suddenly labels them "unfit parents" by Child Protection Services, who exactly then is really doing the "initiating"?

I did absolutely nothing to "initiate' my ex-spouse's violent behavior. He was habitually brooding, ill-tempered, domineering, overly argumentative, aggressively controlling and manipulative, repeating the ugly cycle of abuse already conditioned in him by his father and grandfather. My ex may have been a reliable, hard working and greatly respected colleague among his peers and employers, but in truth he was a vicious tyrant at home behind closed doors. And you sure didn't want to drink with him. Alcohol only made things worse. Again, this goes both ways, but did Sack's article offer analyses on victims of PIV whose significant others forced aggressive, drunken, unwanted sex on them?
I had no choice but to leave a toxic relationship behind, finally after having to fight a man 40 lbs heavier than I was, literally for my life.

In conclusion, I find Glenn Sack's article that pins the blame on non-violent victims of abuse, regardless of their gender, a bit hard to swallow.

Again, this goes both ways, but did Sack's article offer analyses on victims of PIV whose significant others forced aggressive, drunken, unwanted sex on them?

Your suspicions are warranted. The studies that support Sacks's claims about women being the initiators of domestic violence don't count sexual assault as domestic violence. They use Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) to identify DV, which also has the flaw of omitting motive. According to CTS, hitting someone as they tried to sexually assault you would be considered domestic violence, but the sexual assault itself would not. CTS is widely criticized for this reason. My post @80 refers to my source on this.