Domestic Violence and Guns?

[vvvvvvv]

But you do know that pretty much every domestic murder starts off as a man who just used to hit his wife occasionally and then eventually escalates from there.

And how does that compare to those incidents that don't escalate?

Any why only men?

 

[Regina]

There is (obviously) no way that I can respectfully engage in this conversation so I'm walking away.

 

[reddog1]

I smell a lock comming peeps.....

Anyone for a smoke break? LOL

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

But you do know that pretty much every domestic murder starts off as a man who just used to hit his wife occasionally and then eventually escalates from there

True. And every car accident that causes death begins with someone who just occasionally speeds and drives erratically and gets away with it, and then eventually escalates from there. Therefore, anyone who speeds should have his or her driver's license permanently revoked for the rest of the their lives - CORRECT? (and driving is not even a RIGHT mind you, like the RKBA).

There is (obviously) no way that I can respectfully engage in this conversation so I'm walking away.

Why not? I did it and so did VM, despite being confronted with nonsensical, infuriating statements from you. It takes practice, but if you have valid arguments, you can learn to present them. PM me if you want to cuss too, along with your arguments! Or don't if you agree with us and have no further argument - that's ok, too! We'll be glad we changed your mind!

I'll try one more time with the all-important questions, however:

Well, I'll assume that you're being facetious with that last statement - unnecessary but I can deal. So -let me ask you: What on earth would make you think that just because someone hits someone, they will shoot them next time? Did you EVER hit your brother or sister growing up? In fact, have you ever hit anyone, ever, in anger? If yes, then answer this: If there had been a gun available at that moment, would you have shot them instead? Your answers to those questions, if you answer them, will either tell you all you need to know about the correct result here, or tell us all we need to know about your projection issues.

Another question for you: Look at Veggie Meat's picture thingy: Would you be OK with a lifelong BAN on you being able to protect yourself as depicted from a drunk violent abusive man, just because you hit him previously in self-defense when he was slapping you around, and he lied to the police and said you hit him unprovoked, but you were found guilty of a misdemeanor because he ended up with a bruise (evidence), and you did not (no evidence)? You're ok with that?

Is it that you didn't care for your own answers to them? Why can you not answer these? This is why we have Lautenberg to begin with....

There's no reason at all for lock - it's a simple, civil conversation (so far).

 

[Rajder]

And how does that compare to those incidents that don't escalate?

Any why only men?

I don't have any statistics off hand. All my information comes from my wife who was a crimenology major and makes me watch all of those true crime shows that she watches. But in pretty much every domestic violence murder there is always a history of the man beating the women. At first it starts out small and escalates from there. I'm not saying that every man who hits his wife is going to shoot her. I'm just saying that when a murder does happen, physical abuse is almost always a precursor. So physical abuse is a defenite risk factor that would increase the risk of domestic violence / murder.

Female domestic violence cases are so rare that they are almost statistically insignificant. But when a women kills her husband there is usually not as many warning signs. He just ends up dead and nobody expects it.

 

[Rajder]

True. And every car accident that causes death begins with someone who just occasionally speeds and drives erratically and gets away with it, and then eventually escalates from there. Therefore, anyone who speeds should have his or her driver's license permanently revoked for the rest of the their lives - CORRECT? (and driving is not even a RIGHT mind you, like the RKBA).

If you get caught speeding too often they do take your license away. And if you get busted for DUI you get your license revoked as well. Obviously they are not enforced equally with the domestic violence. But the same basic principles apply.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

If you get caught speeding too often they do take your license away. And if you get busted for DUI you get your license revoked as well. .... the same basic principles apply.

No they DON'T!! Incorrect.

If you have ANY (i.e. One/Uno) DV misdemeanor conviction of any type or nature whatsoever, you LOSE a fundamental right for life. THAT is the SAME as one speeding ticket, never drive again (actually it's much worse, being a right, not a privilege).

That could not possibly be more different than someone who loses for a few years, a legal privilege, after multiple/ many counts of speeding, DUI, on and on. And a DUI is a felony, not a misdemeanor. Which proves the whole point here about the importance of retaining the key misdemeanor/felony distinction, and not having the fedgov interfere unconstutitionally with the STATES' right to determine what is and is not punishable by the rules of felonies, with its incidental fundamental rights losses. [This is as much a state's rights issue, as it is an RKBA issue, and a crime control issue.] There are so many things wrong with that comparison, that it's absurd to even call it an analogy.

And moreover, if you beat up your wife a few times, not just once, I promise you that you WILL be charged with a felony. See above what I said before re: aggravating circumstances, etc. There are several DV felonies in the DA's repertoire to choose from, and they WILL use them (charge you with them) if you're an a-hole recidivist wife beater - I promise you - as well they should!

That is NOTHING like a single loss of a temper in the heat of the moment.

Punishment should fit the crime. The discretion that judges & DAs use to best make that simple principle come to fruition is best done at the state & local level - not by an unconstitutional one-size-fits-all, no-exception law shoved down our throats by Lautenberg, Feinstein, & Schumer, via Washington DC, which cannot and does not take into account the whole picture of all the circumstances, including mitigating circumstances!

 

[bettingpython]

I physically prevented my ex from hitting me a 3rd time, never punched her just got hold of her and tossed her out of the way so I could leave the house with out having to escalate my response any higher than a simple trap and arm bar. We didn't have a phone, I went to the corner to call the police I wanted her and her crap out or I wanted her gone so I could pack my crap and be gone.

I had the black eye and split lip, she didn't have a mark on her, when she screamed DV because I stopped her from bashing my face in with ball bat because I wanted no part of a physical confrontation guess who wound up in handcuffs?

I have no use for a wife beater but I disagree with DV being an excuse to remove your second amendment rights because of my situation.

When the police were finally willing to listen to me, they realized I was the victim (like a couple of morons they beat me to the house, heard her side of the story and wouldn't let me inform them of my permit or pistol before ordering me down on the ground and then they cuffed me without frisking me and had a holy hell we screwed up moment when I finally could get them to listen to me)

Of course when I said I wanted to press charges I got the poor woman just wants to get her stuff and go to her mothers sob story she told them, from them and they didn't file the charges.

 

[SoonerBorn]

I physically prevented my ex from hitting me a 3rd time, never punched her just got hold of her and tossed her out of the way so I could leave the house with out having to escalate my response any higher than a simple trap and arm bar. We didn't have a phone, I went to the corner to call the police I wanted her and her crap out or I wanted her gone so I could pack my crap and be gone.

I had the black eye and split lip, she didn't have a mark on her, when she screamed DV because I stopped her from bashing my face in with ball bat because I wanted no part of a physical confrontation guess who wound up in handcuffs?

I have no use for a wife beater but I disagree with DV being an excuse to remove your second amendment rights because of my situation.

When the police were finally willing to listen to me, they realized I was the victim (like a couple of morons they beat me to the house, heard her side of the story and wouldn't let me inform them of my permit or pistol before ordering me down on the ground and then they cuffed me without frisking me and had a holy hell we screwed up moment when I finally could get them to listen to me)

Of course when I said I wanted to press charges I got the poor woman just wants to get her stuff and go to her mothers sob story she told them, from them and they didn't file the charges.

That's pretty much one of those nightmare scenario's for any decent guy......Geez man, glad you made it out of that without being burned at the stake. That's tough....

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Exactly, thank you - the man always gets the shaft in a tie; and sometimes not even a tie; when it's clear the woman was the aggressor.

We're gonna base our fundamental rights retention decisions on people who are known to regularly lie (both men and women mind you) in domestic situations, to get out of being charged? We are doing this now, because you don't even need to be CONVICTED of a misdemeanor, let alone convicted of a felony, to lose your RKBA for 3 years - all that it takes is a bare allegation, which gets the woman an ex parte emergency TRO, and zing, you're disarmed. What's wrong with this picture? Sorry, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves..... And I would never touch a woman in anger, myself - except in self-defense of course. And even if you get your rights restored, you're gonna be NICS-delayed for the rest of your life every time you get a gun, just because of an unfounded allegation - even if no full hearing on the TRO ever occurs because the woman drops it after the ex parte order. This stuff is maddening to me. It can happen on both sides, but men get screwed a lot, LOT more.

One of the reasons it's maddening is because it's anti-marriage / anti-family when you think about it. If all it takes is a bare allegation, and no proof, who in their right mind (such as myself) would ever get married, even if they want to? Or I suppose the counter-argument is that it's pro-marriage, because it forces the guy and gal to date years before the gun-owner of the couple will be willing to marry, after getting to know the other party thoroughly - which is a good thing, because this intimate knowledge will work in favor of a long healthy marriage - so I guess it does have an upside, arguably, depending on how you look at it.

And does anyone really think that the a-hole wife beaters that are pre-disposed to killing the woman are gonna be deterred by a TRO/DV conviction disarmament? Or just get even more PO'ed, get a gun and do what they were gonna do? The answer is not to disarm the misdemeanor one-time offender, but for women to arm themselves and shoot bastards that beat them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njs