NRA: Guns for Stalkers/Abusers OK, 1st Amendment Not OK

[jimmyz]

[Indy]

LOL I love that non-argument for how stooooopid it is.

One the one hand you insist you need a gun for self-defense--it must be a gun--but when it comes to taking a gun out of the hands of a predator what's the point, because there's other ways you can be killed?



I thought the only response to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. When somebody suggests "Hey, maybe take away the bad guys' guns" your answer is "Well, he could strangle you..."

Pffffft...

[Lobster]

Thing is, that poll said nothing about "convicted". It specifically said "accused". If you don't see the difference maybe you aren't equipped to comment.

[jimmyz]

I foresee many new "reasons" for confiscation of weapons from the accused and convicted. Maybe speeding will become assault with a deadly weapon someday. Or typing imflamatory rhetoric on the web become hate speech. It's and end-around for the ant-gun lobby.

[Indy]

[Lobster]

There is no such thing as a frivolous restraining order. It is always accorded only after long deliberation, never handed out as if it were candy on Halloween. /s

[Dylan]

[exploited]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2193904/

The above link has some statistics that are of particular interest to this discussion.

First, the risk that a woman will die a violent death increases by 270% when a gun is in the home. Second, 30% of all female murder victims are killed by their intimate partners. Just 5% of men are killed by their intimate partners. So this is a problem mostly impacting women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18523113/

This link demonstrates some facts about murder following the issuing of a restraining order:

"RESULTS: About 11% of 231 women killed by male intimates had been issued a restraining order. About one-fifth of the female IPH victims who had a restraining order were killed within 2 days of the order being issued; about one-third were killed within a month..."

So, we can conclude that most victims of IPH did not have a restraining order in place, but that a third of the victims who did were killed within a month of it's issue. A fifth within a few days.

It seems to me that having a cooling down period of one month, after which the gun could be retrieved by the owner, makes a fair bit of sense. Especially since restraining orders should probably be issued more often.

http://www.soundvision.com/Info/domesti ... istics.asp

This link demonstrates that nearly one half of restraining orders are violated. So removing guns from those issued a restraining order may also remove a significant degree of threat women face.

It seems to be a minimal amount of damage to a person's rights in order to prevent dozens of murders every year. There are three incidents of IPH faced by women every day in the US; 11% of approximately 1000 per year is about 100. 33 of them will be killed within a month. So the question becomes what is more onerous to rights: the loss of a gun for a month, or the deaths of 33 abused women per year.

Why not compromise? Put a tracker on these guns that send a message to police if they leave the home within a months time. The owner maintains possession within his home, and the women are protected.

[Dylan]

The gun nuts have said many times they don't care how many people have to die so long as they keep their toys. Win and Eynon said this explicitly.

It's pathetic frankly.

[Indy]