Poll of the Day > 2A gun rights activists want to put guns in the hands on domestic abusers

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211226091/supreme-court-guns-domestic-abuse

Looks like the Supreme Court will do the sensible thing for once with regards to regulating firearms and slap this challenge down.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to uphold a federal law that bans gun possession for anyone subject to a domestic violence court order. If so, the decision would be a small retreat from the court's sweeping decision on gun rights last year.

From the outset Tuesday, the justices wrestled with the consequences of their far-reaching 2022 decision, declaring that in order for a gun law to be constitutional, it has to be analogous to a law that existed at the nation's founding in the late 1700s. The question Tuesday was how precise that analog has to be.

Dangerous vs. responsible

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, told the justices that under the court's most recent decisions, including last year's, Congress may disarm those who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens.

"There is no historical evidence" that the Second Amendment "was originally understood to prevent legislatures from disarming dangerous individuals," she said.

But, as several justices noted, people do all kinds of irresponsible things driving over the speed limit, putting the trash out on the wrong day but nobody would suggest they lose their constitutional rights for that. Pressed by Chief Justice John Roberts, Prelogar agreed that the word responsible is "something of a placeholder for dangerousness."

"There's no daylight at all then between not responsible and dangerous?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. No daylight, Prelogar agreed, adding that "our understanding of what history and tradition reflect ... is those whose possession of firearms presents an unusual danger beyond the ordinary citizen."

"Why did you use the term 'responsible' if what you meant was dangerous?" Roberts asked.

"Well, we relied on the same phrasing the court itself used when it first articulated" the right to bear arms principle in 2008, she replied.

Most of the court's conservatives seemed to accept that proposition, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas remaining skeptical. Thomas was the author of last year's broad decision a decision so expansive and unspecific that the lower courts have interpreted it in dramatically different ways. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, "There seems to be a fair bit of division, and a fair bit of confusion about what Bruen [last year's case] means and what Bruen requires of the lower courts."

Background to the case

Challenging the federal law in Tuesday's case was Zackey Rahimi. A Texas judge stripped him of his license to have guns when it granted a domestic violence court order after Rahimi allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot, and then fired a gun at a bystander who saw the assault. After he continued firing guns in public, even after the court order, police searched his residence and found guns, magazines and ammunition. He was sentenced to six years in prison for violating the federal law that bans domestic abusers under court order from possessing guns.

Rahimi, however, continued to press his challenge to the federal law, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, declared the law unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Wright, struggled to defend that decision Tuesday, telling the justices there is no law from the founding era that is analogous to this one.

"There's no history of [gun] bans. They don't exist," Wright told the court.

Justice Kagan asked if the presence of a similar ban at the time of the founding is essential after the court's decision last year in the Bruen case. If there isn't a similar ban from the founding era, "we say that the government has no right to do anything?" she asked incredulously.

"That's largely what Bruen says," Wright replied.

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

Roberts was even more direct, asking, "You don't have any doubt that your client is a dangerous person, do you?"

Wright replied, "I would want to know what dangerous person means."

"Someone who is shooting at people," Roberts shot back.

"That's fair," a sheepish Wright conceded.

Kagan followed up: "Do you think the Congress could disarm people who are mentally ill, who've been committed to mental institutions?"

"I think maybe," Wright answered, prompting this from Kagan: "I will tell you the honest truth, Mr. Wright. I feel like you are running away from your argument because the implications of your argument are just so untenable that you have to say 'no, that is not really my argument.'"

Indeed, the court's decision in the Rahimi case will have ripple effects. It may make lower courts more hesitant to strike down laws aimed at preventing dangerous people from having guns.

But as several justices said Tuesday, this is the easy case. The harder ones lie ahead, among them: federal and state laws that bar convicted felons even those convicted of non-violent crimes from having guns.

*of not on in the topic title

I want to make a comment about cops

Not sure if title is disingenuous or ignorant?

My understanding is that this case is in regards to if rights can be stripped from people ACCUSED of domestic violence that have a restraining order placed on them.

Being CONVICTED of a domestic violence DOES and would CONTINUE to specificly prohibit you from owning a firearm.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

My understanding is that this case is in regards to if rights can be stripped from people ACCUSED of domestic violence that have a restraining order placed on them.

Correct, but as it's laid out in the article (if you had bothered to read it):

Wright also maintained that those accused of domestic violence have few protections in court prior to being slapped with a ban on guns.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wasn't buying that, noting that Rahimi's ex-girlfriend "did submit a sworn affidavit giving quite a lot of detail about the various threats. It's not like he just showed up and the judge said 'credible finding of violence.'"

They don't just hand out restraining orders for kicks. The person requesting an order needs to provide evidence as to why they're seeking an order.

This challenge was looking to put guns in the hands of a very credibly accused domestic abuser.

Ergo, the only ignorance you'll find in the topic title is my spelling mistake

MeatiestMeatus posted...

They don't just hand out restraining orders for kicks. The person requesting an order needs to provide evidence as to why they're seeking an order.

This challenge was looking to put guns in the hands of a very credibly accused domestic abuser.

I worked for the Oregon courts for 5 years. You might be surprised at how little evidence is required for a restraining order. You might also be surprised at how little it takes to charge someone with domestic violence and how biased against men the justice system is in terms of DV cases. DV cases are very often instances of both parties being violent towards one another but only the man gets charged. I once saw a man charged with felony DV assault for cutting his drunk wife's hand when he yanked the keys away from her so she couldn't drive.

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.

2A activists are in favor of irresponsible gun ownership and fight all efforts at responsible gun ownership.

Rasmoh posted...

it's not hard to see why people would be against guns being taken away from people.

People in general? Maybe.

People credibly accused of domestic violence? Yeah, it's pretty hard for me to see why anyone in their right mind would want to give guns to credibly accused domestic abusers

MeatiestMeatus posted...

People credibly accused of domestic violence?

Do you believe every DV accusation is credible?

BlackScythe0 posted...

2A activists are in favor of irresponsible gun ownership and fight all efforts at responsible gun ownership.

This. They are deranged, and the very last people who should have guns.

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.

Rasmoh posted...

Do you believe every DV accusation is credible?

The one in the case outlined in the article sure is.

You know, the one where lawyers are arguing for the credibly accused domestic abuser to have guns

adjl posted...

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.

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

The one in the case outlined in the article sure is.

You know, the one where lawyers are arguing for the credibly accused domestic abuser to have guns

You didn't answer the question.

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

It's rather callous to advocate for domestic abuse victims to be at increased risk of harm or death because a small percentage of people might be wrongfully accused of DV and have their weapons taken away

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

It's rather disingenuous of you to hide behind flimsy fearmongering and pathos in hopes that I won't notice that you opted not to actually compare any of those impassioned words to a dramatically increased risk of murder to complete the risk/benefit analysis.

Rasmoh posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to portray being stripped of a constitutional right as being mildly inconvenienced and to pretend that the only consequence of having ones guns taken away is being unable to go to the range.

That really is the only meaningful consequence, though.

of all the cases they could of picked, they choose this one? this feels like a setup for a shitty decision that the SC doesnt care about just to shut people up about it.

this guy sounds like a real piece of shit that ALREADY has restraining orders on him and has ALREADY went through the due process of getting his guns taken away. this doesnt sound like the red flag law bullshit which can be seen as unconstitutional. so i have no idea why they chose this one to move forward on.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

It's rather callous to advocate for domestic abuse victims to be at increased risk of harm or death because a small percentage of people might be wrongfully accused of DV and have their weapons taken away

It's no less callous to dismiss the idea of innocent people being punished. You strike me as the "no guns" type though so I'm getting the vibe that anything that restricts firearms to anyone for any reason makes you happy.

adjl posted...

It's rather disingenuous of you to hide behind flimsy fearmongering and pathos in hopes that I won't notice that you opted not to actually compare any of those impassioned words to a dramatically increased risk of murder to complete the risk/benefit analysis.

It is undeniable that a constitutional right is being stripped in these scenarios. You cannot argue in good faith that constitutional rights being stripped are minor inconveniences. The fact that you consider it as such indicates that your risk/benefit analysis is skewed by your lack of regard for a constitutional right.

darkknight109 posted...

That really is the only meaningful consequence, though.

Only if you consider being able to go to a shooting range to be the only reason to own a gun.

darkknight109 posted...

That really is the only meaningful consequence, though.

To be fair, there's also the consideration that some people rely on guns for hunting for food, and that would be more than a minor inconvenience. But that's also an exception that can be managed with additional procedures, rather than something that's valid cause to throw out the whole idea.

adjl posted...

To be fair, there's also the consideration that some people rely on guns for hunting for food, and that would be more than a minor inconvenience. But that's also an exception that can be managed with additional procedures, rather than something that's valid cause to throw out the whole idea.

I don't think so. Like there might be some exceptions for tribes and such (I don't know), but unless they are engaging in poaching no one in the US lives by hunting for food.

BlackScythe0 posted...

no one in the US lives by hunting for food.

That's patently untrue. Many people, especially those without a lot of money, use hunting as a means to feed themselves and their families. One deer goes a long way in terms of food for the cost.

Rasmoh posted...

It is undeniable that a constitutional right is being stripped in these scenarios.

It's plenty deniable. "Stripped" is a deliberately alarmist word choice meant to call to mind a situation where somebody is hopelessly enslaved by a complete lack of rights. "You can't have your guns for a few months until we figure out whether or not it's safe for you to have them" is not "stripping" rights, it's suspending them temporarily because there's cause to believe not doing so is safe. It's also worth noting that the same "constitutional right is stripped" from anyone convicted of DV already, so it's not like there's any precedent to object to applying it in any circumstance.

Rasmoh posted...

You cannot argue in good faith that constitutional rights being stripped are minor inconveniences.

Sure I can, if the only thing offered by said rights is a minor convenience.

Rasmoh posted...

The fact that you consider it as such indicates that your risk/benefit analysis is skewed by your lack of regard for a constitutional right.

And yet here you are, doing absolutely nothing to support your apparent belief that ensuring a particular individual retains this particular constitutional right is more important than dramatically reducing the risk that a DV victim gets murdered. You want me to believe it's not only more than a minor inconvenience, but so much more than a minor inconvenience that afflicting it would be worse than dramatically increasing the risk that somebody gets murdered? Show me your logic. Don't hide behind pearl-clutching and act like your point should be self-evident.

Rasmoh posted...

That's patently untrue. Many people, especially those without a lot of money, use hunting as a means to feed themselves and their families. One deer goes a long way in terms of food for the cost.

Indeed. Particularly given the cost of groceries these days, being able to get a 50-60 pounds of meat as cheaply as you can by hunting does quite a lot to relieve the financial pressure food would otherwise present.

Rasmoh posted...

It's no less callous to dismiss the idea of innocent people being punished. You strike me as the "no guns" type though so I'm getting the vibe that anything that restricts firearms to anyone for any reason makes you happy.

I'm an Army veteran and I own firearms, but sure go ahead and leap to unsubstantiated conclusions because your arguments suck lmao

If one innocent person's punishment is that they don't have access to firearms for a few months, but another innocent person's punishment is getting murdered or having their children or loved ones murdered by a domestic abuser, I'm 100% in favor of someone having to forfeit their firearms for a short time over innocent people dying.

Rasmoh posted...

Only if you consider being able to go to a shooting range to be the only reason to own a gun.

OK, I'll bite - what burning need do people have that requires them to be carrying a gun that overrides the right of victims to live in safety?

inb4"self-defense"

2A activists want every single (white) person to carry a gun at all times, even children. They are insane.

They're just regulating the militia.

Rasmoh posted...

That's patently untrue. Many people, especially those without a lot of money, use hunting as a means to feed themselves and their families. One deer goes a long way in terms of food for the cost.

no not really.

they would be able to get more food if they lived in an area where they could actually sell it, since an average doe usually goes for about $1000, whereas the meat would get them less than half that, and if they opted to eat the meat themselves, you don't actually get much usable from them.

i'm not saying it doesn't happen

but it happens so little that it's not even worth considering. especially since it wouldn't make financial sense for someone to spend what little money they have on guns, ammunition, blinds, and gear instead of just buying food.

you also aren't hunting with a 5.56 ar, or a 9mm pistol, either, but that's besides the point.

If you aren't killing your meat with a sharpened rock like God intended, you're not really hunting!

I'm a 2a supporter but I feel any violent crime should at least temporarily if not permanently strip you of your right. Depending on the severity if it's temporary or not.

Similary I feel.if you get a dui or other charge and the cause was being drunk your I'd should get a stamp that bars you from buying booze

You should be free till you prove you don't deserve it. Not a hard stance on that. I have other variables I consider but that's another discussion

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.

I wouldn't even make it a "hunting buddy", because that opens up all sorts of conflict of interest issues. Just have it be something akin to a bail bondsman. Registered shooting clubs fill similar functions in other countries (in many European countries, if you want to own a gun you must be a member of a club and they must vouch for your suitability and, depending on the purpose of purchase, need to own that particular gun).

I figure the threat of an automatic accessory charge would help to alleviate the conflict of interest issues, but a neutral third party could also work. That just requires additional resources, whereas I expect most people that hunt regularly can probably find a friend or two to go with them (and if they can't and/or their friends don't trust them enough to fill that role, that's reasonable cause to deny their request, so that problem solves itself), at no additional cost to the state.

Rasmoh posted...

I worked for the Oregon courts for 5 years. You might be surprised at how little evidence is required for a restraining order. You might also be surprised at how little it takes to charge someone with domestic violence and how biased against men the justice system is in terms of DV cases. DV cases are very often instances of both parties being violent towards one another but only the man gets charged. I once saw a man charged with felony DV assault for cutting his drunk wife's hand when he yanked the keys away from her so she couldn't drive.

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.

Hey anything to start the trend toward getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is good in my book. Explain again why you need a gun without it being a completely farcical argument that can be negated when I throw the continents of Europe and Australia at you.

You can figuratively count the amount of people that need guns to hunt to "sustain themselves" on one hand (more common would be guns for animal self-defense, a la Wyoming, Alaska, etc.) And even then, long guns like hunting rifles are seldomly used in normal gun violence, mass shootings, or otherwise.

There's basically no legislation that comes anywhere close to affecting these types of purchases. And while assault weapons/style weapons should be targeted, simple handguns still remain by and far the biggest issue, and have the probably weakest regulations.

adjl posted...

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.

If a judge believed they posed a great enough risk that they should be stripped of there rights, then he could and should have them held in jail until trial.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

If a judge believed they posed a great enough risk that they should be stripped of there rights, then he could and should have them held in jail until trial.

The threshold of proof for imprisoning somebody for several months is - and should be - considerably higher than the threshold of proof for limiting somebody's access to lethal weaponry for several months. The latter is rarely more than a minor inconvenience. The former is devastating, especially if done incorrectly.

There's ample research out there showing the effects of these regulations. This is a solid example that runs through multiple different permutations and combinations of restrictions:
https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org/dv-and-firearms-zeoli.pdf

The exact numbers vary, but the common thread throughout every study examined in that summary is that reducing the accused's access to firearms reduces the risk of their partner being murdered by around 10% (by any means, not just by firearms), with the figure being quite a bit higher in some specific cases. That's a big deal.

adjl posted...

The threshold of proof for imprisoning somebody for several months is - and should be - considerably higher than the threshold of proof for limiting somebody's access to lethal weaponry for several months. The latter is rarely more than a minor inconvenience. The former is devastating, especially if done incorrectly.

There's ample research out there showing the effects of these regulations. This is a solid example that runs through multiple different permutations and combinations of restrictions:
https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org/dv-and-firearms-zeoli.pdf

The exact numbers vary, but the common thread throughout every study examined in that summary is that reducing the accused's access to firearms reduces the risk of their partner being murdered by around 10% (by any means, not just by firearms), with the figure being quite a bit higher in some specific cases. That's a big deal.

The threshold should be no different. If you are dangerous enough you need to be disarmed, then you are dangerous enough you need to be imprisoned.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

The threshold should be no different.

Sure it should. There's a massive gap in fairness between putting a potentially innocent person in prison for months, and making it more difficult for them to shoot someone for the duration of their trial.

Study after study provide the same data point: access to firearms increases the likelihood of DV-related homicide. The data is there. Time and again.

Would jailing someone who has been accused - not convicted - provide more safety to the accuser? Sure. But that's a much more extreme measure than simply having them forfeit their firearms for a few months.

Bear in mind that this forfeiture is in conjunction with a protective order, which is meant to give the victim protections beyond said forfeiture (no-contact order, no harassment, no stalking, no showing up at their home or place of work, etc etc). Depending on police response times, an abuser showing up with a knife or other weapon would have a much more difficult time successfully attacking their victim than if they were to roll up and be able to squeeze a trigger from fifty yards out.

https://efsgv.org/learn/type-of-gun-violence/domestic-violence-and-firearms/

ultra_magnus13 posted...

The threshold should be no different. If you are dangerous enough you need to be disarmed, then you are dangerous enough you need to be imprisoned.

Do you consider being disarmed and being imprisoned to be comparable punishments, with a comparable impact on the life of the accused? Why, then, would you suggest that imprisonment is a suitable response in situations where disarmament will likely suffice?

MeatiestMeatus posted...

Depending on police response times, an abuser showing up with a knife or other weapon would have a much more difficult time successfully attacking their victim than if they were to roll up and be able to squeeze a trigger from fifty yards out.

Moreover, the stats simply don't support the "alternate weapon" narrative. Removing access to guns for those under DV restraining orders reduces the risk of DV homicide by every method, as much as opponents to such measures like to insist that "they'll just use a different weapon."

adjl posted...

Moreover, the stats simply don't support the "alternate weapon" narrative. Removing access to guns for those under DV restraining orders reduces the risk of DV homicide by every method, as much as opponents to such measures like to insist that "they'll just use a different weapon."

Agreed. The point I was trying to make is how firearms both feed the impulsiveness of a violent urge, and exacerbate said urge

It's one thing to have a violent urge and strike or stab someone. But one needs to approach the victim, and during the moment when they throw a punch or press the knife forward, their brain - constantly processing moment to moment - can provide them with a moment of clarity or realization of what they're doing, what harm they are inflicting, and they can "pull their punch". The same cannot be said with pulling a trigger. One cannot reduce the impact of the bullet once it's left the chamber

The intrinsic immediacy and "ease" in pointing and firing a gun, coupled with the level of damage even a single bullet can do compared to a knife or bludgeon, exacerbates the violent urge tenfold

Another interesting stat from that article I linked is that among those that have committed DV, those that also own firearms tended to be more violent and more likely to use any weapon, even if their firearm wasn't actually involved in the incident(s). The article stops short of trying to draw any inferences from that statistic (as it should, since that's outside of its scope), but I'd interpret that as indicating that owning a firearm emboldens those that are inclined to do violence to go further than they otherwise would (which is also consistent with the statistical reality that firearm owners are more likely to be killed by gun violence).

Translated to the issue of DV homicide during a restraining order, it stands to reason that restricting the culprit's access to firearms reduces all homicide rates because the culprit generally feels less confident about enacting further violence. That's speculation, of course, but it seems consistent with the stats.

adjl posted...

Another interesting stat from that article I linked is that among those that have committed DV, those that also own firearms tended to be more violent and more likely to use any weapon, even if their firearm wasn't actually involved in the incident(s). The article stops short of trying to draw any inferences from that statistic (as it should, since that's outside of its scope), but I'd interpret that as indicating that owning a firearm emboldens those that are inclined to do violence to go further than they otherwise would (which is also consistent with the statistical reality that firearm owners are more likely to be killed by gun violence).

Translated to the issue of DV homicide during a restraining order, it stands to reason that restricting the culprit's access to firearms reduces all homicide rates because the culprit generally feels less confident about enacting further violence. That's speculation, of course, but it seems consistent with the stats.

That's kinda been the common sense known, with the argument "violent people will be violent, with or without guns." It's simply not true. The ease to use/effectiveness ratio of guns means it allows crimes/moments of passion to result in violence very easily. The impersonal nature due to not having to be in close proximity of your target allows dissociation, too.

Compared trying to stab someone to death, and it's basically night and day. It's personal. It's messy. It's exhausting. It's very involved. And it's risky. This is why "mass stabbings", or murder by this method in general, is quite rare, even in countries or regions where access to guns make knives the next best option.

All that applies to suicide, too - momentary dark thoughts and easily translate into death with guns.

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

That's kinda been the common sense known, with the argument "violent people will be violent, with or without guns." It's simply not true. The ease to use/effectiveness ratio of guns means it allows crimes/moments of passion to result in violence very easily. The impersonal nature due to not having to be in close proximity of your target allows dissociation, too.

Compared trying to stab someone to death, and it's basically night and day. It's personal. It's messy. It's exhausting. It's very involved. And it's risky. This is why "mass stabbings", or murder by this method in general, is quite rare, even in countries or regions where access to guns make knives the next best option.

All that applies to suicide, too - momentary dark thoughts and easily translate into death with guns.

Think drugs and drinking are more common suicides than people think. Without a note it probably gets listed as accidental overdoses

On the guns I'd fear gun culture is so engraved the black market would be booming or rednecks would start making their own which would probably prove more dangerous