Domestic Violence and Gun Control

B

BarryLee

New member
After failing to implement more stringent gun control measures politicians and pro gun control groups have a new tactic – focusing on domestic violence. The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on guns and domestic violence. Also, Gabby Giffords and Bloomberg are using the issue of domestic violence to push gun control and target Senators who support firearms freedom.

This plays into the overall strategy that Bloomberg discussed several months ago of focusing gun control efforts on women. I suppose it also plays into the bogus war on women we keep hearing about. Domestic violence is a serious issue that we should all be concerned about, but not sure restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens is the way to go about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/politics/domestic-violence-and-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
 
Yeah, in the "ad", I can see that the woman's phone isn't helping her one bit...

Where's HER gun?...

It just shows me that the people putting out that "ad" are completely illogical.
 
Canada, as part of the application process for a firearm licence, actually asks you to list your spouse/partners for the last two years including contact details, and current spouse must sign off on your licence application or you must show cause why the fact that they did not shouldn't raise red flags. IIRC the form is gender-neutral, but it's very clear that it's meant to prevent complete arseholes who slap their women around from having guns.
 
Three of the four host actually support having guns for protection and even related stories of previous threats in their lives.
Click to expand...
I think that's the difference. Each one had been threatened inside their homes with nothing substantive to defend themselves.
 
Argue with emotions, not logic, such is the gun grabbers way/strategy.

That was certainly unexpected, coming from "The View". The host in pink barely got a word in, she almost looked flabbergasted at what she was hearing from her fellow hosts that they were against what the ad was trying to "showcase".

Kind of refreshing really.
 
Don't we already have laws that ban possession of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors?
Click to expand...
We sure do. The Lautenberg Amendment levies a lifetime ban on firearms ownership, even if the offense was a misdemeanor. The law is overbroad and ex post facto. Isn't that exactly what gun-control advocates want?
 
...not sure restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens is the way to go about it. (My emphasis)
Click to expand...
Umm... which "law abiding citizens" are you referring to? The last time I looked, domestic violence was illegal. All the current proposals (such as closing the "dating partner loophole" :rolleyes:) would apply to people with domestic violence convictions, so... not too "law-abiding," it seems. (As to restraining orders, the restriction of rights applies only while the order is active. Although restraining orders are sometimes abused, I don't think the incidence of such abuse is as high as it's sometimes made out to be. I know this is an unpopular position, but I put a high value on the lives of women, who are in something of a double bind with respect to domestic violence: they are at considerable risk of injury or death from an abusive partner, but they are frequently charged and convicted when they do defend themselves, even when there's a clear case that they acted in self-defense.)

That said, a lifetime ban for a misdemeanor is excessive; I'd like to see temporary bans instead, applied to a wider range of violent misdemeanors (not just domestic), on the basis that the best predictor of violence is a history of violence.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I obviously did not choose my words well. I believe the entire emphasis on guns and domestic violence has less to do with actually reducing domestic violence and more to do with demonizing those who oppose more gun control. The CNN article stated that Bloomberg’s video is being used to target Senators who have previously opposed gun control. Obviously they hope that in the upcoming election they can paint Senators who opposed gun control as not caring about women, children, teddy bears, etc and elect individuals who will be more open to their agenda. Yes, this is just my opinion, but I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch.
 
All the current proposals (such as closing the "dating partner loophole" ) would apply to people with domestic violence convictions, so... not too "law-abiding," it seems.
Click to expand...


If these folks already have domestic violence convictions, aren't they already prohibited persons? What are the new proposals and what would the proposals do that isn't already being done?
 
What are the new proposals and what would the proposals do that isn't already being done?
Click to expand...

The Senate proposal is called Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, but I haven’t seen any specifics. I suspect it hasn’t actually been filed yet, so maybe we’ll see an actual Bill shortly. Moms Demand Action wants to see expanded background checks and the reintroduction of the Manchin/Toomey Bill.

As I said earlier I’m not opposed to actions that address the issue of domestic Violence and once we see the actual Bill I guess we can debate it then. I also realize we are supposed to avoid politics, but I fear the entire issue is being used to demonize the NRA and politicians that opposed gun control.

http://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-blumenthal-murphy-introduce-bill-to-protect-domestic-violence-survivors-from-gun-violence

http://www.momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
 
Moved to L&CR.

2damnold4this said:
Vanya said:
All the current proposals (such as closing the "dating partner loophole" ) would apply to people with domestic violence convictions, so... not too "law-abiding," it seems.
Click to expand...
If these folks already have domestic violence convictions, aren't they already prohibited persons? What are the new proposals and what would the proposals do that isn't already being done?
Click to expand...
My reading is that domestic violence would be redefined to include assaults by "dating partners," by which they mean someone a woman is seeing, but who is neither a spouse, ex-spouse, or cohabiting. It's also proposed to include convicted stalkers under this domestic violence rubric.
 
"Canada, as part of the application process for a firearm licence, actually asks you to list your spouse/partners for the last two years including contact details, and current spouse must sign off on your licence application or you must show cause why the fact that they did not shouldn't raise red flags. IIRC the form is gender-neutral, but it's very clear that it's meant to prevent complete arseholes who slap their women around from having guns. "


The current law we already have is overreaching by itself. Glad I don't live in Canada. If a law like this were passed here I would file divorce right then. I refuse to have to have someones signed permission in order to buy anything, and im sure they don't want to ask mine either.
 
From Tim Kaine's article posted by BarryLee:
" Kaine shared the story of Deborah Wigg, a Virginia Beach resident who was tragically shot and killed in 2011 by her separated husband, who, despite being arrested and issued a restraining order for domestic violence against Deborah, never had his gun confiscated as federal law requires."

So why are they making new laws instead of enforcing existing laws?

And from the Moms Demand Action:
"Tragically, our lax gun laws make it easier for abusers to acquire a firearm than it is to purchase a Sudafed."

This is just an outright lie. The gun laws aren't lax. Prohibited persons simply aren't allowed to have guns. Again, it's the enforcement that's lax.
 
What we need to do is make a response video showing the exact same situation except this time the woman on the phone HAS A GUN in the other hand. Attacker busts down door and moves to threaten the child...screen fades to black as shots ring out. New scene, mom holding child in front of house with EMS and Police there in the aftermath
 
A little cheesy, but still gets the point across. I like it. A shame it'll never see the light of day on any of the MS news stations and what have you.

Not enough shock value I'm afraid. Not enough spin doctoring of the scene.
 
The problem isn't a firearms disability for domestic violence convictions. Or including dating partners. The problem is 50 states worth of different DV laws feeding into and triggering a federal law when none of them were specifically crafted to work with each other. Look at this story of some poor guy who was going to get a DV conviction over pinching his wife's nose to get her teeth out of his finger. Does THAT rise to the level we want labeled Domestic Violence? Especially sufficient to strip rights, and in this guy's case residency, citizenship, etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top