“We’re not tenth in population, we’re not tenth in land mass, we’re not tenth in wealth — we’re not tenth in anything except the number of women killed by their male partners.” – Colleen Coble, CEO of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence in Domestic abusers and guns? Missouri weighs what to do [via stltoday.com]
How dare those women defend themselves. Don’t they know that’s for men only. Only thing they’re good for is staying barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making sammiches. S/
That’s not true, My wife is a Successful Business owner, Wife, and wonderful Mother.
I support her and encourage her %100 In whatever she does.
I’ll bet the Majority of those abused women are single black women living in poverty; Yes they DESERVE to be able to protect themselves from violent “partners”. Maybe we should focus on black culture…..Hello? BLM? Moms demand action? hello? stop trying to disarm victims making it hard for them to defend themselves.
I’m Just Tired of the snowflake, Feminazi, man hating propaganda machine.
The S/ was clearly saying it was sarcastic, and I do agree with you on the libtard snowflakes.
LHW was making a sarcastic remark and tried to make that clear with the S/ at the end of his/her comment.
It is fairly common for people to clarify their sarcasm with “/sarcasm” or sometimes just “/s” at the end of their comment. It is similar to formatting that people use in software programming languages and certain types of electronic documents.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen postfix markup for any programming language or electronic document format. Not that it isn’t clear, but I’m not sure that the claim that “it is similar to formatting that people use in software programming languages and certain types of electronic documents” holds up. If it was prefix or stack-style (like HTML), then I could buy that.
Think of using the /s or /sarcasm construct as half of the constructs (as in the closing half without the opening half) used in software or document formatting.
Why is the discussion always about the impossible and moronic idea of “disarming” bad people and not about how to enable victims to defend themselves? These idiots screech about waiting periods so one might “cool down” before doing something bad but never discuss how that prevents those is most dire need from tooling up to save their life.
The DemonKKKrat party isn’t about enabling anybody to do anything for themselves. They’re about getting people to shut up and take whatever they give them, smile and ask for more.
(Rep. Donna Lichtenegger, R-Jackson, sponsored the bill last year that would have banned firearm possession to domestic violence offenders and protective order respondents. “if gun owners were truthful with themselves, the people we don’t want to have guns are people like abusers.”)
Many of us would agree. This is a tough needle to thread: yes, abusive and violent partners should not have access to weapons. So how do we determine who those people are? Is the word of the accuser alone sufficient? Do we require a minimum number of police reports to be filed? Do we need to see a report from the hospital emergency room physicians? Signed affidavit from friends and family?
After all the evidence is collected, is the accused entitled to a hearing and the right to legally defend themselves against the charges? Are the weapons confiscated before or after that hearing?
The tough sell we have is convincing non-gun owners why these questions are important. Someone who does not value their Right to Keep and Bear Arms often has difficulty understanding why those of us who do are so reluctant to grant the power to the State to so easily take away that right without a HELL of a lot of checks and balances. It’s just too easy for the uninformed and wilfully ignorant gun bigot to point at us and say “they think wife beaters should have guns!”
It puts us on the defensive, and I hate having to play defense when we’re trying to move forward on the restoration of our civil rights.
You don’t have to be on the defensive. It’s already a federal felony for such a person to be in possession of a firearm.
Mmm… The redhead in that commercial can handle my Glock any day… Might have a negligent discharge from her.
Damn… She’s gonna make me do a 33rd mag dump from my Glock!
I think it boils down to laziness. Why bother owning, carrying and training with a gun? Why, the cops are just a phone call away…
Of course, we here know this fallacy well. I don’t like to stereotype but a certain percentage of a certain political leaning think it’s always somebody else’s job.
I support guns for good gals😄😄😄! So is Iaway the worst state for beating babes?
I EMPHATICALLY OPPOSE all measures that deprive people of their rights without a fair opportunity to defend themselves and confront their accusers. Period.
Removing someone’s right based on nothing more than allegations (including domestic abuse allegations) is not a fair opportunity to defend oneself and confront your accusers.
On a practical note, taking away a domestic abuser’s firearms is meaningless since that domestic abuser can EASILY employ any number of techniques that do not involve firearms to kill their victim. Think about it: how hard can it be to kill someone (without firearms) when that person lives and SLEEPS in the same home with you? Answer: it is alarmingly easy.
The “need” is the same as everyone else: our world has whack jobs in it who will only be stopped by force.