Gun ownership restricted for domestic offenders

[einhander]

Ok, so more laws that we can't enforce nor would they make a damn bit of difference. If a "lunatic" husband wants to kill his wife, there are much quieter and cheaper methods of doing such. What would stop him from sliding a kitchen knife between her ribs while she sleeps, or bashing her head in with a baseball bat in the hallway, or kicking her teeth in with steel toed boots. I know, I'm being really graphic here but there are many many many ways to kill a person, especially one of lesser physical stature (generally).

This law is nothing but a step towards broadening the definitions of "mentally unfit" and therefore lessening the pool of potential gun owners. All of which are a well documented strategy in place by liberals that don't like an armed society.

I know you hate, like, rationality and logic, but this law is designed to keep instruments of death away from people who have a demonstrated disregard for the personal property and body of others. It's not just to protect spouses. Domestics are indicators of behavior that shows they have issues with rage and have not demonstrated the requisite maturity or responsibility to own a firearm.

They may kill other people in other ways, but with the right of gun ownership comes gun responsibility. If you have signs that you act violently towards others, then no fucking guns (or soup) for you.

Anyway, look up studies about domestic offenders and shooting people (I know you won't). A number of people convicted of gun crimes have domestics on their record.

[ParsedOut]

I know you hate, like, rationality and logic, but this law is designed to keep instruments of death away from people who have a demonstrated disregard for the personal property and body of others. It's not just to protect spouses. Domestics are indicators of behavior that shows they have issues with rage and have not demonstrated the requisite maturity or responsibility to own a firearm.

They may kill other people in other ways, but with the right of gun ownership comes gun responsibility. If you have signs that you act violently towards others, then no fucking guns (or soup) for you.

Anyway, look up studies about domestic offenders and shooting people (I know you won't). A number of people convicted of gun crimes have domestics on their record.

Haha, since I don't share your idea of rational or logic I don't have any...got it. While I agree that people who have demonstrated a VIOLENT record shouldn't have guns, this does law does not limit to just that. I still feel that way too much time and effort are placed on limiting access (dreamworld) to dangerous things instead of addressing the cause of such behavior. Is it really so far fetched to feel that there are other political motives in having a disarmed and subservient society? I'm sorry if that possibility is too tin foil hat for you. I don't need the government looking out for me or doing what they feel is best for me...no thanks I'll pass.

[einhander]

Haha, since I don't share your idea of rational or logic I don't have any...got it. While I agree that people who have demonstrated a VIOLENT record shouldn't have guns, this does law does not limit to just that.

How so? If someone is convicted of domestic abuse, surely they have committed a violent act.

I don't need the government looking out for me or doing what they feel is best for me...no thanks I'll pass.

It's looking out for people who have been victimized. Aside from arming themselves and acting in self-defense - what else can be done? The law can't be silent, right?

I definitely agree with not wanting the government to look out for me, but there are people in society who are weak, oppressed, or otherwise neglected who might need a little help.

[cale]

How so? If someone is convicted of domestic abuse, surely they have committed a violent act.

In a 9-0 decision, the high court said the ban extended to anyone who had pleaded guilty to at least a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, even in cases in which there was no proof of violent acts or physical injury

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#ixzz2yXGFtqKp

Domestic violence includes emotional, psychological and economic abuse.

[einhander]

Missed that. My bad.

[LSM3]

Domestic violence includes emotional, psychological and economic abuse.

No one is getting arrested/convicted for domestic violence by only commiting emotional, psychological or economic abuse. Trust me. The 99% of people convicted of domestic violence are real pieces of shit. Not some guy who yelled as his lady. I know you guys think that anyone can be convicted of anything but it just does not happen like that. Will some guy get convicted for some dumb shit? Probably. But if thats the reasoning for not doing something then why have a criminal justice system at all especially a death penalty.

[ParsedOut]

No one is getting arrested/convicted for domestic violence by only commiting emotional, psychological or economic abuse. Trust me. The 99% of people convicted of domestic violence are real pieces of shit. Not some guy who yelled as his lady. I know you guys think that anyone can be convicted of anything but it just does not happen like that. Will some guy get convicted for some dumb shit? Probably. But if thats the reasoning for not doing something then why have a criminal justice system at all especially a death penalty.

Trust me he said, it just doesn't happen he said...I'll still pass, thx.

[cale]

No one is getting arrested/convicted for domestic violence by only commiting emotional, psychological or economic abuse. Trust me. The 99% of people convicted of domestic violence are real pieces of shit. Not some guy who yelled as his lady. I know you guys think that anyone can be convicted of anything but it just does not happen like that. Will some guy get convicted for some dumb shit? Probably. But if thats the reasoning for not doing something then why have a criminal justice system at all especially a death penalty.

I never thought to trust you, or that it doesn't happen. Thanks for enlightening me!

[LSM3]

I only deal with the criminal justice system as a profession. Ill trust my experience over your conjecture.

[BraveUlysses]

Haha, since I don't share your idea of rational or logic I don't have any...got it. While I agree that people who have demonstrated a VIOLENT record shouldn't have guns, this does law does not limit to just that. I still feel that way too much time and effort are placed on limiting access (dreamworld) to dangerous things instead of addressing the cause of such behavior. Is it really so far fetched to feel that there are other political motives in having a disarmed and subservient society? I'm sorry if that possibility is too tin foil hat for you. I don't need the government looking out for me or doing what they feel is best for me...no thanks I'll pass.

A disarmed society? By preventing certain people with certain convictions from owning guns?

I guess you should be arguing that felons shouldn't have their firearm rights or voting rights revoked, if you're really committed to this terrible argument.

[ParsedOut]

A disarmed society? By preventing certain people with certain convictions from owning guns?

I guess you should be arguing that felons shouldn't have their firearm rights or voting rights revoked, if you're really committed to this terrible argument.

Wow, some of you really suck at reading comprehension. Didn't I just say that I'm for banning legal gun access to those with a VIOLENT history? Does that mean it'll fix the problem, hell no. Will it help with violent crime rates? Probably not. Do I think it's a prudent measure, sure... My point is that if we keep expanding the definition and blurring the line at which we decide people are unfit for gun ownership, we will likely end up in an outright ban/confiscation situation. History has proven this in the past and several politicians have made no secret that this is what they would like to see happen. So yes, a disarmed society is a major goal for certain political agendas. Enough seemingly "reasonable" baby steps will do it.

[CrusherCurtis]

My fathers been arrested several times for domestic violence. He is hands down the most argumentative and cranky old bastard I've ever seen and drives me crazy, but he would never lay hands on any one let alone a woman. His damn ex-wife is a basket case though. People can definitely go to jail for domestic with touching a woman. Don't know if he ever plead guilty but I doubt it.