http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/u...hpw&_r=0&gwh=58A15659E0BBDF1F3B3CECEBE7A1D1A4
Good job, guys. Way to be serious about responsible gun ownership.
Good job, guys. Way to be serious about responsible gun ownership.
Melissa Batten, a 36-year-old software developer for Xbox, secured a temporary protective order in July 2008, describing a series of episodes in which her estranged husband harassed her and also broke into her workplace in Redmond. She said he also pointed a loaded gun at her in an argument and then put it to his head, threatening to kill himself.
It is not clear exactly when he bought them, but the police found evidence that he went to a gun show a few days after being served with the protective order. (In some states, the existence of the order would have barred him from buying guns.)
Mr. Batten shot his wife eight times in the parking lot outside her home before shooting himself, killing them both.
It's not about guns, anti-gun people, pro-gun people or anything like that. It's the question as to why people want guns in the first place. That remains the question and the concern. It's people's desire for guns that hints at a far bigger problem.
They're neat intricate machines like watches.
That's basically what it is. But then like people take themselves too seriousliy and get caught up in some dumb higher purpose about the 2nd amendment and defending liberty and make all sorts of dumb arguments like women need AR15's to defend against rapists who barge down their doors like zombies to rape...
This article is reality of how guns are really used. Between people who know each other and have a dispute.
This article is reality of how guns are really used. Between people who know each other and have a dispute.
Really, my family (including in-laws) have owned rifles, handguns, and shotguns (more 60 total) for many decades, no one has ever threatened another person much less shot one. Deers, squirrels, ducks, and doves on the other hand is a different story.
It's also very easy to say "don't let abusive men have gunzzz!!!1111!!!!" but there are a LOT of bullshit domestic violence claims, there are a lot of institutional and societal double standards about domestic violence and how it's treated when it's done by women to men vs. the other way around... etc. There are a lot of cases where people use accusations as a way to get the upper hand in a divorce, etc. There are also a lot of people who are classified as domestic violence offenders, who in any reasonable world shouldn't be...
Would temporary confiscation of guns in the event of a domestic restraining order...really give you any problems? Really? You're law abiding, right? You treat your wife right, would never raise a hand, amirite?
The issue is taking away a constitutionally protected right based only on the word of another person.
Perhaps if there was a standard with evidence that had to be met in order to issue such a order I would support it, otherwise I do not.
Would temporary confiscation of guns in the event of a domestic restraining order...really give you any problems? Really? You're law abiding, right? You treat your wife right, would never raise a hand, amirite?
Eh... I dunno, micrometers.
The story is very tragic, however I just don't tend to buy into these "save me from the bad people, mamma government" mentalities.
It's very easy to say "stop letting the mentally ill have guns!!!!!!" it sounds simple, and logical right? But there are all sorts of reasons a person might see a psychologist, depression etc... and the vast majority of these people who some might classify as "mentally ill" (even people with more severe things than depression) will never harm anyone...
It's also very easy to say "don't let abusive men have gunzzz!!!1111!!!!" but there are a LOT of bullshit domestic violence claims, there are a lot of institutional and societal double standards about domestic violence and how it's treated when it's done by women to men vs. the other way around... etc. There are a lot of cases where people use accusations as a way to get the upper hand in a divorce, etc. There are also a lot of people who are classified as domestic violence offenders, who in any reasonable world shouldn't be...
So, rather than constantly looking for ways to take away peoples' rights so that we can all feel safe (and still not be safe anyway) I'd rather just accept that shit happens, if it's all the same to everyone else. I think that's the more realistic approach.
Now, in this particular case? If the guy really pointed a loaded gun at her... yea, I'd endorse taking his gun away. Then again, had the process of the law proving that had happened played out? Is her just saying it happened sufficient? Sufficient to instantly remove a constitutional right from him?
Again, I think you just have to accept that there are bad people, and they'll do bad things... and you can rarely stop them. If someone decides they're going out of this world, and they don't have the good grace to not do some harm on their way out... they're going to do it, unfortunately.
Regardless, it's really tragic what happened to this poor woman.
I agree!!If anti-gun nuts would stop trying to ban guns completely, maybe supporters of constitutional rights would be more willing to compromise. But keep trying to pass overreaching gun bans, if you think that will help your cause.
Isn't it obvious? Get a gun in case that bitch leaves!It's not about guns, anti-gun people, pro-gun people or anything like that. It's the question as to why people want guns in the first place. That remains the question and the concern. It's people's desire for guns that hints at a far bigger problem.
He cheats on her. She wants to leave. He threatens to kill her? Isn't this his fault?Ms. Dye, who worked as a personal trainer at a gym the couple owned, explained in her petition that since telling her husband she wanted a divorce because of his infidelity, he had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She wrote that she feared he would “have a violent reaction when he receives divorce papers.”
That wouldn't do anything. He could easily buy a new gun using the "gun show loophole" with no background check then go right back to planning how to kill someone.Now, in this particular case? If the guy really pointed a loaded gun at her... yea, I'd endorse taking his gun away.
It's not about guns, anti-gun people, pro-gun people or anything like that. It's the question as to why people want guns in the first place. That remains the question and the concern. It's people's desire for guns that hints at a far bigger problem.
That wouldn't do anything. He could easily buy a new gun using the "gun show loophole" with no background check then go right back to planning how to kill someone.
It's also very easy to say "don't let abusive men have gunzzz!!!1111!!!!" but there are a LOT of bullshit domestic violence claims, there are a lot of institutional and societal double standards about domestic violence and how it's treated when it's done by women to men vs. the other way around... etc. There are a lot of cases where people use accusations as a way to get the upper hand in a divorce, etc. There are also a lot of people who are classified as domestic violence offenders, who in any reasonable world shouldn't be...
It's not about guns, anti-gun people, pro-gun people or anything like that. It's the question as to why people want guns in the first place. That remains the question and the concern. It's people's desire for guns that hints at a far bigger problem.
That wouldn't do anything. He could easily buy a new gun using the "gun show loophole" with no background check then go right back to planning how to kill someone.