LogFAQs > #977103567

Rasmoh posted...

I don't disagree with taking guns out of the hands of some people accused of DV, but with some knowledge of the system, it's not hard to see why people would be against guns being taken away from people.

See, the issue is that there are four possible outcomes here:

1. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence has their guns taken away
2. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away
3. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and has their guns taken away
4. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away

Option 1 dramatically reduces the risk of the DV victim being murdered. Option 2 creates a substantial risk that the DV victim gets murdered. Option 3 means the accused can't go to the range for a few months until the case plays out and they're found innocent. Option 4 is neutral.

We can't easily control whether or not they're wrongfully accused, so our choice is between taking away the guns - which will either dramatically reduce the risk of murder or mildly inconvenience the accused - and not taking them away - which will either dramatically increase the risk of murder or maintain the status quo. That's not exactly a difficult choice.