Domestic Violence and Gun Control

Jim, I know of one situation in which a book was thrown across the room at a spouse. In Georgia, this constituted misdemeanor DV. The defendant plead out to get the whole situation over with. This was in 1988.

They didn't exactly send out a memo when the law went into effect in 1996, and he didn't know until he tried to buy a gun a few years later.
 
Exactly. They just aren't designed to interact with each other. If they want to go after DV, that's great. That's wonderful. They just need to start from scratch and set a unified baseline at the state and federal levels.
 
Bloomberg's strategists screwed up on their latest campaign. They put out an anti-firearms (to them) PSA showing an unarmed woman on the phone telling the police her abusive, court restrained husband was trying to break into her home. He finally does and shoots her.

Not everyone views it as anti-firearms, though.

VIDEO LINK

The upshot is that many people, about 50:50, viewing the PSA find it as more of a pro-firearms message -- that you should have a firearm for self defense in domestic abuse cases. Even the ladies of "The View" agreed, with three out of four of them saying women should arm themselves with a firearm.

VIDEO LINK

However ...

An enterprising YouTuber has massaged the video to an alternate ending.

VIDEO LINK

The YouTube video may not stay up for long if Bloomberg challenges it as copyright infringement.
 
Last edited:
It has already been yanked.
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Everytown for Gun Safety."
 
JimDandy, you said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would constitute self-defense. The story actually said:
she bit his finger, he pinched her nose,
Click to expand...
That sounds more like retaliation, though we cannot say for sure. However, I do understand the point you are making. I especially sympathize with those who, before Lautenberg, may have pled guilty to some sort of minor offense just to get it out of the way, only to find their access to firearms stripped from them many years later.
 
The Lautenberg act stands unique in gun control legislation. Retroactive, no time limit, no exemption for police or active duty military.

I'm unsure how the military is handling it, but I do know that since passage of that law, quite a few professional police have been taken off the streets, and assigned desk jobs, as they can no longer legally possess a gun, thanks to a misdemeanor conviction.

You have to admit it was a slickly marketed bill, focusing on domestic violence, after all, who can argue against keeping wife beaters from having a gun, right?

But, combine a draconian lifetime prohibition with the retroactive increase in punishment it simply boggles my mind.

What ELSE can they do? Seriously?
 
Well im glad that most took a pro gun taste upon viewing it. The domestic violence charges are so trumped up much of the time. I personally have been threatened by four different ladies that they would bruise themselves and turn me in for it in order to get their way, so I don't believe its at all an uncommon thing that is being done. I do not know why someone being stripped of constitutional rights in cases similar to that are not taken more seriously.
 
I must say the DV front on gun law worries me almost as much (perhaps more, as for reasons I'll elaborate) as mental health; it's really one of the few emotional avenues these folks have left that can find any traction (for kids, Newtown wasn't enough; for racism, it's plainly apparent gun laws are strongest in the worst minority neighborhoods and still don't help; for LGBT/other assorted non-ethnic/racial minorities, there aren't nearly enough high profile incidents of targeting to gain traction; for gangsters/crime, rates are dropping and already so low that crime is a distant threat to the daily lives of more and more people; for domestic terrorists, same lack of incidents to play up the fears)

But the domestic violence front dovetails nicely with;
-The latest Hail Mary the DNC is passing to female voters of America (war on wimmin)
-Which in turn dovetails nicely with their likely candidate(s) that will get the most promotion
-Neatly neutralizes the resistance of half the population that disagrees with additional action on the front ("well how could a man possibly understand...blah blah blah" --hey, it worked for abortion, which is where this whole war on wimmin thing got started)
-Is a very direct and personal chord to tug on for women across all of America, since DV and the threat thereof is a threat or worry to many (most?)

To which our only counter-argument is "well, you need to rise to the challenge of someone who would hurt you; with a gun." And, while this is logically the correct solution to the problem, people (not just women) hate being told they need to work or exert effort towards solving problems themselves; they'd much rather someone else do it for them if they are able. To which our call is "they can't do it for you," that will undoubtedly be received as an 'eat your peas' nag, or an attempt to needlessly scare them over to our side (granted, that is what the other side is already doing with a false promise, but the point stands that no one likes being scared into agreeing)

I think touting female empowerment, so women (and men, as well) will be either inspired or guilted into taking care of their business (by undertaking, or at least understanding the measures for self-defense) themselves is probably the best antidote to such fear-mongering. But it's still easier to scare people than to empower them (and generally more profitable, too) so we've got our work cut out for us.

TCB
 
Speaking from personal knowledge... But I would really like to know when DV became women only focused. Sure women make up a majority of reported victems and I am not taking that away in the least bit. DV isn't just wifebeaters, husbandbeaters and their victems are the silent cases nobody hears about, and nobody talks about. As far as I'm concerned, if you are talking decreasing DV and focusing on the women victems, then I call you short sided. I know several men who are current and past victems of DV, a couple have even been convicted of misdemeanor DV charges, even though everyone knew they were the victem, and only got convicted because they fought back and the abuser filed charges of their own...

*gets off soapbox*

Sorry, this is kinda a sensitive subject for me and I didn't mean to derail, but I felt it needed said...
 
That may be true, but regardless how the actual figures out there may or may not be slanted by victims' reporting patterns (likely depressed by both genders), the vast majority of these incidents fall back on the men, and for good reason; DV not involving deadly weapons (which we all know a big portion is not) strongly favors the male, so they themselves become the "deadly weapon" removed in order to de-escalate the situation. It ain't fair, but it's genetics, and our cross to bear.

I suppose I could go into the quite obviously concerted 'war on men' been waged since at least Prohibition, but that's a slightly broader topic that I think is separate from this one, though they do dovetail nicely (as I explained above). That's why I think it is dangerous to us; it is an effective tactic that happens to be favorable to lots of various interest groups in the anti-gun party, so of course it will be used. The saving grace for us seems to be they are rapidly overusing it, and will burn out the meme long before it is needed (either that, or women everywhere will secede from men & the Union, or whatever the goal of this drive is supposed to be ;))

TCB
 
what other misdemeanors can we add to strip your constitutional rights? or, what other constitutional rights can we take away for a misdemeanor conviction? ;)
 
To which our only counter-argument is "well, you need to rise to the challenge of someone who would hurt you; with a gun." And, while this is logically the correct solution to the problem, people (not just women) hate being told they need to work or exert effort towards solving problems themselves; they'd much rather someone else do it for them if they are able. To which our call is "they can't do it for you," that will undoubtedly be received as an 'eat your peas' nag, or an attempt to needlessly scare them over to our side (granted, that is what the other side is already doing with a false promise, but the point stands that no one likes being scared into agreeing)
Click to expand...
This has become so true.
 
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" ) 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.)
Click to expand...

Vanya if you follow the hearings and gun control tactics on this, this is all about restraining orders and not about convictions.

And restraining orders vary immensely across jurisdictions on probative burdens evidentiary rules and defendants' rights.

In many places a target of such an order has essentially no effective way to fight such an order since the orders are not seen as harmful. They are used in the gamesmanship of divorce as tactics in custody and family law proceedings

We can all agree those low burdens are good thing as long as they affect only interaction between the two parties - but since the gun control advocates' strategy is to use them to limit rights generally these extremely low burdens create a leverage that the gun controllers are now seeking to exploit.

There are studies showing up to eight out of ten restraining orders are filed to simply harass.

Given that restraining orders are, in many jurisdictions, given to virtually anyone who applies, removing second amendment rights will cause more abuse of restraining orders than ever before, because if your spouse has a firearm, we will be creating an incentive for the other spouse to file an order request simply to harass.
 
Some people don't know that in mosts states, if you assault any woman who is the mother of your kid, its a domestic even if you don't live together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top