An unacceptable encroachment
Meanwhile, the NRA is opposing the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act.
Wouldn’t it be great if women could “identify” our way out of violence?
The National Rifle Association is preparing to punish lawmakers for voting to protect women from their stalkers and domestic abusers. The gun lobby announced this week that it will dock its grades for politicians who vote to renew the Violence Against Women Act. The legislation, first passed in 1994, is up for reauthorization this session — augmented by a provision that could give law enforcement officials the power to confiscate guns from men who hurt or menace women.
NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker told the National Journal that this “red-flag” provision — intended to protect women against gun violence from men who are exhibiting violent or dangerous behaviors — is an unacceptable encroachment on individual gun ownership rights.
Sure. The “right” to own guns is much more important than the right not to be murdered.
The case for stripping domestic abusers of their guns is powerful. An abused woman is five times more likely to be killed if the abuser is a gun-owner. When a domestic violence assault involves a firearm, it is 12 times more likely to end in the death of the victim. Laws like the red-flag provision proposed for VAWA save lives: In states adopting laws permitting confiscation of firearms from domestic abusers, intimate partner homicides have dropped by 7 percent.
“A gun in the house increases the chances that you’ll be killed in a domestic violence incident by an extraordinary ratio,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told Rolling Stone recently. “The most important mythology that the NRA proffers is that you’re safer if you buy a gun. That’s just not true,” Murphy said. “Having a gun in your house is more likely to get you killed than it is to save your life.”
Oh well, it’s only women.
Not to mention that many of these domestic violence offenders go on to become mass shooters.
Holy shit, is the VAWA like a hunting moratorium or something? You know, Deer are getting hard to hunt and a bit skittish, we’ll give them a reprieve for a few years to calm down and rebuild their numbers, then WHAM!
Why does an act designed to prevent violence against women need to be re-approved?
Had to wait and see who the non-murdered, non-maimed women voted for first?
Obviously. Murdered people don’t buy guns.
I can see why gun control advocates are marketing taking away the abuser’s gun as a way to sell gun control to women. But I think it is selling real women a barrel of lies by claiming they will be safe from male abuse if we just take away the guns. Firearms did not exist in large quantities before roughly 1600’s and all of human history before that does NOT show that real women were any less abused by men pre-guns. Yes, guns increase fatalities, no doubt.
The real danger in those homes are the violent males. How many women will report abuse and threats and then get patted on the head by cops saying “there, there, silly lady, we took his guns away and you are now safe” ???? So when that woman turns up dead by blunt force trauma, knife wounds, strangulation, etc. what good would it have served to lock up the gun but LET THE ABUSIVE MALE RUN FREE?
I just can’t buy this. I have guns in the my home that are no danger to me. I also do not have a man in my home so my chance of being a victim of male violence is much less than a woman with a man in the house.
OK, rant over, but it just seems to me that we focus on the gun and not the male violence time and time again.
It seems to me that the gun fondlers who object to the removal of firearms from criminals aren’t as innocent as they would like to portray themselves, are they?
Tigger, following the shooting massacre here in Christchurch (a sentence I never thought I would write), our politicians have banded together for once and done what the majority have always wanted. Passed (strictly passing) legislation to ban any weapon that comes close to military style semi-automatic or home defence. They’ve also finally seen fit to ban the sale of the accessories that can be used to militarise civilian semi-automatics. To be clear, there are still classes of semi-automatic that are legal. centre fire rifles and shotguns with fixed magazines of no greater than 5 rounds and rimfire (.22 and less) with capacities less than 15 rounds (these are commonly used for rabbit control). Everyone except a fair chunk of those who already own such weapons thinks this is reasonable and appropriate. Even people who own guns.
The reason I’ve brought this up here is that a fair number of those who want to own military look alike or capable weapons have swapped from saying “we’re lawful and responsible. We shouldn’t be punished.” to now saying “you won’t get our guns, we’ll just hide them and there will be a black market.”
The incompatibility of those two statements seems to be beyond their grasp. As does the shear awfulness of it and the fact it screams that they automatically fail the fit and proper person test all gun owners in New Zealand must meet by law. So, I think your comment is actually pretty spot on.