How do protective orders really help women? In light of today's mass shooting..

[HipChick]

where an estranged (and enraged spouse) shows up, shoots the ex and those around them..

[glacierbay]

31. Here in MO

if there is an order of protection, we will take firearms away until the case is settled. But that still won't stop someone determined to kill their spouse.
My condolences to the families of the deceased and prayers for those that were wounded.

[TheDebbieDee]

47. Protective orders don't really protect! Protective orders allow the victims

of previous abuse to attack/kill their abusers without having to worry about being prosecuted for premeditated murder..........

I really don't believe that victims understand that protective orders WILL NOT protect them. No piece of paper will stop a pissed off abuser from confronting, threatening or harming their victim. But a protective order will allow the victim to protect themselves without fear of being prosecuted afterward.

My advice to any victim of stalking or domestic violence: Once you have been notified that the protective order has been served by the local police or sheriff, be ready to shoot your abuser on sight if you know the protective order will be ignored!

[glacierbay]

51. I advise victims of abuse that

an order of protection will not protect them, if they are in fear of their life, I will tell them, off the record, to apply for a CC permit and learn how to use a firearm. Not all heed my advice but some do. At least it gives them a fighting chance.

[TheDebbieDee]

58. I doubt that your advice to get a firearm and a CC permit was ignored..........

But chances are that many victims that you talk to are forced to account for every minute of time that they are out of the sight of their abuser and every penny of money that is spent. Abusive people are very paranoid, needy, sadistic and insecure individuals. I found it amazing that my ex-husband could pull himself together enough to even FAKE being a normal, functional human being.

From personal experience, I remember that although we were both fully employed, that phucker kept me broke! He refused to pay any bills, buy any food, help with the rent, baby-sitter fees, etc......

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. actually never mind

[crunch60]

234. Stand your ground can be used in these cases, and should be without repercussions.

[seabeyond]

2. i imagine any of those that are not murderous/criminal people. nt

[graham4anything]

3. with a legal gun allowed, no one in the world is safe to go about their 1st amendment rights.

long as there are guns and bullets, senseless spur of the moment rage will happen

PLEASE MAYOR MIKE...I hope your 8 figure super pac takes on the NRA and soon.

all guns/ammo need to be removed from the streets.

because people can snap, Good people, bad people, all people.

forget the illegal guns. it's the legal guns that are more the problem.

[Loudly]

10. Illegal guns start out as legal guns. Same provenance but with a wrong turn.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Yo Shares, is that you?

[eqfan592]

16. Sorry, but what a load of bullshit. eom

[L0oniX]

76. Alert - Jury report. Enjoy...

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Absent any comment from the alerter, I'd say that the notion all guns and ammunition should be removed from civilian hands IS a load of bullshit and therefore have decided this post should be left for all to see.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Calling a post bull shit is not calling the poster bull shit. Sorry ...alert fail ...call the Wambulance for personal assistance.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: At best this is borderline. No comment from the alerter? Benefit of the doubt goes to the poster.

[pipoman]

20. Nobody is truely "safe" under any conditions..

many, many spouses are killed without guns..you are over simplifying the problem. Further the NRA's 4 million members isn't the problem for gun control, nor are the gun manufacturers, it's the 100 million gun owners who are the problem for conservative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and "Mayor Mike" doesn't have enough money to fix them..he's tried, but alas, has devolved to insignificance.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. What other republicans to you pray to?

You are aware that Bloomie is a repuke who once claimed the NYPD as his own army?

Are you sure you are on the right board?

[graham4anything]

23. He actually is a liberal democrat from Mass.

the police department is an entity on its own

but of course ad hominem attacks and NRA soundbytes are why someone is needed to buck the NRA, the worlds #1 lobby group

only 4.3 million members (1% of America rounded off) 99% are not members of the NRA

and he is not acting in an official position capacity.
He is doing this as a private citizen

so your ad hominem to obstruct my opinion, well, we have argued guns before

Why are guns even backed on a liberal board in the first place???

but keep calling those that oppose your point of view, names. It is stunning.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Really? Wasn't he the Republican Mayor of NYC for a while? One of the 25 richest people in the US

One percenter who at times tries to rule by decree? That's your idea of a liberal Democrat? Maybe where you come from...

I am not obstructing your opinion, I am mocking your hero worship of a megalomaniac. I am not citing anyone's talking points, I am pointing out the issues of someone you are elevating on a pedestal.

Firearms are backed on DU since they are a freedom under the US Constitution, and the Democratic Party is about freedom, well at least mine is, not sure about yours and Bloomberg's.

[glacierbay]

46. Didn't he also sic the NYPD on the Occupy demonstrators?

Nice company he keeps, huh?

[graham4anything]

50. No, but you know that as I have answered this false soundbyte before.

It is stunningly amazing how a pro-gun person(and it's only one of a few people on DU),amazingly appear 24/7/365 to retort any anti-gun/ anti-nra post.

[glacierbay]

52. Yeah he did

your mayor mike is responsible for the NYPD, ergo, he's responsible for the brutality they perpetrated on the Occupy movement.

[graham4anything]

57. you are not from NYC, so don't be a pretender.

again, you are mistaken, but if you think others blindly believe it, go for it.

Meek mayor mike=The Equalizer except he is armed with money to combat a gun, not using one

and are you advocating, as a policeman Anarchy?

It's like those who are anti-gun were transported to Oz, and ask Oz for help.
He would say you already have that, all you are missing is this piece of paper.
ANd on it is a check with 8 figures (somewhere between 10 and 99 million dollars worth of paper).

[glacierbay]

62. What difference does it make it I'm in NY or not?

I know police brutality when I see it and as mayor of NY, Mikey is responsible for what his cops do.
What anarchy are you talking about, the Occupy movement? Or the NYPD? I advocate the equal application of the law for all citizens.
I also strongly support law abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves with the same tools as the police.

I am not responsible for your safety, you are unless you're in my custody, I'm responsible for the general public's safety, so why shouldn't a citizen have the right tool to protect themself?

[graham4anything]

69. you are advocating for a normal person to shoot someone first

Someone normal cannot become someone with mental issues and act crazy and shoot in cold blood

you are advocating people to take justice in their own hands.

I am not voting for mike, I am supporting his personal belief in this issue. I am not voting for him for president, for any position.(I now live in NJ, so I can't vote for him as Mayor anyhow.

but he is not Rudy G. whom I think you confuse him with.

but i do agree-NYC police have to much power, and they need a civilian police chief .They need to have more controls. But the mayor does not control the police.They need to get rid of the 96 hour rule, the blue wall of silence and all bad police.

imho

[glacierbay]

75. You really have no clue what I'm about do you?

If a victim of domestic violence is being threatened by their abuser with a weapon, your fucking right I'm saying for the victim to shoot first, under the law, it would be a righteous shoot.
Shooting someone threatening you with violence and has the means to cause great bodily harm or death is 100% legal in this country and I fully support it.
The mayor of NY is fully responsible for the actions of his police force, the buck stops at mikeys desk.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Not at all...he is advocating for people to be able to defend themselves against violence

Defending ones self in extreme circumstances is not taking justice in to your own hands. It is legitimate self defense. A gun owner cannot willy nilly shoot some one down with out reason. Who is the one using soundbites?

[graham4anything]

83. LOL 24/7/365

[img][/img]

[glacierbay]

85. ?????????????? nt.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. Maybe he is calling his lifeline?

[Zalatix]

113. Take justice in my hands, or be shot dead along with 10 others? Hmmmm. Hard decision there.

[graham4anything]

117. get the legal guns out of the open, you then can stop an illegal gun from entering

so there is an instant solution to a mass killing situation

(but it will fall on deaf ears.)

[glacierbay]

118. So I'll ask you again

do you really think that criminals will obey any law that forbids firearms outside of the home?

[graham4anything]

121. obviously you don't read, you just bloviate...if no one can have an outside gun

anyone caught with one will be dealt with (legal or not).

and most career criminals do NOT use guns knowing there is a higher penalty in some states.
So new laws can be made.

I thought the object was to reduce gun crime?
(or is it actually to keep the allmighty gun everywhere

which is it you want?

[glacierbay]

122. So I'll ask you again

do you really believe that criminals will obey any law forbidding guns from outside of the home?
And I can tell you with certainty that gang members don't give a shit about gun laws, going to prison is like a badge of honor for them, so they carry no matter what the penalty, so your argument is horse dung.

Which is it I want?
I support the right of any law abiding citizen to apply for and receive a CC permit as long as they qualify for it, to protect themselves against the criminal element because it's not the job of the police to protect the individual, my job is to protect the general public, you are responsible for your own safety.

I'm curious, what's your experience in dealing with the criminal element?

[graham4anything]

123. a simple person cannot protect themselves against a mafia, it ludacrist to bring that up

you kill a member of the mafia, they will avenge the death and kill you later.

all the weapons in the world won't stop them.

ask the guy who ran over the kid of the now dead mob boss.
he was thrown in a vat of acid.

again, make more security so you know someone is in the perimeter and then arrest the person with ANY gun. that way she don't get into the perimeter.

your argument is horse dung to use your word.

I would never pick up a gun, nor would I fight back. For what? If your time is up, it is.
A gun won't help you.

living in NYC in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s taught me what I need to know-
if one is a minority they are abused.
if one is ill, get the money to make them well
if one is a police officer, they have carte blanche to act as they will, the blue wall of silence, the 96 hours to concoct a story, etc.

funny, the only time someone threatened me with a gun was a person in my car who was a friend??? lOL, carrying a legal handgun that started fooling around. I didn't know he had one, and what I did was, I parked across the street from a parked empty cop car, and saw they were inside. I told him, calmly, what i was going to do is make a sudden u-turn, and crash my car into theirs. And then calmly explain to them why I did it and that my life was in danger at the "friend" in the back seat.
Never thought of wanting to have a gun to threaten him or anyone else.

I just looked at him through the rear view mirror and zoomed the pedal a little and he knew I was serious.
He got out of my car. And of course, the friendship ended.

no drugs, no money, no crime, just a buddy in the back seat horsing around with a gun in his hand pointed at me.

the brain is smarter than an idiot gun.

[glacierbay]

124. What the fuck does the mafia have to do with my question?

I'll ask you again, do you really think that criminals will obey any law forbidding guns outside of the home?
And what's your experience in dealing with criminals?
Just a simple answer w/o all the preamble will do.

[graham4anything]

125. you brought the mafia up. you said "if a gang member" the mafia is the gang, no?

or where you Willie Horton'ing it with a stereotypical image?

don't need to answer.


you are pretty nosy for someone who hates to be questioned.

It reminds me of Mayor Ed Koch, when someone nosy asked him about his sex life rumors.
He instantly asked her who she went down on last night and said he didn't give a shit about the answer, but if she was going to be nosy he would have some fun too.

You always bring up ad nausem (as if it impresses me???) that you are a cop.(earth to glacierbay, it don't impress me, it's a job, no more or less important than any other job.
And it was your choice to go to Vietnam and your choice to become an officer.
Same with anyone else in the nation who makes a choice.

I don't need to have a cops experience.(and being from NYC seen dozens a year wrong use of weapons by said officers.)

I know I would never pick up a gun for any reason.
And if I were in Nazi Germany like my ancestors were or my mother was, I would not become a Nazi to get out.
What I would do is do what my grandfather did.
Take the family and wihtout any weapon make a long journey through the mountains, countries and boat finally to America.

instant amnesty, instant citizenships
dollars for training and new jobs

take the sters out of the gangs and unglorify the gun.

and actually, the mafia is the reason for drugs, the reason for crime, the reason a person needs to feed their habit.
all hand in hand.
and you brought the mafia up

[glacierbay]

126. If you don't have the answer

then just say " sorry I don't have an answer so I'll try to baffle you with bullshit". That's all you have to say.
The mafia is not a street gang, the Crips and Bloods are and you damn well know thats what I was referring to.
One more time, do you think that criminals, mafia or otherwise, will obey any law that forbids guns outside of the home?
What is your experience in dealing with criminals?

[graham4anything]

127. who do you think supplies them with the goods they distribute?

the ones you talk about are the lower on the totem pole.

it is not manufactured by them.

the kids in those groups are abused by the top ceo's

gangs are like corporations in structure.

and the drugs are not manufactured nor brought into the poor areas by them.
they are already there, the drugs are brought into the area

and only because of no opportunities, do people join them.

but give them something better, and 99.9% of all members of those organizations will do something else.

whereas the mafia is a different story. those in will remain in their comfy, cushy jobs.

and YES I do, for the zillionth time to the question.

and the last question is immaterial, and you are bullying me for some reason.

(but I do confess I knew what you meant, sad to say.) It is sad.

considering I thought only republicantealibertariaans had such old fashioned views on people.

[glacierbay]

128. Still not answering my question

Please, just a simple yes or no.
Do you really believe that criminals will obey any law that forbids guns outside of the home? Yes or NO?

And I'm not trying to bully you by asking what your experience is in dealing with criminals, I really want to know.

[PavePusher]

172. "...you are bullying me for some reason."

No, trying to get a straight, coherent answer out of someone during a debate is not "bullying".

Please check your definitions.

[Zalatix]

168. graham4anything already answered your question, didn't you see?

The answer was to lay down and die.

[glacierbay]

171. I saw that

and I'm still just stunned that he would not defend himself. I have no words to describe the stupidity of that statement.
Even the most ardent pacifist I know will defend themselves.

[PavePusher]

163. "the brain is smarter than an idiot gun."

Not yours, apparently, as you proposed doing something exceptionally idiotic in response to something that should have been handled by simple conversation. Or simply getting out of the car and taking the keys with you.

However, it seems you're correct on at least one claim you've made: Not everyone should have a gun. You are certainly in that catagory.

[PavePusher]

164. "a simple person cannot protect themselves against a mafia"

According to stories posted recently, 12-year old girls can effectively protect themselves against home-invaders with violent criminal histories.

The fuck I can't defend myself against "a mafia".

ask the guy who ran over the kid of the now dead mob boss.
he was thrown in a vat of acid.

Huh? Citation, please.

I would never pick up a gun, nor would I fight back. For what? If your time is up, it is.
A gun won't help you.

You may certainly chose surrender for yourself, you may not chose it for me. I beleive I can make my own fate. Your religous beliefs are, as you claim above, "horse dung". And the empirical evidence proves you utterly incorrect.

[Zalatix]

167. WTF is this "If your time is up, it is" lay down and die argument?

A gun has helped many would-be victims avoid becoming victims.

the brain is smarter than an idiot gun.

Except after a bullet has passed through it. Then it's not smart, it's dead.

[PavePusher]

162. "anyone caught with one will be dealt with (legal or not). "

What exactly do you mean by that?

[PavePusher]

161. How do you advocate we do this?

How much of a police state are you desiring to impose?

[PavePusher]

160. "you are advocating for a normal person to shoot someone first"

You are ignorant of how self-defense laws work, and how actual sefl-defense works.

I suggest you study up a bit.

Google "Masaad Ayoob".

[PavePusher]

159. Your "Meek mayor mike" is surrounded by armed guards.

Hypocricy Phayle.

[graham4anything]

48. As always(on scores of posts against me by gun fans) this is stereotyping which is wrong to do.

being rich is not a crime. it is like those conspiracy theorists saying anyone at some meeting or other is bad by association.

the whole world is bad as anyone is 6 degrees of separation from someone else.

Prejudice against money is still prejudice. (and somehow it always turns to something else as conspiracy theories usually do.)

And MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT is being abused by the wrong reading of the 2nd amendment that a corrupt court ruled for. Someday, someway there will be a better court.

and Mayor Mike is spending his money on good. AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN

yet you are defending the NRA.

all it takes to beat the NRA is more money. And guess who has it?

(and I will donate to their cause myself, when you or one your fellow opinion people say view like mine cause people to donate to the NRA.)

the NRA is like a bully.
Meek mayor mike is the one on the sand having sand kicked in his face
no longer.

BTW-Mike is Jewish. Me too. Basically he is doing what gun people have said Jews should have done in WW2. Arming himself.
Except instead of a gun, the arming is money to fight money.
And protection for those politicians that cower in fear of being defeated by the NRA

come next year, Mike is not running for any other office.

just as a private citizen.

btw-Batman was mega rich too.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Meek Mayor Mike? Can you make it any more funny?

Please tell us how your 1st Amendment rights are being infringed. I would love to see what kind of case you can make.

Your defense of a true 1%er is a classic.
- Its not a crime to be rich
- Batman is rich,
- He will just be be a private citizen (as if that is possible with that kind of wealth)
- He is Jewish (as if the matters in the slightest, one way or the other)

Your infatuation with him is astounding...as is your egocentricity "post against me"

[graham4anything]

66. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

being shot with a gun ruins my life
being shot with a gun ruins my liberty
being shot with a gun ruins my pursuit of happiness
being shot with a gun ruins me being equal
being shot with a gun ruins my freedom of speech as I am silenced by the gun
being shot with a gun ruins my right to free assembly in a mall
being shot with a gun and then saying someone else should have a gun to shoot someone else first means that person is a vigillante and not giving the alleged assalliant their right to a trial by a jury of their peers and they might be found not guilty for lack of evidence, or being mentally unfit to stand trial as is a right every person in the USA

however, coming from NYC, I know many people are shot first(some 40 or 51 times) before finding out if they even have a gun, and that is being shot with LEGAL guns by law enforcement offices, trained badly by police commissioners, and with the blue wall of silence,
unless forced, those policemen have 96 hours to concoct stories to match the situaiton

do you need more examples?

and one day a new court will rule different.

Again-this is not a libertarian board. This is not a gun board.
LIberals are suppose to be against guns. And more guns=more violence.
legal/illegal it's all the same

and I am not voting for MayorMike. So cut the crap. I am backing his personal position on guns.And will argue you are wrong about him, but its irrelevant, as he is not running for anything.
Just excercising his first amendment right

and hopefully all democrats will back his view agains the NRA. Good money is good.
It's bad money that isn't.
And stereotyping all as wrong is silly. (And 99% of those that work on Wall street are 9 to 5 workers not rich at all. Those same people died on 9-11, not the CEO's.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. Anything illegal that terminates your life would be the same

Going to ban cars, hammers, kitchen knives, and alcohol? They all are used in the killing of others.

There is no hierarchy in the BOR. The 1st and 2nd existing side by side and without conflict, at least for most of us.

You are also ignoring defense gun use. Its a much argued statistic, but even the worst of the Brady Bunch and VPC do acknowledge it happens. People who remain alive and able to use their rights due to their private ownership and at times carrying of firearms. I am among them.

I don't know where you get the idea that liberals and progressives are supposed to be against guns. Maybe in your little world, but there is a whole country of people and places outside of NYC & NJ where that certainly isn't the case. Your northeast urban myopia is neither the standard for the party nor the nation.

I know you are not voting for Bloomie, but your level of adoration is somewhere between amusing and appalling when everything is laid on the table. Then again, its your call to support a high handed 1%er and still call yourself a liberal Democrat

[graham4anything]

81. the nra is the 1% the rest is not relevant

what does the OWS have to do with this thread???

cigarettes used to be popular by the vast majority
now its a small minority

the John Birch society used to be popular
now the KKK is spit on

advocating everyone in a mall have a gun is well, just so silly silly silly

someone exercising their 1st amendment right is high handed?

[glacierbay]

87. Show me one post

where anyone here is saying that everyone should have a gun, just one.
Here's what we're saying, a qualified citizen should have the same right to carry the same tool (firearm) as a police officer to protect themself if they so wish.

[graham4anything]

93. wow. I mean wow.

what happens when the 2 interests collide?

[glacierbay]

96. wow. I mean wow.

Can you answer the question pending? W/O the long winded speech?

[PavePusher]

180. The police should never "collide" with the lawful, peaceful exercise of a Constitutional Right.

Nor do the whims of the police have any weight over such.

Your insinuation to the opposite is vile and has no place on D.U.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Depite your obsession with the NRA is quite clear, the rest is also relevant

Guns are popular for self defense because they work. They allow the weak to resist the predators effectively. It allows the weak to protect themselves and their rights. Why you would disarm the helpless and make it easy for predators is beyond me and scarcely liberal

Birchers are just another weak strawman on you part as was cigarettes.

I did not see anyone advocating everyone carrying in a mall...did anyone else?

If you think Meek Mayor Mike will be just a private citizen when he leaves office and have no more impact or influence than you or I when utilizing his 1st amendment rights, pull the other finger.

Let me offer up a classic use of personal firearms in support of a liberal cause, the Deacons for Defense. They probably don't teach about up your way, but it was real and worked. I had family involved in it.

Also consider this...in NYC and NJ, the ones you disarm first are the poor and minorities. Gun control has classist and racist roots. Returning to them is neither liberal nor progressive.

[PavePusher]

177. How in the Nine Flaming Hells does police misconduct justify restricting Citizens' Rights?

Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

You are so far into the outfield, you're no longer at the game.

[sarisataka]

237. Please compare and contrast these two statements

LIberals are suppose to be against guns. And more guns=more violence.
legal/illegal it's all the same

We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

- Barack Obama

[pipoman]

140. What's funny is

that seemingly nobody else agrees with you enough to back you up. Time and again right here in GD polls have shown that most Democrats disagree with your position...cry about those who speak their disagreement with your position..maybe you should resort to the vacant sites which support 2nd amendment rights infringement...that is if they still have enough money coming in to pay the $20 annual .com fee...lol

[PavePusher]

175. "Meek mayor mike" is surrounded by armed guards....

yet he would deny people to poor to pay for the same privilige the Right to be their own armed security.

Fuck. That. Noise.

It has nothing to do with being Jewish. Or Batman. (Although noteably, Batman never advocated disarming the Citizenry, as far as I know.)

[glacierbay]

32. Nice

Pushing your anti gun agenda on the blood of the wounded and dead, real classy. I notice you didn't offer any condolences to the families of the deceased or offer any prayers for the wounded. I think we know where your priorities lie.

[PavePusher]

158. Right, no-one ever got killed before the invention of firearms.

Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2012, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Pull the other one....

[0rganism]

4. restraining orders really don't help much in cases like this

they help when there's close-range non-lethal physical assault.

But really, what could have helped? Besides more restrictive firearms purchasing and possession laws, which are fairly difficult to push through these days. Once the perpetrator-to-be has access concealable small arms, there's basically nothing to prevent a massacre. Maybe some kind of mandatory pre- and post-separation counseling would be useful, but couples can split up without going through any official procedure (prior to a divorce).

More restrictive allocation of marriage licenses, maybe. It's possible our society is just too damn permissive in how we let heterosexuals get married all willy-nilly drive-thru style.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. hi!

[0rganism]

238. hey there!

it's been way too long - time for another meetup, perchance?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

240. I wish I could

I'm on 24 hour duty with Gram. As soon as possible, though.

[Suich]

5. In 1968, I was told by my attorney

that the restraining order I had against my soon-to-be-ex husband, was only as good as the paper it was written on.

Some things never change.

[FirstLight]

7. +1000!!!

my divorce was in 2004....I was told the same...Paper isn't bulletproof

[EarthGurl2012]

9. 1998 for me.

[niyad]

6. restraining orders did not help nicole brown simpson, and did not help a woman who was murdered

at work here by her ex, and those are just two off the top of my head.



Victims hope justice will prevail. Survivors know better.

Sally Allen
Index

Catalysts for violence

Examples of the catalytic precipitance of violence

Example one — Woman shot and killed as she arrives for work

Example two — Woman shot an killed in living room of friend's house where she had sought safety

Example three — Woman killed by ex-husband who had five prior DV convictions

Example four — Woman killed at work after taking out protection order against boyfriend

Example five — Protection order doesn't stop boyfriend from killing woman at her home

Example six — Woman killed with an axe in her sleep six days after she obtained protection order

Example seven — Woman killed leaving courthouse

Example eight — Wife murdered after filing for divorce and getting a protection order

Example nine — Wife obtains protection order then husband kills her and himself

Example ten — Prison guard kills wife and two sons after unfaithful wife obtains protection order

Example eleven — Husband is murdered after he files for divorce and obtains protection order against violent wife

Example twelve — Woman murdered at city center after filing for divorce and obtaining protection order

Example thirteen — Woman raped and stabbed after getting protection order against ex-boyfriend

Example fourteen — Ex-husband murders former wife despite protection order against him

Example fifteen — Girl murdered by ex-boyfriend despite DV conviction and protection order against him

What is the answer?

Other examples and opinions

Catalysts for violence

Top
Note that as of May 2011 we still have no documented or undocumented case where a protection order was known or claimed to have provided significant protection.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-14.htm

[glacierbay]

34. Unfortunately

in my line of work, I have seen this far too often, an order of protection will not stop someone determined to harm the protectee. No law in the world is going to stop this.
I've told women who have been abused and have obtained an order of protection to get a CC permit and learn how to use a gun, at least it gives them a fighting chance.

[Hoyt]

45. But in most cases, absence of a gun helps.

Sure some Xs get drowned or hit with a rock. But it's harder to kill and hurt others with no gun. Reducing access to guns will help, most assuredly in the future.

[glacierbay]

55. No it won't

criminals will always be able to obtain a gun, the only one's affected will be the lawful citizens. I have no qualms advising victims who are in fear of their lives to apply for a CC permit and learn to use a firearm, like I said, at least it gives them a fighting chance.

[Hoyt]

59. You need to think long-term, expand your view.

Just because you don't think it will help tomorrow, it will definitely help in future.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. I teach firearms to women for just this kind of thing, and for the foreseeable future firearms are

the best answer for them. They are not large enough to defend themselves in the vast majority of cases. There is no certainty (indeed it is unlikely) that LEO will be there in time.

Before she died, my wife helped shelter women. I have seen first hand the horror some had suffered. I am not willing to take away from them the best tool available to protect themselves. Why so many self described liberals and progressives are continues to astound me.

[glacierbay]

67. I too, have seen the horrors of domestic violence

and I fully support the right of a victim, 99.9% of the time it's women, to protect themselves, that's why I strongly support CC permits and I always tell victims that are in fear of their life to apply for a CC permit and to learn how to use a gun, at least it will give them a fighting chance.

[glacierbay]

65. I'm sorry Hoyt

I like you, I really do, but you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this subject, lawfu citizens should be afforded the same right to the tool as cops to protect themselves.

[Hoyt]

73. I'll agree you and I have a different view of police, in general.

I don't usually feel uncomfortable around police, unless blue lights are shining in my rear view mirror . But some yahoo with a gun keeps me on my toes just like some fool with an armed cross-bow or big knife would. In my state you can't pack those, why guns? We shouldn't have to put up with what one poster described as "rude toting. "

In any event, spousal abuse - particularly of nature in today's celebration of the 2nd Amendment -- would be less likely. Too many become emboldened with their guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. If you think a enraged and irrational individual will not act because all they have

is a machete or large knife vs a handgun, you need to think again.

Are you going to ban kitchen knives next? I have a ceremonial saber hanging on my wall. Should I put an edge on it? Would that make it an assault weapons, it has clear military usage in its roots

[PavePusher]

183. Surely you can cite to stats, pre- and post-firearm development, that support your assertion. n/t

[Jamastiene]

226. Ever heard of fists?

Those are used in a lot of spousal abuse before it ever escalates to the use of guns. This is not the time nor place for anti-gun nonsense. If a woman is facing fists pounding her day after day and needs the protection, then she should most definitely get a gun and get ready to use it. She can either become a victim while she waits for the theories like yours to work (or not) or she can have at last a chance to defend herself.

[Jamastiene]

225. Tell that to a woman all bloodied and bruised from the fists that just pounded her into a pulp. n/t

[Hoyt]

227. How about a baby who gets shot? In most cases there are better ways

than arming up. Get out, go to a shelter, press charges, etc., before arming up and promoting others to as well.

If there is no other way, get the kids out and get a gun if no other alternatives to a gun are available. I think that is rare. And, the first time a spouse abuses someone, it's time to leave for good. Relying on a gun is unlikely to resolve things.

[Jamastiene]

229. Or the 4 year old who was beaten to death 6 miles north of me the other week?

Ban belts and hands too? Which one of your hands should we ban first? Got any belts?

http://yourdailyjournal.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Murdered+girl+was+beaten-+court+files+show%20&id=20477046&instance=top_stories

[glacierbay]

231. One of my worse domestic violence calls

was one night about 10-12 years ago, we got a call to the east side of St. Louis of a fight in progress, when we arrived the husband, who had an Order of Protection against him, had stabbed his wife and young daughter to death and slashed his throat. She did everything that she was supposed to do, she called 911, she barricaded herself in a bedroom with her daughter, but she didn't have any means to protect herself.
That's why I'm a staunch supporter of gun rights, and the right of qualified citizens to apply for a CC permit.
I'm not saying that the woman would have survived if she had a gun that night, but she at least would have had a fighting chance.
That scene still haunts me to this day.

[Hoyt]

236. I suppose a gun would have helped.

[PavePusher]

239. Your facile facetiousness has wandered grossly off-topic. n/t

[virgogal]

8. If a guy is determined to get you a piece of paper won't stop him.

Sad,scary,but true.

[deafskeptic]

13. yup.

When I lived in Charlotte, NC, one night I came home to see tons of cops at one of the apts near my apt.

The next day I found out that a Latino woman who lived in that apt was murdered by her ex husband. She had a restraining order against him.

[Xithras]

152. A law is only as effective as a persons willingness to follow it.

Laws don't prevent crime, but simply punish the guilty after the fact. No law is going to stop a person from doing something if they're willing to face the consequences, are convinced they will get away with it...or have no intention of surviving it.

If a person has already committed themselves to murder, a piece of paper from a judge prohibiting it isn't going to change anything.

[H2O Man]

11. No.

In the late 1980s, after my sons' mother and I separated. I was working full-time at the county mental health clinic, and was the parent with custody of a five and a seven year old. As their mother got the house -- and, for three years, got "child support," despite making more money than me, and only having visitation.

These circumstances lead to a bit of frustration with "the system," and some anger towards their mother. So, I founded a "men's rights and responsibilities" group. It caught on fairly well, and soon we had men who had been married or in close relationships that went sour, as well as men with children, step-children, or no children. There was a wide range of situations.

The majority of the men I encountered in this setting were "safe," in the context of posing no threat to their ex and/or children. They might blow off a little steam in the group process, but I was confident that they were okay outside of group. But there were a few guys who were definitely dangerous. They had some common characteristics -- being physically abusive; making vicious threats; and stalking, among others. And they neither saw any connection between their behavior and their current situation, or felt they needed to obey any court order.

I could go on and on. (In fact, I kept a handful of journals, that I have considered putting into a book. My working title is "Diary of an Angry House-Husband.&quot

Also: the boys are now men, and are wonderful human beings. I have again become friends with their mother. Their relationships with her aren't perfect -- few human relationships are.

[justiceischeap]

12. I'm sure I'm about to enrage some folks but here goes anyway

I think if you have a history of domestic abuse and a restraining order is sworn out on you and you're a legal gun owner... you must relinquish your firearms and should be flagged in the system so you cannot legally purchase one. Felon's aren't legally allowed to purchase firearms and I don't think someone with a record of domestic abuse (prosecuted or otherwise) should be allowed to legally own a firearm. I think that would cut down on some of the cases.

[obamanut2012]

14. That's already the law

[justiceischeap]

25. Then it doesn't seem to be working.

There has to be better ways to protect women... I'm guessing if men were predominately in the position, there'd be better controls.

[krispos42]

42. Ultimately, the women, some of them, are facing situations where they will need to be armed.

Whether they're willing to purchase, learn to use, and then carry a concealed pistol or a taser or something, that's something only they can decide.

Whether they're going to be able to purchase a gun in a reasonable time frame and carry it concealed... that's something the people decide.

Biology has decreed that men are generally larger, stronger, and more violent (or at least more aggressive) than women. This will remain the case for the foreseeable future. In hand-to-hand combat, or any combat using hand-powered weapons (knives, clubs, etc.) the man will win the vast majority of the time. In gun-to-gun combat, at least the odds are much closer to being even.

Wisconsin, only a few months ago, legalized concealed-carry and began issuing permits. While the lack of a permit system would of course not affect an angry, homicidal spouse who sticks a gun in his pants or jacket, drives to a specific location, and starts murdering people, it would allow the possibility that the spouse could carry routinely in case such an event came to pass.

[graham4anything]

24. +1

[dems_rightnow]

30. Like this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

[glacierbay]

37. Here in Missouri

anyone with an order of protection against them, we will confiscate their firearms and their name goes into the system so they can't legally buy another firearm until the case is settled, however, that doesn't stop someone from buying a gun from a private party, that's why I support opening up NICS to private sellers to determine if the person buying the weapon is a legal buyer.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

173. That was the case here...

There was an order of protection and the shooter had been ordered to turn in his firearms while the order was in place. Clearly, that didn't happen.

[LadyHawkAZ]

15. They tell you when you file

to remember that it's just a piece of paper, and anything else you may need to do to stay safe, do that. At any rate they used to- I don't know if they still do. Paper's not bulletproof. Most of the time it's an effective deterrent, but when it's not, it does get ugly.

[jody]

19. Govt. is not obligated to protect anyone unless they are in custody. Self-defense is a personal

responsibility.

Citizens can call 911 when attacked and seconds count and police will respond in 15 minutes or more if lucky.

Alternatively citizens can defend themselves with whatever means available.

There are over 800,000 thousand sworn law enforcement officers and their tool of choice for self-defense is a handgun.

[Hoyt]

26. Maybe we should start making self-defense easier by reducing gun availability.

[graham4anything]

29. + a zillion trillion million

it is the legal guns that create the problems with illegal guns in the first place

[Hoyt]

40. It seems so obvious. And, you are exactly right about "legal" guns

becoming "illegal. "

And some people have to buy more and more of the things. Put a cap on em and start ratcheting down.

No it won't stop spousal abuse, etc., but it will help. If we wait another decade, there will be another 100 million guns on the streets.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. That would only make things eaiser for the perps

Why you support the predators in society by trying to remove one of the credible defenses against them is beyond me.

Solve the violence and self defense gun ownership will dwindle. Until then to disarm the weak is almost criminal.

[Hoyt]

77. Except, Professor, there would be a lot less perps.

If this guy today had no gun, this would likely not have happened at all. If it did, others likely would have intervened, and outcome would likely have been better.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. You truly think someone bent on violence will not use another weapon than a handgun?

I have seen way too many violent and angry people in my life to believe that.

Maybe if this society used MJ instead of alcohol, but its not like that is going to happen either.

[Hoyt]

89. Not everyone who does crud like this is as "bent" as you assume.

Without being emboldened by a gun, most would fume, curse, get drunk, and never end up hurting anyone. If they tried, a lot less would be hurt. If it's only 10 % better, it's worth it. I think it will be more than 10%.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. What about those you would disarm who need firearms to protect themselves against

the 90% for whom drinking and fuming was not enough? You would take away the most effective tool they have to keep themselves safe. While it is a hotly contested metric, DGUs do occur daily.

[Hoyt]

97. Professor, much less will do it without a gun.

That's a start. Better than arming up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Much less or 10%?

We could quibble over the amount (both with nothing solid to support our positions), but to me the DGU trump the other concerns.

Admittedly I was a little more mixed on it at one point. I had never been around serious domestic violence. However talking to the victims, seeing their wounds and looking into their eyes changed that permanently for me. I will not disarm the weak to support the predator. If they don't have a gun, they will use a brick, knife, or belt.

[Hoyt]

105. I think most folks would prefer to fight a brick, or belt.

But most folks who would use a gun, won't use a brick, etc.

Maybe if you could view this from society's standpoint.

[glacierbay]

107. You just nailed it

society has spoken, that's why 49 of 50 states now have some form of CC laws and the last hold out will soon have some sort of CC law and before you say that the NRA bullied the states to allow this, that's patently false, the people of the states elected the legislatures to pass these laws and so far, not one state is even considering repealing CC laws.
I strongly support qualified citizens being able to apply for and receive a CC permit.
Here in MO, the process is pretty thorough, here are the MO State Statutes for CC.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000101.HTM

These are pretty extensive and I'm satisfied with them.
Almost every street cop I know supports the CC system here in MO.

[Zalatix]

174. Prey logic.

[Hoyt]

176. People who consider themselves "prey" probably ought not have access to guns.

[Zalatix]

181. Moar prey logic!

[PavePusher]

187. A woman who has an RO against an abusive husband shouldn't have access to defensive weapons?

That's what you just said.

Wow.

[Hoyt]

197. If he or she truly consider themselves "prey" (meaning they will do anything to survive), and

are likely quite skittish, I'd suggest a different approach than giving them a gun. I think they might shoot at anything that produces an adrenalin rush.

I fully understand a woman or man who is threatened needing protection, but I don't think a gun is the best protection to someone who feels like "prey." Sorry that you fail to understand.

Guns are seldom the best answer.

I wonder how many hunters would still be alive if skittish deer, squirrels, duck, etc., were armed.

[glacierbay]

84. Not necessarily

He could just have easily used a knife, about 10-12 years ago, we got a domestic violence call in progress, when we arrived, the wife and child were dead, having been stabbed to death and the husband had cut his own throat and was bleeding out when we got there, guess what? The deceased wife had an order of protection against the husband, he wasn't supposed to be there. He didn't need a gun to kill 3 people, one being a 5 year old girl.
That one still haunts me to this day.

[Hoyt]

106. GB, I get it some folks will use another weapon, but many who might use a gun

won't use a less lethal weapon. Nothing is going to solve any serious social problem. But, we still should seek improvement even if 100% resolution isn't possible.

[glacierbay]

108. Very true

but if the victim has a gun, it would give pause to those that would use a knife, brick, baseball bat, broken bottle, maybe even if the aggressor has a gun, they might think twice knowing that their potential victim is armed.
A gun is not a magic talisman, but at least it gives the victim a fighting chance.

Really enjoyed this back and forth between us tonight. Here, have a beer on me,
I'll bet that other than the firearms issue, we're pretty much aligned on the political issues.

If you ever get up around St. Louis way, drop me a PM and we'll get together and I'll hook you up on a ride along.

[Hoyt]

132. Sounds good and thanks. I did the ride along that with my father-in-law years ago.

I was expecting donuts, but he was pretty busy patrolling a big county.

[glacierbay]

133. I promise I'll supply the donuts and coffee

for us.

[graham4anything]

116. YUP!!!

getting 10% of something is better than 100% of nothing

if you notice here at du, on these threads if you or I say anything, there are always the same buddies come on and we get hounded and its 24/7/365 as if there is some filter to notify them that someone said something against the NRA

which means we need a few more on our side

I noticed the same thing on the last place I posted (whcih shut down in Feb.) after posting on that site for 8 years (the offshoot of the old Kerry official board). 24/7/365

all logic seems to disappear from the pro-NRA/pro-gun people.

and the same talking points come up (and so does words to say anti-gun people are crazy,loco,nuts,take your meds etc.) to derail an argument.

It is why I am so interested and like NYC mayor's new superpac he is as a private citizen starting. (and donating 8 figures(which is 10-99million) to back any politiican who will side against the nra and for doing something rational.
It is the first time there is money to combat the NRA money.

which will lead to people on both sides starting to say something.

We seem to give them sane ideas on collecting guns, on shooting ranges, on everything one can think of, including the can't disprove logic, that if you take added security outside
and stop legal and illegal from entering, the threat of a Columbine is stopped, and the threat of
the crime against one person that balloons into a mass murder is also stopped.

One thing the gun guys never admit is-
a brick, a fist, a knife, a car wound can be NON-fatal and when there is a person with mental issues, even if that person does attack the first person, he can be stopped, or damage is minimal because others can run away, whereas a gun with many bullets kills many quickly without chance of escape.
Most car crashes are survivable,same with a knife wound. But with the modern killing bullets, those are not.

Having a person flailing with a knife, well, a stun-gun would work fine on that person and no one would be permanently hurt or some sort of bobbie trap.

and having a gun in the house with kids the NRA says those guns should be safely locked up
or someplace out of reach of a sleepwalking kid.
WHICH MEANS if a perp broke into a house with a gun(and the vast majority of nighttime breakins are professional who don't want a fight, just want some jewelery they can hock,
but they actually won't have agun knowing that will in alot of states add time to the crime when caught. But if they do have a gun, they can shoot well before the sleeping person upstairs can reach the LOCKED-UP gun.
So these pro-gun people are just talking bravado, but not actual in homes with family.
(and if people are so scared they actually stay up all night 24 hours or something,or have a gun under their pillow, well, those trigger happy people are a danger to themselves(like a pilot who hasn't slept in 3 days flying an airplane).

Every situation can have a solution without a gun, if one gets rid of ALL guns from outside a home. Then going backward to get illegal guns


What it ends up with is they seem to always get the last word, because not too many people waste time arguing the issue because of their rigidness into conceding nothing.

and it always makes me wonder, what they are afraid of, because what they cite is irrational
arguments. (and why do people seem to "stockpile" guns and ammo?

and that scares me more than a criminal with a gun.

to be continued

[glacierbay]

119. So a law abiding citizen with a gun

scares you more than a criminal with a gun?
Just when you think you've heard it all, this comes out.

[Hoyt]

134. Let's be fair. The point here is to cut down on the criminals who have a gun, and

those like spousal abusers or Zimmerman who become a criminal because guns are so accessible. I firmly believe Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car -- and subsequently murdered Martin -- if he had not had a gun. I also doubt as many would have been killed in the incident in OP.

As I've said before, where I live the folks carrying guns are quite often yahoos, bigots, and right wingers. The gun stores were full of these reprobates after the 2008 elections. I'd feel much safer if they couldn't carry their guns in public parks, churches, bars, stores, etc. They are callous people and think they will save the day.

[glacierbay]

136. I fully agree

Let's cut down on criminals with guns, but let's do it in a way that doesn't violate the rights of law abiding citizens. The first step would be to end the war on drugs, invest more in education, more jobs, more jobs, more jobs, invest more heavily in the nations infrastructure which will create more jobs, more money to help rebuild the impoverished neighborhoods, and if I missed it, more jobs. Oh yeah, and let's end the fucking wars and bring the troops home and spend the money on social issues.
This would go a long ways towards cutting down on criminals with guns, most citizens with jobs don't resort to crime to survive.

I can't speak to the type of citizens in your town, but in my city, I have found that, yes there are "yahoos" but they are the minority, not the majority of gun owners and I see no reason to restrict their right to own and carry guns as long as they are qualified to do so.

[PavePusher]

193. "...become a criminal because guns are so accessible."

One wonders how people became criminals before the devlopment of guns, and what explains the criminals who don't use guns.

In short: Lojik Phayle.

[PavePusher]

192. Statistics work differently in that one's world. n/t

[glacierbay]

198. Very true

and I can't even wrap my head around some of the comments by G4A.

[Hoyt]

130. Sounds like we have same experience with gun cultists.

[Decoy of Fenris]

131. Why don't you take a look at some of the posts I've made recently, Hoyt?

In fact, there's one in GD right now. Why don't you hop on in, and let's have us a little talk?

[Hoyt]

135. So that I have a little better feel for where you are coming from -- How do you feel about NRA?

How do you feel about racist gun cultists like discussed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117280821

How often do you strap a gun or two on before venturing out?

Are you one of those who believe that folks who don't know the difference between a mag and clip, haven't had an orgasm shooting at silhouette targets that resemble people, etc., can not speak on the political issue of guns in our society?

That would help before having "a little talk" with someone who might just be a gun cultist.

[glacierbay]

137. C'mon Hoyt

give him a fair shake, he's extremely fair and very knowledgeable on the subject.

[Decoy of Fenris]

139. I believe I've answered these questions from you before, or something similar.

The Rangel rifle is no more racist than any other political satire. We frequently attach the names of politicians to the policies that they enable; in this case, the subject (Rangel) is being satirized through strong irony, or to be slightly more simple, attaching his name to something he has campaigned against. Hardly racist.

I strap exactly no guns on, because despite owning a pistol and several rifles, I feel no need to defend myself, even though I currently work in a job when a daily work shift ends in no less than three verbal altercations involving "I will F...... kill you."

I believe that in -any- conversation, it is best if one is fully educated before speaking. For instance, I generally will not speak on quantum physics or particle acceleration, let alone pick a side in any disputed topics, if I do not understand them. Given your example, if one is speaking on the topic of high-capacity ammunition bans, I'd certainly hope that before someone picks a side, they are properly educated and form a coherent and logical argument. While it is not a requirement, it makes discourse certainly more meaningful. After all, without knowledge on a subject, how can someone come to an intelligent decision regarding it or defend said subject in a debate?

[Hoyt]

142. If you think the Mississippi gun shop selling a Charlie Rangel assault rifle is just satire, we'd

have problems discussing such things rationally. Sorry, I find this quite racist, but in keeping with my experience with the most fervent gun cultists -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/117280821

Would love to see a link to where "we" discussed these questions before.


As to mag vs. clip -- all one really needs to know to discuss political implications is that the purpose of both is to feed bullets into chamber so one can shoot people.

[Decoy of Fenris]

143. Ah, aye, it was DanTex, not you.

He asked almost identical questions in a post not so long ago and I responded very similarly. In fact, in that particular thread, I believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt in regards to your trolling of the RKBA group. My apologies there, mate. I'm afraid my memory isn't what it should be.

And I find it unfortunate that you'd boil down such a hotly debated topic into such a simplistic and uneducated statement. However, I would be more than willing to carry this on in the post... Here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021595747

I look forward to an intelligent and thoughtful debate, mate. G4A requested aid there, and coincidentally, I found it in you, here. So let's talk over yon; no sense in having two threads with a debate spread between two of them.

[Hoyt]

144. I find it unfortunate you don't acknowledge the racism in the Mississippi gun store's promotion.

Sadly, I find the same view from most gun cultists I've known for well over 40 years.

As to "talking over yon," I really don't care to debate one so steeped in guns on DU when there are more important issues to discuss right now. Otherwise, have a nice week.

[glacierbay]

147. There's no racism

it's mocking his stance on gun control, period. Don't try to hang the false label of racism when there's no proof of racism at all.

[Decoy of Fenris]

150. Well, see, that's a little personal problem.

And I mean a problem of mine. Although I grew up in a very backwards area of New York... Quite a racist subculture around there... I never paid it much mind. My parents taught me to simply be good to people. Likewise, I just don't see racism unless it is pointed out to me and explained explicitly: If someone does something I consider mock-worthy, the color of their skin is one of the last things I am concerned with, ranking somewhere below "I wonder what I'll eat three days from now". I honestly didn't even know he was black until you brought up race as an issue, and I still don't see the situation as one even approaching "Racist" overtones. Hell, I'm -looking- for it and I can't find it.

However, some things cannot be agreed upon, and I'm sorry that you weren't even willing to try. I thought of all people, maybe you might go to G4As aid as requested. No matter.

Peace to you, brother.

ON EDIT: Is he of African descent? Honestly, given bone structure, my first guess would have been of Indian descent. I do concede that my knowledge in that regard is pretty weak, however, though at least mildly passable.

[Hoyt]

166. You probably didn't see racism in Reagan launching his presidential campaign

in Philiadelphia, Mississippi either.

[Decoy of Fenris]

179. Nope. Had to do some digging.

It seems that there's a few mildly debated points about Reagan's presidential launch, but those are in hot dispute, and no clear consensus or majority has been reached regarding the issue. I genuinely couldn't come across anything notable until I typed in "Reagan presidential campaign launch racism philadelphia mississippi." I basically had to spam as many tags as I could, and all I can find currently is something about two semicontemporary bloggers saying Reagan was a racist. Given what I've seen, no, I cannot immediately find anything racist, though I do find the location suspect. I'll do a bit more research, but to be honest, I -really- need to get to bed. I got off work at 4 this morning and I'm still up after a ten hour shift. I needs me some sleep.

Perhaps when I get back and I'm not dozing off at the keyboard.


Besides, isn't not seeing people for the color of their skin a good thing? Certainly something to be taught and encouraged when possible, I'd think.

[Hoyt]

182. I think you need some history lessons on the subject.

I suppose you don't find Tbaggers as racist either. I don't think you'll ever get it, so it's a waste of time.

[PavePusher]

196. Please point out the racism. n/t

[PavePusher]

199. Unless you can explicitly cite this "racism" you seem to be imagining...

you are doing nothing but selling slander and attempting to tar other D.U.ers as racists.

Cite, or Stop.

[glacierbay]

145. Not to shoot people

it's to fire the weapon, My service weapon is a mag. fed weapon, yet it has never shot anyone yet, I do shoot it quite often to keep my skills honed.
Tell me something Hoyt, you claim that the Charlie Rangel rifle is racist, then would this be racist?



This is a hell of a lot bigger gun then that AK-47 clone.
I can almost guarantee that there will be one day a U.S.S. Barack Obama, probably a Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier, will that be racist also with all those guns on board?

[Hoyt]

146. GB, no that is not racist. However the Mississippi gun store promotion is.

I'm sorry to find that you have similar thoughts to Decoy about this issue. Have a nice week.

[glacierbay]

148. Can you prove that it's racist?

And what's the difference between naming a Ballistic Missile Submarine after a prominent AA to naming a rifle after another prominent AA?
Here's one of the U.S.S. Martin Luther King Jr.

[Hoyt]

165. Probably not to your satisfaction. Not sure you understand the term.

Yahoo gun store owners in Mississippi are a bit different from those naming a spacecraft or ship in tribute.

But, it's clear, you are blind to difference. Unfortunately, that is quite common among gun cultists.

[glacierbay]

169. So you have no proof that it's racist based.

All you have to say is in your opinion, you believe it is but you have zero proof that it's racist based.
However, I'll believe the owner of the gun store that it's about Charlie Rangel's record about gun control.
Not everything is about racism, you know.

[PavePusher]

200. More insinuated slander from you. Interesting.

If you can't explain a simple concept to the rest of us... it probably does not exist.

[PavePusher]

194. Please point out the "racist gun cultists" you refer to at your link.

I'm not seeing them.

[graham4anything]

138. YUP!

[glacierbay]

141. Here's what I find ironic

Your experience with citizens carrying guns is probably negligible, yet, you seem to base your views straight from the Brady org./VPC talking points and you advocate for a police state type of gun control, I, on the other hand, have extensive experience in dealing with criminals with guns and citizens who lawfully carry guns and I know the difference between the two and I am much more progressive on this issue than you are.
I trust the citizens to be responsible with firearms whereas, you seem to think that all citizens can't be trusted. Why is that?

[graham4anything]

149. what cats hear when people talk blah blah blah blah blah

[glacierbay]

151. I rest my case. nt.

[graham4anything]

153. Legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns. You cannot deny it.

as I want all guns banned, I doubt anybody takes your attempts to Romney me seriously as other groups are only looking for renewal of prior regs.

which does nothing as you so rightly say

legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns

How do you differentiate a person in a movie theatre with a legal or illegal one?
Impossible to pick out.

that is the single biggest problem with the stupid NRA approach

however, that is what they want- they revel in ALL guns on the street, so they have the excuse to have more guns
After all, the gun dealers make more money and don't care where dinner comes from as long as every week they bring in money to feed themselves

and any logical person sees that

[glacierbay]

154. How in the world do legally owned guns stop the removal of illegal guns?

That doesn't even make any sense. Where do you come up with this nonsense? And just how am I trying to "Romney" you? What the hell does that even mean?
I've never had a problem removing illegal guns from the streets with my legal gun, that includes my personal AR-15 that I carry on the job.
So that shoots, (pun intended) your argument down about legal guns preventing the removal of illegal guns.

How do I pick out a person illegally carrying? Unless I can see the gun, then no one can, including you, but if the theater has a no guns allowed sign posted, then any gun carried would be illegal, even with a CC permit.

So I'll ask you again, do you really believe that any law forbidding guns outside the home will be obeyed by criminals?
And what is your experience dealing with criminals, specifically, armed criminals?
Here's another question you've failed to answer, do you believe that the police are responsible for your personal safety, other than being in police custody?

[graham4anything]

155. legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns. for the 8th time today.

that you are a cop doesn't impress me. It's a job.

If we had no crime you would be out of work, therefore it's in your interest that crime exists.

Just like it's in the gun dealers interest to have more sales of guns and bullets not less.

Like the cigarette dealer now gets less sales, therefore is almost obsolete.

and signs don't do anything

You need sophisticated location devices that sound major alarms when metal goes through.

innocent people have nothing to fear.
not so innocent people will leave their guns at home or elsewhere

(and the parking lot itself should be INSIDE the perimeter, not outside if schematically possible.)

[glacierbay]

157. And you have yet to answer any question posed to you

how do legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns?
Do you think that criminals will obey any law forbidding guns outside of homes?
What is your experience in dealing with criminals?
Do you believe that the police are responsible for your personal safety, unless in our custody?

I could care less if I impress you or not, not important to me.
Now, are you finally going to answer the questions posed to you?

[PavePusher]

202. "legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns." You still haven't explained this.

If we had no crime you would be out of work, therefore it's in your interest that crime exists.

You are attempting to imply that 'no guns'='no crime'. You couldn't be more wrong, of course. You are also implying that a D.U.er has a vested interest in ensuring criminal acts. I'm pretty sure that's worthy of being hidden. We'll see shortly.

innocent people have nothing to fear.

Then why are you so fearful that you advocate such stunning levels of government intrusion? What are you trying to hide, Comrade?

[graham4anything]

216. anyone with a gun could shoot me for no reason at all,then claim self defense

and the NRA and John Birch Society types would back them like they do Zimmerman in Fla.
who shot an innocent kid, unarmed and miles away from Zimmy's house.

How in God's name was Zimmy protecting himself when he stalked and killed Trey in cold blood (coward style.)

[PavePusher]

219. "then claim self defense"

Anyone can claim anything they want at any time. Backing it up in court is an entirely different matter. You seem to be trying to imply that merely claiming self-defense ends all legal procedings. That is, of course, an utterly false assertion.

...he stalked and killed Trey in cold blood (coward style.)

There is some evidence of a physical confrontation between the two, so your assertion would seem to be invalid. Whether the confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman, and the severity of it, determines if the shooting was justified or not. That will be determined by the court and a jury. I don't think you have all the evidence to know what all the events were, unless you are involved in the investigation, in which place it would be legally actionable for you to talk about it.

(For the record, I think Zimmerman was in the wrong. How much so, remains to be discovered/revealed.)

[PavePusher]

203. "legal guns stop the removal of illegal guns"

Explain, please.

How do you differentiate a person in a movie theatre with a legal or illegal one?
Impossible to pick out.

Well, one will be used for an illegal, harmful act. The other... won't. Was this to difficult for you?

and any logical person sees that

[PavePusher]

191. Clearly you know nothing about physical combat.

Having a person flailing with a knife, well, a stun-gun would work fine on that person and no one would be permanently hurt or some sort of bobbie trap.

Not sure what a "bobbie trap" is, but the remainder is utter nonsense and empirically disproven.

The rest of your post is complete incoherency. I suggest a short nap.

[PavePusher]

188. "but many who might use a gun won't use a less lethal weapon."

You keep saying this, but you haven't cited any evidence supporting it. And it is completely contrary to history.

[PavePusher]

186. Please cite your supporting evidence. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

101. Assuming the would-be victims are always the strongest and most violent people in our society

and the would-be attackers are the weakest and most docile then that would make sense.

Somehow though it never seems to work that way. Not a lot of old ladies beating up 300 lb men.

[PavePusher]

185. Because crime was lower in pre-firearm days?

Please cite your evidence.

[niyad]

68. citizens can call 911 when attacked, and kindly tell the perp to please wait 15 min for the police

to arrive? how is a citizen supposed to call if dead? the woman who was killed at work had NO time to call the police, he showed up at her work and shot her dead in front of her coworkers.

I am trusting you forgot the sarcasm icon for that statement.

[jody]

100. Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. Please reread. nt

[niyad]

109. I understood you just fine. so do please tell me how a person is supposed to defend herself,

as in the case of the woman murdered at work, when she had no warning, and certainly could not have had a gun at work.

[jody]

110. In some states she could have been armed. IMO that option should be

the case in every state for all women in danger like her.

[Zalatix]

112. Wow, you SERIOUSLY didn't read that post for comprehension, did you?

[PavePusher]

204. Perhaps some additional punctuation will make the meaning more clear?

Citizens can call 911, when attacked and seconds count, and police will respond in 15 minutes or more if lucky.

Do the added commas help with clarity?

[eqfan592]

22. It's a piece of paper, and far from bullet proof.

Wisconsin now has concealed carry. People have got to learn to be willing to defend themselves, because chances are nobody else will defend you.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Pretty much all I'll say on the issue, as I'm sure the Hyperbole Response Squad will be kicking into action any second now with wonderful nuggets like "hehe, everybody should have a gun, even dogs *sarcasm* hehe."

[graham4anything]

28. It boggles the mind

it's the same crappy line that (and I am Jewish) people say that Hitler would have been stopped had a Jew had a gun.

No, but if it were 2012 and we had permission to use drones, then possibly he could have been stopped early on with a bunker busting bomb.But not by turning the Jewish people in Austria and Germany and Poland into monsters themselves.

to think a woman needs to shoot someone in cold blood first would be 1st degree or 2nd degree murder. Yeah, what a great idea.

We need to ban all guns and bullets from being in the streets.
the gun nuts can keep them at home, where if the woman did not go into that home, she would not be subjected to this.

It is the legal guns that stop the illegal guns from being rid of.

(and people want more guns????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

it boggles the mind

[glacierbay]

38. So if there's a law that says you can't take your gun out of your home

it will be obeyed? Seriously?
Criminals don't obey laws, I know this from fact, far better than you. No law would have stopped this today, NONE.

[graham4anything]

43. we have argued on 100s of threads. You are pro-gun. I am anti-gun.

I will no longer argue with you.
Yes, I know you are a policeman as you said so in scores of posts
and yes, you wrongly interpret the 2nd like the Scotus that gave us corporate personhood did

and yes, zimmerman in Florida stalked an unarmed man and the NRA backs the right for someone to protect their home, yet zimmerman carried a legal gun far, far away from his home to shoot coward style, an unarmed man who was posing no harm at the time of the shooting (if ever).

Why on a liberal board someone argues in favor of killing machines is amazing.
but make sure everyone knows which side you are on and that within seconds it seems of an anti-NRA or anti-gun post one of you guys appears 24/7/365.

While not the same, it just like those Brooks brothers folks that stopped the only recount that was going to be done.

(they were not concerned citizens.)

over and out.
I will speak my piece
not carry one.

[glacierbay]

44. You didn't answer the question

do you really believe that a criminal will obey a law that says you can't carry your gun outside of your home?
You're right, I am a cop, I deal with criminals all the time, I know how they think, and for you to suggest that a law prohibiting guns outside of the home will protect someone with an order of protection is just plain silly and dangerous.
Criminals don't obey laws, period.

[graham4anything]

54. You can't get rid of illegal guns til you get rid of legal ones.

I would wager most pro-NRA people have no real concern over this particular woman at all.

It is all about the bullet.

Your statement btw is so deliciously ironic, but I won't engage that thought further.

A person who has mental issues (if that is the case) is NOT a criminal.

It is a human being who needs help to deal with that problem.

What that human being does NOT need is being shot dead and causing his wife to become a 1st or 2nd degree murderer by shooting first(like Zimmerman in crazed paranoia style blocks away from the threat of his home???)

no, not all crime can be stopped, never has, never will

but until one rids the streets of ALL guns that legal, anyone posing with a legal gun can't be stopped when they mentally have a breakdown.

but then you are not looking for an answer anyhow

guns,guns,guns,guns,guns bullets,bullets, bullets

Remember the TV show "The Equalizer?" (now remade as "person of interest" last year)

Meek mayor mike is "the equalizer". On the side of those that think the NRA is a bully pulpit that backs blackmailing politicians to never be on the wrong side of them.

[glacierbay]

56. So in other words

you can't answer the question, why didn't you just say so instead of all the nonsense?
I know far better than you that no law would have stopped this today, and criminals won't obey any laws that forbid guns in public, I speak from 30 years experience, what's your experience in this?

[leftstreet]

35. They should issue the victim a gun along with the protection order

Then notify the offender that 'Person A has retained a restraining order against you AND is carrying a weapon'

It'd be interesting to see some deterrence studies from that...

[jody]

41. Agree. nt

[hughee99]

86. What do you do about dual restraining orders?

dueling pistols?

I don't think they should automatically give someone a gun who doesn't already qualify for one, but wouldn't have a problem with them expediting the process for those who do qualify.

[PavePusher]

206. What is this "qualify" you speak of?

It's a Constitutional Right.

May I see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendment "qualifications", please?

[hughee99]

209. Depending on the state, are you a convicted felon?

been committed to a mental institution? Under the age of 18?

The bar isn't high, but there are things that can disqualify one from owning a firearm.

[PavePusher]

213. I know....

but you didn't seem to be making it that narrow in your previous post.

In other words, you must be disqualified in order to be denied. It's an important distinction when talking about Constitutional Rights.

Pedantic, I'm guilty.

[hughee99]

214. Rereading it after your post, I can see where I may have left that impression

though it wasn't my intention. I was just pointing out that in the case of a dual restraining order, that policy would be arming both sides.

Then thinking a little more on it, I thought to mention that I wouldn't support the restraining order overriding any pre-existing disqualifications for firearm ownership, but admittedly got pretty lazy in the way I worded it.

[PavePusher]

215. No problem. I have to admit to a bit of sensitivity on the subject.

If you have to get government permission to "qualify" for a Right, it's not really being treated as a Right.

The assumption, amongst some parties, that one must "qualify" for Rights is one I intend to kick in the teeth at every opportunity.

My apology to you if I was a bit hasty or overdone.

[hughee99]

217. No problem.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker.

He explains very well why restraining orders are mostly useless. He also explains the strategies that *do* work.

[former9thward]

33. They will not protect you against someone who wants to do physical harm.

The criminal penalties for doing physical harm are always stronger than a violation of a restraining order. So if someone is intent on hurting someone they certainly will ignore an order.

[malaise]

36. Last week this time Captain Barkey and his girlfriend were murdered

in the Bronx by her ex. There was a protective order against him as well.
The coward then went to Florida and killed himself.
They rarely work

[undeterred]

49. If your relatives are crazy, nobody can protect you

except the witness protection program.

[FarCenter]

61. A Secret Service detail also is pretty good protection

Short of that, a determined assassin is going to succeed.

[Zoeisright]

72. +1 million

Sure, you hear stories of how women with protective orders are hurt or killed. But how about the thousands and thousands of women who are HELPED by them? We don't hear those stories. But they are by far in the majority.

[PavePusher]

207. Not neccesarily.

There are many protective measures a person can take. Some assassins, no matter how determined, are inept, unlucky, stupid, etc.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

64. They don't usually.

All they do is add charges if/when they're breached.

No one who has ever been in a situation where they get a restraining order against a violent spouse believes it's a fool proof safety device. It only keeps the less dangerous away. The real crazies walk right through them. Which the court makes pretty clear when they issue them.

If a person is being stalked by their angry spouse the best thing you can do is go into hiding. The deeper the better. Sad as that is there is no real system in place to protect you. That's the reality of it.

[Zoeisright]

71. They do help. My husband was the head of a woman's shelter

and even though that piece of paper won't stop a bullet, if you SEE him and call the police, he's gone. And, if he puts up a fight, as most abusers do, he's in real trouble.

After all, what's the option? Arming yourself? And YOU end up in prison?

[glacierbay]

189. They most certainly not end up in prison

if they're defending themselves. I often tell battered women that a Order of Protection won't protect them against violent men and that they have the option to apply for a CC permit and to learn how to use a gun.

[PavePusher]

208. Why should someone end up in prison for exercising a Constitutional Right????

Where do you live that being armed is illegal?

[progressivebydesign]

74. I'm not a fan of them. It's said that they actually make things worse!

they anger someone who is already angry and feels like they have no control. Any person can call the police at any time and say that someone is outside their home, or their office, and is threatening them. Many DV people say that restraining orders only further enrage someone like that.

[CitizenPatriot]

88. They do work in many cases

but they don't stop a mad person from killing you. They DO:

get the police to take action if the person is stalking you, alert authorities and others that this person is a danger to you, and much more. They are a step in the right direction, as not all stalkers/abusers are murderers.

That's why they developed the lethality assessment list.

The only way to be safe if your abuser matches the lethality signs of being a fatal abuser is to go into hiding in a far away state, not tell your own family where you live (they will be conned by the charm of the mad man no matter how you warn them), change your name and all of your credit cards, cut off most of your friends, and stay in hiding for a year or two.

Having a gun is great, but how does that help the people around you? A lethal abuser will often try to kill your loved ones, anyone around you for revenge. They don't care if they get shot in the process because they are not rational. They want to inflict pain.

It's a matter of who has the most to lose. If you want to live, HIDE. And by all means, get a gun. But HIDE.

[glacierbay]

94. +10000

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. My late wife helped people running and hiding

Our participation really lowered my perspective on humanity...there are some real pieces of work walking around on two feet out there.

[CitizenPatriot]

114. I have helped as well and it will kill your belief in people

to see an innocent person have to give up their entire life because of what one angry person wants to do. It's not often talked about. Whenever I hear someone ask "Why didn't she leave" I want to scream, since most of the time they do leave over and over again but their family and friends are threatened and the police can't help them and it wears them down. They are the unseen.

Your late wife sounds like a wonderful woman.

[vaberella]

91. So what message are you actually advocating there? n/t

[4th law of robotics]

99. Laws are only as effective as their enforcement

How do laws against murder protect humans in light of today's mass shooting?

[rustydog]

103. Orders for protection/restraining orders are a very helpful tool at work

At orientation we encourage employees to tell security when they have domestic issues or other personal issues that may involve orders for protection.

We get photographs of respondents, description of vehicles they drive and we ask for a copy. We look out for these people while the employee works, and if we see them within the boundaries of the order, we call the police, show them the copy and let them take the offender away.

[CitizenPatriot]

115. PROPS for that. Very encouraging and proactive. n/t

[agentS]

104. A gun probably would not have helped her in this case.

The shooter was off his rocker and probably would not have been intimidated by the presence of a gun, hers or otherwise.
The newspaper says she worked at the spa where the shooting took place. Would her workplace have allowed her to open carry a weapon? If so, then it might have made a difference. If not, then she would be dead while getting her weapon out of the purse or employee locker.

Having a gun is useless if you can't deploy it before someone has you in their sights.
Against a thief, sure- a thief doesn't want to die for 20 bucks. They're a bit more rational.
Against someone who wants to kill you anyway- it's useless unless they're not aiming at you at the moment. At most you'd be able to get off a few less shots than the assailant would. If both weapons are handguns, those shots can go any which ways, killing bystanders, dogs, and trees. Try finding effective cover in a mall spa- though I guess you could hide behind a fatty, but that only worked in Total Recall and Naked Gun movies.

What would have worked if the mall security had been warned about the guy before the shooting, so that way they could have stopped/apprehended the guy before he entered the spa (in violation of his DV order).

Maybe it's time to put some meat on Protective Orders. Put the person in some kinda Anger Management training for a year or so to get them to simmer down and express themselves in less aggressive manners. Make it contingent on getting the order removed. And give the workplaces heads up so they have have proper security in place.
And work on gun law enforcement- get these illegal guns off the streets so wack-jobs can't obtain them!

[PavePusher]

210. Maybe, maybe not.

It's not about "intimidation", it's about defense. If the guy is threatening you, and has the means at hand to carry out the threat, you don't try to "intimidate", you shoot him. A few 9mm holes in the torso has a strong deterent effect.

As far as access to a gun, open carry is not the only solution. There are multitude of applications that would work nicely in this type of work environment. But the bigger factor is training and mindset and awareness, with the last being perhaps the most important. Not all homocidal assholes make their intentions known, and not all signals are recognized even if evident.

[treestar]

111. They do help a lot of women

There are some men (or women, where the order is against her) who will wake up at that point and obey the order, not wanting to invoke the consequences. There is no reason to say they are useless because they don't work every single time. In fact they work in the majority of cases. Someone who is going to kill is rare and of course aren't obeying the protective order or the law against murder.

If laws alone stopped crimes, there would be no murders. There would be no crimes. We know there are still going to be crimes. Protective orders may well keep apart some people who might have done worse if not kept apart.

[cali]

120. Of course it's flawed. That doesn't mean it hasn't helped women.

[ileus]

129. protective orders need to come with GPS's for both parties

Along with a monitoring bank of people to keep tabs on the GPS pairs.



Having to get a protective order should be your first indication that getting a real protection is in order.

[porphyrian]

156. For the most part, laws are punitive, not preventative.

Laws only prevent crimes that citizens are willing to obey. Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Protective orders simply make it easier for the offending party to break the law by providing extra restrictions on the offending party's behavior with specific penalties for breaking them. If you really want protection, you have to hire or purchase it.

[DanTex]

170. Inadequate gun laws are a part of the problem.

I see the NRA crowd is here in full force, arguing as usual that the solution is more guns. However, there is a good amount of research on this, and despite the fact that a woman defending herself from an abusive husband is one of the favorite hypothetical scenarios the gun lobby uses to advocate for lax gun laws, the reality is that victims of domestic violence are some of the worst sufferers due to inadequate gun laws, including loopholes that the NRA fights to keep in place.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/research/domestic_violence_and_guns.html

[glacierbay]

184. So what law would have stopped this guy from killing her?

Would she be less dead if she were stabbed to death with a knife, would the second victim be less dead also?
I always tell victims of domestic violence, which is 99.9% of women, that an Order of Protection won't protect them, I urge them to apply for a CC permit and learn how to use a gun, and to be very cognitive of what's going on around them and if it's possible, go into hiding.
At least they would have a fighting chance which is something you don't seem to believe in because it involves a firearm.

[DanTex]

190. It's much easier to murder with a gun than with other weapons.

It's not a coincidence that the homicide rate in the US is something like 5 times higher than the rest of the developed world, where they have much tighter gun laws.

The idea of domestic violence victims getting Conceal Carry licenses to defend themselves from abusive husbands plays well at NRA conventions, but, the sober reality is that preventing the abusive domestic partners from getting guns in the first place is far more important. There really isn't any evidence that a concealed gun makes a person safer, whereas there is a mountain of evidence that a gun in a home with domestic abuse makes things much worse.

Close the loopholes allowing people to avoid background checks, require handguns to be registered, and the rest of the things that gun violence experts have been advocating for years.

[glacierbay]

195. I'm going to have to dispute your post

Like I've told you before, I have 30 years dealing with this issue and I know what I'm talking about. Here in MO, when an Order of Protection is issued, LE will confiscate the abusers firearms and then the name is placed in the computer as a temporarily prohibited person until the case is judged, then we either return the firearms or we dispose of the firearms, depending on the judgement, now, that's not saying that the abuser can't go to a private seller and buy a gun, that's why I support the opening of NICS for private sellers to determine if the buyer is a prohibited person. As far as registration, that's a no-go for me, the govt. has no business knowing what the citizens own.
However, that won't stop someone who is determined to injure or kill their victim, they'll just use another weapon.
I have seen far too many domestic violence victims injured or killed by other means than guns.

[DanTex]

201. OK, then we disagree.

Like I said, there is plenty of evidence that gun availability increases homicide rates. The mistake you make is to assume that all murderers are hell-bent on killing their victims, and will stop at nothing to do so. In reality, like most things, if you make it more difficult, then you end up with less. Nobody is claiming that tighter gun laws will prevent all murders, just make them less frequent. Assaults with guns are much more likely to result in death than with other weapons.

If you look at, for example, Canada or the UK, there is still crime, and domestic violence, and there is still homicide, but the rate of homicide is much lower in large part because would-be murderers have a much more difficult time getting a gun -- a handgun in particular. In the US, the private sales loophole, along with the fact that handguns are not registered and thus proliferate easily, makes it far to easy for someone who is officially not supposed to be able to get a gun to get one anyway.

[PavePusher]

212. You didn't answer the question:

So what law would have stopped this guy from killing her?

[graham4anything]

218. the new law- all guns must remain inside a home. And better security nationwide, like

like the security at the airport, but better.
We need there to be a law, NO guns anyhwere outside the home.

but those who have guns need like a No trespassing sign, a sign warning anyone that a gun is inside.

once there are no guns outside the home, this woman would have not been killed in a salon in or near the mall.

it is really simple.

the only thing preventing all these shootings are LEGAL GUNS making any detection of guns useless.

After all, someone who snaps, all of a sudden, with a legal gun, would get by any security.

BUT if there was (and there easily could be) a way to detect a gun 10 miles away outside a home, voila, no gun deaths outside the home.

ABC easy as 123 as Michael Jackson and the Jackson five sang before he was murdered.

[PavePusher]

220. So you want a police state.....

Wait a minute, aren't you the one who denigrates the police at every opportunity?

Dude, make up your feakin' mind.

We need there to be a law, NO guns anyhwere outside the home.

Article V of the Constitution awaits you, go hog wild.

once there are no guns outside the home, this woman would have not been killed in a salon in or near the mall.

it is really simple.

And you still cling to the insane assumption that 'no guns' will equal 'no crime'. I am at a loss for words on how divorced from reality that is.

[graham4anything]

221. because of legal guns, we can't get rid of illegal guns

your inane NRA talking points is so laughable (and your two croniesms that join you.

take away crime, you don't need the police at all, except to get the kittycats out of trees and to direct traffic, and lead parades.

the Brady bill doesn't work, because legal guns and the NRA make it impossible.

But then cigarettes used to be popular.

With guns, one day they too shall pass.

tee hee hee tee hee

no guns=no gun crime.

and the world, shall live is one. Imagine that.

[PavePusher]

223. "take away crime, you don't need the police at all"

And when has this ever been the human condition? And how close to your ideal are we?

the Brady bill doesn't work, because legal guns and the NRA make it impossible.

Wharfgarble.

With guns, one day they too shall pass.

Homo Sapiens has never given up any weapons. Ever. Ponder that.

no guns=no gun crime.

That was not your prior claim. Moving goalposts?

and the world, shall live is one. Imagine that.

Refer to my first comment in this post.

[glacierbay]

228. So I'll ask you again

do you really think that criminals are going to obey any law that forbids guns outside of the home? Are you really that naive?

[Jamastiene]

230. None.

Most domestic abuse situations that escalate into this type of public shooting did not start with a gun, but with fists, which means they were breaking the law without the use of any guns originally. If they didn't care about that law, they won't care about any gun laws.

I wonder how the anti-gun people explain situations like this one:
http://yourdailyjournal.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Murdered+girl+was+beaten-+court+files+show%20&id=20477046&instance=top_stories

His own original statements to police were that he "whooped" her a little too hard with a belt. Do the anti-gun people really think we need to ban belts too? If not, why not? It follows the same logic. Fists? Which hand are they going to decide to offer up to the ban first, right or left? Where does disarming every law abiding citizen stop with them? Will they not be happy until everyone is toothless, handless, beltless, and completely bound and gagged to keep violent crime from happening? Even that would not deter the violence completely. I'm just glad to know that there are cops who will give a woman advice to protect herself, because with most laws, the police have their hands tied until the woman is dead. Only then can they really do something about the violence. It's sad, but our laws are set up to give the most violent every benefit of the doubt and leave their victims in limbo waiting to be killed.

[glacierbay]

232. I just don't understand how some posters here, one in particular

who think that nobody should have a gun to protect themselves. Unbelievable.

[PavePusher]

211. "I see the NRA crowd is here in full force, arguing as usual that the solution is more guns."

Who?? Where?? Point this out to us, please?

[Kaleva]

178. Laws against murder haven't protected any victim of such a crime

[Liberal_in_LA]

205. good question.

[Jamastiene]

224. For the most part, they don't.

If the guy was following the law to begin with, he wouldn't be beating his wife. Those protective orders are just another law the really insistent control freaks are going to break too. So, they are largely symbolic to shut women up when we complain about abuse.

Protective orders are not even a band aid. They are a pat on the head before being sent home to be beaten, tortured, abused, raped, and possibly murdered anyhow. It's an insult, really.

[RB TexLa]

233. Protective orders are not to protect any single gender

Do you not realize how sexist and offensive your insinuation that they are for the protection of a particular gender is.

[crunch60]

235. Protective orders do not help women. Be prepared, carry a gun. A man intent on killing

his wife or partner will do it, he does not care about the consequences. This is about power over another person. I am one who believes this happened in the OJ case.