Why Are So Many of America’s Women Murdered with a Gun? Americans for Responsible Solutions asks in its online anti-gun agitprop, promoting the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act. That’s a tough question, one that makes one wonder how many is “so many” and is that many many compared to the many other women who die from many other causes? Of course, the pronoun “one” doesn’t include gun control advocates who cling to the belief that “one” woman murdered with a gun is too many to not create new gun control laws. People who bend stats to their will to make sweeping generalizations that [seem to] justify civilian disarmament. Like this . . .
It’s hard to deny that we have a problem. So why are so many of America’s women being murdered with guns? One big reason is that we have two big loopholes in our laws that make it too easy for dangerous abusers and stalkers to buy a gun:
People Who Abuse Their Dating Partners Can Get Guns: Currently, federal law prevents people who are under domestic violence protection orders or have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from accessing guns. But even though increasing numbers of couples are choosing to marry later in life, the law hasn’t been extended to address dating partner abuse.
Some Convicted Stalkers Can Get Guns: Even though one study of women who had been murdered found that 76 percent of them had been stalked in the year preceding their death, under federal law people who have been convicted of misdemeanor stalking — even if they plead down from a felony charge — can legally buy a gun.
So Americans for Final Solutions is down with Illinois Dem Debbie Dingell’s and RINO rep Robert Dold’s plan to extend proactive gun confiscation laws (e.g., California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order) to people who are dating. Hmmm. What about people who claim to be dating? Couldn’t a stalker say he or she was dating their victim, tell a judge that their victim threatened them with a gun and get the government to remove their firearms, leaving their victim defenseless?
Take it from someone who used online dating: there are a LOT of crazy people out there looking to hook up. Giving “dating partners” the ability to initiate gun confiscation – without due process I might add – is a bad idea of epic proportions. I can even imagine anti-gun “honey traps,” where gun control advocates date gun rights advocates and then falsely petition for gun confiscation. For the children, of course.
As for the misdemeanor stalking gun purchase “loophole,” current federal law prohibits citizens convicted of a felony from purchasing a firearm. As soon as you lower that bar to a misdemeanor conviction, you open the door to widespread civilian disarmament. According to yubanet.com, “More than one in four U.S. adults — roughly 65 million people –have an arrest or conviction that shows up in a routine criminal background check.” Such as misdemeanor drug offenses.
Adding a misdemeanor conviction to the federal prohibition against firearms purchases would suit Americans for Final Solutions down to the ground. Like all gun control organizations they are looking for ANY way to limit Americans’ firearms freedom, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the cost, regardless of the Second Amendment’s prohibition against government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. In case you didn’t know.
Why does the nature of the relationship between two people matter? Due process is the real issue.
And in the era of “micro-aggressions” and the VA rape hoax, basing RKBA solely on allegations of domestic (or other) violence leaves the rights of the accused dangling by a precarious thread.
That’s a feature, not a bug
Their argument is along the lines of “Due process is _reactive_. To protect people, laws need to be _proactive_ to prevent this kind of violence.” Basically, they’re trying to continue to chip away at personal responsibility as being the first proactive step in preventing violence. Then there’s the whole thing about people too afraid, codependent, or whatever, to leave an abusive relationship…. But, given I’m male, I’ve been informed in the past by some liberals that I’m not entitled to any sort of opinion on that subject….
But, Chip, how will we ever achieve female supremacy without society being able to strip due process from males at the whims of females and their accusations, whether founded or not…
Again and again the mistake is made by the anti-2A groups who misunderstand what a Constitutional Right is.
I don’t know how many women were shot to death by their domestic partner, but I know a least one case in NJ where one women who was stabbed to death on her own driveway by her estranged ex-boyfriend waiting futility for permission to conceal carry.
It’s worse than that. She was futilely waiting for permission to merely BUY a gun. Although the NJ statute provides a specified period of time for the local police to act on requests for purchase permits, the local police in this case did not know of the time limit (which had long since lapsed) and did not seem to care when told.
And we are told delays and waiting periods are acceptable “compromises”…. If it saves just one life…..
Yeah I got an X-wife who accused me of all kinds of BS that never happened-dating added to the mix? And Dold is just a “normal” Illinois republitard…
I am positive that my ex-wives and ex-gfs would say that I am a paragon of virtue. Even the ex-gf who stole my money and lied about it until the cops showed up at her door. Yup, my guns are safe.
Women attacking men isn’t mentioned in the text. Surprise, surprise.
Oh right, I forgot. If a man attacks a woman, he is a domestic abuser. If a woman attacks a man, he had it coming and should “man up” and take it.
Because, we all know, there are no crazy, scandalous broads out there.
True that. As long as her anger issues don’t go beyond screaming, insulting,throwing things and minor corporal injuries love will prevail. I pray.
So “victim blaming” is alright as long as the male’s the victim.
“Currently, federal law prevents people who are under domestic violence protection orders or have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from accessing guns.”
wrong. the word prohibit does not mean the same thing as the word prevent.
Correctamundo – law sets potential consequences for action or inaction. It, in itself, cannot prevent anything.
“Even though one study of women who had been murdered found that 76 percent of them had been stalked in the year preceding their death, … ”
For a thinking person, the above statement sort of begs the question, “was that woman killed by the stalker?” Otherwise it’s no more meaningful than saying that “in one study of women who had been murdered, 76% had worn red skirts in the year preceding their death or that 76% had shopped at a convenience store in the year preceding their death.”
How about zero tolerance for straw purchases?
How about individual responsibility for self defense, as well as for relationships – and everything else?
This “straw purchase” nuttery is simply another tool of the gun grabbers. How anyone obtains the tool with which he/she inflicts harm to the innocent is immaterial. What he/she does with it is all that matters.
“Laws” don’t prevent crimes. The intended victim who is prepared to stop the aggression, preferably armed, can – and do every day.
I suspect the problem with prosecuting straw-buyers is that enforcement here would lead to sending minority single mothers to prison for years for a “non-violent” crime.
Well, then, we – as a society – have to decide what laws we are prepared to enforce. If we are not prepared to enforce straw-buying laws, felon-in-posession laws, armed-robbery laws, then why should the rest of us go to prison for benign carry violations or for skipping a BC when we loan a gun to a neighbor?
Not enough peaceable people in prison yet? Do modern principles of equality demand that the non-violent be imprisoned in the same proportion as violent criminals?
Wrong names here:
“Americans for IRresponsible DISARMAMENT Solutions,” supports the
“Zero Tolerance FOR EVEN ANY LIED ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE, AND SCREW DUE PROCESS Act”
Ah yes, the Zero Due Process For Those Merely Accused Of Domestic Violence act…
Coming soon “Why do we allow people who recklessly speed to own guns, we need to pass a law so people who have been convicted of speeding more than 10 mph over the limit, can’t own guns.”
Their goal is completely banning of guns. They are just taking it a step at a time.
Uh…interesting that Gabby’s group isn’t promoting educational programs like the NRA’s Refuse to Be A Victim. Guess that actually deterring domestic violence is off-message to gun control.
Persons who have been convicted of domestic abuse (or even indicted for stalking if the penalty is 1 year or more) or have a court order restraining them from stalking are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
From the ATF:
“The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).
“These categories include any person:
“Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
“convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
“who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
“who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104–208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).”
+1 Good find.
It looks like everyone here is onto this rue . A person , man or wan ‘ convicted of ‘ , abusing their spouse , loosing their right to defend themselves by being deprived of their second amendment right is one matter open for debate , but loosing this right after accusation is preposterous . Arming the accuser after a lengthy coarse on how to defend themselves would be a much more logical action in my world but I realize we are in Upside Down world so just the opposite occurs . Now that we are going to add another 2 to 20 million spouses to the equation , multiplied by a 13 % abuse rate , that’s going to deprive from 260,000 to 2.6 million more Americans from the 2nd amendment right there . Wow , how the numbers add up . If you get enough people without gun ownership rights you’re going to have that many more opposed to gun ownership . That’s just the way it works . If you convince John doe that he must give up his guns because of someone in the household is under certain medications that make it necessary to disarm the home then old John Doe will turn around and want everyone disarmed . We’ve seen this happen with cigarettes . There are no bigger cigarette Nazis than previous smokers .
Dingell is an MI rep. Wife of John “Skelator” Dingell, very popular w people of the gun. Debbie is rich. Really rich. As in a descendent of the auto founders. And about 30 yrs younger than John. And a hardcore liberal.
current federal law prohibits citizens convicted of a felony from purchasing a firearm. You might be surprised how many BS crimes are felonies.
I see its Howdy Doody Time.
The only thing this nation should have zero tolerance for is fascism, but that ship has long sailed.
Why Are So Many of India’s Women Murdered with Bombs, Gas Explosions, Acid and Fire?
Search wikipedia for “dowery death.” It’s a thing.
But none of those things have large capacity assault clips or scary shoulder things that go up, so nobody cares about their deaths.
And no one killed them early enough, with a pair of scissors or by crushing their head, in order to reap and sell their parts to buy a Ferrari.
If I was that car company I’d sue for defamation by association.
or rapes unless white tourist victims
Believe or not a higher percentage of women are murdered in Europe versus the United States:
Murder by Gender
Like the pic of the Giffords. Great spokes-couple, one’s brain damaged, the other’s partially handicapped from being shot in the head.
EVIL HOUSE OF (D) BLUE STATE BS AVALANCHE WARNING UP UNTIL THE ELECTIONS.
Although abuse suffered at the hands your boyfriend/girlfriend may not be considered domestic abuse, wouldn’t it still fall into some form of assault? Wouldn’t such assault charges potentially prevent people from purchasing arms? Although emotional abuse may be harder to prove, wouldn’t it fall under the category of coercion? What happens when that coercion results in the partner doing something against their will? I don’t know what kind of consequences coercion carries, but I can’t imagine it’s good.
My point is, there are probably laws already in place to deal with abusive boy/girlfriends, but it appears the gun control crowd don’t think they’re enough.
Wonder how much different things would be if people were instead empowered and encouraged to exercise their rights and laws to their favor…
I did not read the whole article. I did not have to. I am against any and all zero tolerance rules. That approach is for the lazy and lets judges and various other administrators (Schools) off the hook. Those people are elected and/or paid to judge or make calls/decisions based on the specific situation at hand. Zero tolerance is a cop out.
Bravo and well stated, Kerry.
“Americans for Final Solutions”
*Final Solutions*? Are they serious? Do we remember any other “final solutions” in the realm of politics, and arranging a society to make it “better?” Specifically *eliminating* one thing or another?
Also, “zero tolerance” based on what? It’s easy to get charged, and you know, malicious accusations happen.
It sounds a bit extreme to me, to round up everyone who has something that can be called “domestic violence”, perhaps in their history (or ancestry), perhaps any accusation by anyone with their own agenda (J’accuse!), and cart them off to have their firearms extracted before processing them into never having a firearm again.
Or if maybe they don’t mean quite that, they might choose some different words.
“Why Are So Many of America’s Women Murdered with a Gun?”
Ummmm, because they didn’t shoot back?
Seems like a trite response. A similarly trite but obvious answer is because they were not killed by a blunt object, knife or bear hands.
And yet, neither such response does much to get at the heart of the matter. As I understand it, killing a female domestic partner is almost never the first hostile act in a relationship. The overwhelming pattern is a fairly long-term escalation of threats and actual use of force short of grave bodily injury; followed by possible grave bodily injury; followed by the lethal attack.
The premise to “Why are so many American women killed by a gun?” is really a deliberate attempt to mis-focus attention on the word “gun”.
A much more useful question would be: “Why are so many American women killed?” The core of the answer is that they are vulnerable. The resolution of the problem is to explore the potential ways of making them less vulnerable.
– A historical solution is to “cloister” women behind barriers so as to make them less vulnerable. That approach certainly works; but it is absolutely rejected by our liberated society.
– An obvious solution is to encourage women to avoid or extract themselves from places, people, times and situations where their vulnerability places them at acute risk. This is cloistering to some degree; but still good advice. In the domestic context, the problem goes way beyond the means of lethality. It really involves the psychological, economical and legal complexities. Removing guns, knives and blunt objects won’t remove either the vulnerability or the means (strong-arm attack).
– Arming women with guns is A solution, but hardly an ideal solution. The first thing to be said here is that society has no legitimate authority to DIS-arm a woman from her right to keep and bear the means to an effective self-defense. Society can choose to do: nothing; something constructive; or, something destructive. Disarming a vulnerable woman is clearly destructive.
– A real solution to domestic violence is only to be found in educating and aiding women escaping violent relationships before they are seriously injured or killed. Removing guns from the home is no solution at all.