LogFAQs > #977123174

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I have other variables I consider but that's another discussion

This is something a lot of people seem to have trouble understanding, particularly in the context of 2A issues. So often, you'll see a matter like this brought up where pretty much everyone agrees that a given sort of person (domestic abusers, in this case) shouldn't have access to guns, but people like Rasmoh will bring up the (legitimate) issue that not every person accused of DV is actually guilty, and jump from there to "therefore nobody that's just been accused of DV should have their guns taken away." It makes far, far more sense to default to taking guns away in every case where somebody has a credible DV accusation against them, then build further nuance into the law as needed to cover exceptions where it's not actually reasonable to do so or where taking guns away would cause inappropriate harm.

To use the hunting issue as an example (specifically with the intent of making a significant difference in food costs, not for sport), you can work around that by having the accused designate a hunting buddy and having that buddy responsible for holding on to one of the accused's guns and keeping it secure, except during hunting trips in which the buddy supervises them. Automatically charge the buddy with accessory to murder if the accused does end up killing somebody with said gun (unless they can be demonstrated to have done their due diligence, such as immediately calling the cops if the accused escapes with the gun or having been demonstrably crippled to the point of not being able to do so), and you've achieved most of the desired risk reduction without costing the accused the whole hunting season.

The exact details will of course need more work than that, but the idea is still sound. You can default to taking guns away from the accused while still taking steps to mitigate the potential harm caused by a wrongful accusation. Jumping immediately to the knee-jerk "muh rights are being stripped away!" as a justification for defaulting to leaving guns with people that have a significant chance of being dangerous leaves no room for that nuance and puts victims at risk. This doesn't have to be black-and-white.