Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

beardown

(363 posts)
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 01:14 PM Aug 2015

All in the family mass shootings

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/under-reported-truth-behind-most-mass-shootings

Fifty-seven percent of mass shootings in America between 2009 and July 2015 involved a family member or intimate partner...

Though 69 percent of intimate partner homicides were committed by a spouse in 1980, the number of murders committed by a dating partner rose to nearly 50 percent by 2008. Only 10 states have gun bans against misdemeanor domestic violence abusers who have attacked women they’ve dated
--------------------

Want to reduce gun violence without taking on a constitutional amendment? Update state laws to reflect the reality that fewer long term couples are getting married and extend domestic violence aspects to outside of marriage. If you beat or threaten violence against your mate, married or not, you shouldn't be toting a gun.

There are lots of ways to reduce, greatly reduce, gun violence in America short of the nuke option. Gun control advocates should put their efforts into measures that are doable and appropriate, instead of meaningless feel good actions like coming up with yet another phallic association for guns.

I really fired up an old private discussion group several years ago when I said, somewhat tongue in cheek, that eliminating all guns to solve gun violence is akin to jailing all men to end sexual violence. Sure it would 'solve' the problem, but at what cost?
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
2. This may work. IIRC, some states, like Florida, don't require a spouse or partner to
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 03:26 PM
Aug 2015

Press charges. The State's Attorney can press charges upon credible evidence a crime has been committed.

beardown

(363 posts)
4. National Republicans Association?
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 06:22 PM
Aug 2015

What NRA are you referencing? the National Rifle one has been behind addressing domestic violence gun issues at least since last year per this snip from April, 2014

As the Huffington Post reports, the NRA consented to HB 1840, a Washington state bill making it legal to strip abusers of their guns if they are served with “no-contact orders, protection orders, [or] restraining orders.” And while the bill was signed into law last month, the NRA also approved similar measures elsewhere, within the last year. Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Minnesota have signed or advanced legislation banning abusers from keeping guns if they’ve been issued an order or charged with misdemeanors, all with NRA support.


Not that they are suddenly wearing all white hats as part of the reason is to encourage more gun ownership for women.


The NRA is obviously the controllers' big enemy and knowing your enemy is a big part of winning any battle. If you don't know what the NRA does and does not support, how in the heck can you effectively counter their agenda? I read a lot of comments from gun supporters here about how the gun controllers don't get much done and at first I thought it was just a mild counter to the routine insults accompanying the controller posts, but I'm beginning to see that there is a lot of truth to the comments.

It's one thing not to know the muzzle velocity of a AR-15 at above 5,000 feet elevation, but whiffing on a easily discovered NRA position shows just how little effort the controllers put into solving the issue of gun violence. Heck man, you didn't even have to leave your keyboard to discover it.

Response to flamin lib (Reply #5)

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
7. Thanks for the reminder that there are people who favor confiscation!
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:59 PM
Aug 2015

Guess I'll copy/paste this to the "Nobody wants to take your guns" thread.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
10. Well, if you mean confiscation of guns from people who beat the hell out of a date
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 10:09 AM
Sep 2015

then, yeah, post this in the confiscation thread.

The NRA has categorically opposed any expansion of domestic violence laws to dating partners regardless of how long the relationship has been. I thought the OP was in favor of extending the protections of domestic violence laws to unmarried partners. Am I mistaken?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
13. "I do not want to play with the NRA children. I would have just their man-toys be taken away."
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 03:07 PM
Sep 2015

That refers to domestic abusers, not at all.

That same poster said 'we're coming for your guns..."

Nice try though.

beardown

(363 posts)
8. So why say convince them of something that you already knew they were doing?
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:48 PM
Aug 2015

Because they weren't 100 percent on board with every sub-section of every bill it means they aren't doing it? I assume that the vast majority of legislation at the state level involves a lot of give and take and horse trading so how is this action any different? I agree that the NRA is kicking and screaming as they get dragged into the 21st century and giving women equal footing, but even I have to give them credit for supporting the bills now.

When you get bogged down in this level of a purity test it's no wonder so little positive gains are made by anti-gunners. Interestingly enough, there is a form of government that not only routinely passes legislation without any compromises it also confiscates guns. Maybe the term 'lib' in your name doesn't mean what I think it means.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
9. Just to make sure I understand . . .
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 10:06 AM
Sep 2015

A guy beats shit out of his wife and it's okay to restrict his access to guns.

A guy beats shit out of woman on the first date and it's not okay to restrict his access to guns.

Is that your take on the situation?

beardown

(363 posts)
11. Not in my world.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 10:58 AM
Sep 2015

The more abusers that lose their rights to carry guns the better. The more people that can't control their anger that lose their rights to carry guns the better.

As I noted, the NRA is kicking and screaming while getting dragged to do the right thing with regards to domestic violence. Are they there yet? No. Have they reversed one of their major positions? Yes.

Per that major position, you are the one that said 'Convince the NRA' and then posted a link to info that shows they have moved in that direction, albeit not enough. Somewhat of a self debating link. Perhaps, "Convince the NRA to complete the job" would have been a more clear response, but in the world of the internet tubes a simple misunderstanding.

Do you have detailed info on what the LA back story was on keeping daters and chokers out of the bill? I'd guess it was linked to some other wording that the LA legislators had a problem with as I don't see much of a pro-choking voting block out there. Note, I'm skipping any LA jokes. Did it have anything to do with evidence of an assault which kind of ties to the old problem of how does a woman prove rape if she didn't get beat to crap during the rape?

This is the kind of reform that provides clear improvement and that can garner support across the board as it removes guns from criminals. Let's team up to solve the solvable problems and we might get to a place where citizens have guns and the USA does not have a gun problem.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
12. This is the part I'm referring to:
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:17 AM
Sep 2015

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628895

The NRA blocked expanding the law to "dating partners" because, and the spokesperson really said this, "it could apply after only one date." So it's OK to beat someone on the first date? Really? That's all ya got?

The NRA also objected to categorizing strangulation as an act of violence. So go ahead, choke her into unconsciousness but don't hit her unless it's on the first date, then have at it.
============

Your OP was about expanding the definition of DV and protections to non-spousal partners. Yes, that is exactly what needs to happen but it is the stated position of the NRA to oppose any expansion or re-definition of DV. That's what I meant when I said "convince the NRA".

I'm with you, it's the NRA and frankly a lot of the regulars in this group that oppose you.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
14. "(I)t's...frankly a lot of the regulars in this group that oppose you."
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 09:57 PM
Sep 2015

That's what you'd like everyone to believe...

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
16. Beating the shit out of ANYONE should lose you your firearms rights.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 12:23 PM
Sep 2015

The exception being legitimate cases of self defense...and even then it's not okay to keep beating someone after they cease to be a threat.

Of course, this requires a conviction or at least an arrest/indictment. The problem is, far too many people won't press charges against an intimate partner.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»All in the family mass sh...