The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 30, 2014, 02:31 PM   #1
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
Domestic Violence and Gun Control

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/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 03:25 PM   #2
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
On ABC’s The View they showed a copy of Bloomberg’s video, but it didn’t necessarily get the desired response from the hosts. Three of the four host actually support having guns for protection and even related stories of previous threats in their lives.

http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/vid...VDKA0_8j9003qu
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 04:39 PM   #3
CWKahrFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2010
Posts: 1,818
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.
__________________
What did Mrs. Bullet say to Mr. Bullet? ... "We're having a BeeBee!"...

IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!... IF THE GUN FITS, SHOOT IT!
CWKahrFan is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 04:53 PM   #4
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,347
Don't we already have laws that ban possession of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors?
2damnold4this is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 05:05 PM   #5
pathdoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2013
Posts: 474
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.
pathdoc is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 07:02 PM   #6
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Three of the four host actually support having guns for protection and even related stories of previous threats in their lives.
I think that's the difference. Each one had been threatened inside their homes with nothing substantive to defend themselves.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 07:17 PM   #7
Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 3,664
Gabby, and Mark Giffords are out promoting the concept that gun rights are equivalent to "a part of the war on women". Nothing could be further for the truth.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...A-War-On-Women
__________________
Pilot
Pilot is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 07:25 PM   #8
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
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.
Kimio is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 07:50 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,403
Quote:
Don't we already have laws that ban possession of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors?
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?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 30, 2014, 10:26 PM   #10
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,941
Quote:
...not sure restricting the freedoms of law abiding citizens is the way to go about it. (My emphasis)
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.)

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.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; July 30, 2014 at 10:55 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 10:40 AM   #11
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
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.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 10:48 AM   #12
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,347
Quote:
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.

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?
2damnold4this is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 11:12 AM   #13
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
What are the new proposals and what would the proposals do that isn't already being done?
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-re...m-gun-violence

http://www.momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 12:33 PM   #14
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,941
Moved to L&CR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2damnold4this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
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.
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?
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.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 12:34 PM   #15
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 720
"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.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 12:51 PM   #16
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 670
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.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 01:56 PM   #17
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 653
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
Sharkbite is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 02:03 PM   #18
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
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
How about this offering from the good folks at GLOCK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHWT...vJ9eV76i9tiSxb
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 02:24 PM   #19
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 912
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.
Kimio is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 03:13 PM   #20
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
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?
JimDandy is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 03:37 PM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,403
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 03:43 PM   #22
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,453
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Old July 31, 2014, 07:11 PM   #23
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,482
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.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

Last edited by jimpeel; July 31, 2014 at 07:18 PM.
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 1, 2014, 08:11 AM   #24
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,199
It has already been yanked.
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Everytown for Gun Safety."
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old August 1, 2014, 08:40 AM   #25
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,673
JimDandy, you said:
Quote:
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.
That would constitute self-defense. The story actually said:
Quote:
she bit his finger, he pinched her nose,
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.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12485 seconds with 7 queries