• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My proposal as a response to mass shootings.

What do you think of the proposal?

  • I agree, if you commit domestic abuse, you lose your right to own or possess a gun.

    Votes: 10 47.6%

  • I disagree with the proposal (give your reasons in the thread)

    Votes: 11 52.4%
  • Total voters
    21
SouthernDemocrat said:
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

Cops do that already.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The abuser gets his firearms confiscated. If the woman owns a gun she can keep it of course. That said, its quite rare for a woman to successfully defend herself against her spouse with a gun. Most people are not willing to shoot their spouse regardless of how abusive they are.
Click to expand...

Horse****.

The individual who is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Presumption of innocence is a basic tenant of our legal system - read up on it sometime.
 
11Bravo said:
Sorry disregard my last post. I didn't read your OP correctly.

I think disqualifications for owning a firearm should unanimous. If we can prove that anyone who commits that type of abuse will shoot people up, then we ban it across the board for not only felons, but for lesser charges (IE: Plea deals). However, 60% doesn't sound like proof. It just sounds like a lot.

It's a valid point, but 40% of Americans stemming from that abuse do not commit those atrocities. That's almost half.
Click to expand...

Not sure of where the numbers came from, and I am not disputing them
40 % is still a substantial number.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban - The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,[1] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

It is already covered under the background check, you know that right?
 
JANFU said:
Not sure of where the numbers came from, and I am not disputing them
40 % is still a substantial number.
Click to expand...

No number in this thread is valid unless proven.

Opinions and WAGs don't count in the real world.
 
Moon said:
What's to stop the person who's arrested from buying another gun once they are released before trial (assuming there is one)?
Click to expand...

Read the form, it asks this question, so covered. Now private sales are another matter but that requirement would be unenforceable.
 
SMTA said:
I believe that this varies by jurisdiction as it is not a Federal statute.
Click to expand...

California cops do it, I know that. I'd be interested in which states don't.
 
jet57 said:
California cops do it, I know that. I'd be interested in which states don't.
Click to expand...

I believe that OH does, but I am not sure if it is local or state law.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

This is already the law. If you are convicted of a domestic violence offense its illegal to own firearms.

Now. How do you know someone owns a firearm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Domestic battery is not always a felony though.
Click to expand...

It doesnt need to be. Even Harassment may be a domestic violence charge if it involved intimidation by force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SMTA said:
I believe that OH does, but I am not sure if it is local or state law.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I would think that it would be a state law. There are plenty of cases wherein the victim is lying about abuse, so I wonder if the "alleged abuser" gets his or her guns back?
 
jet57 said:
Interesting. I would think that it would be a state law. There are plenty of cases wherein the victim is lying about abuse, so I wonder if the "alleged abuser" gets his or her guns back?
Click to expand...

Generally attempted suicide falls under the same rules.

I hear that it is a bitch to get guns back, which is crap.
 
SMTA said:
Generally attempted suicide falls under the same rules.

I hear that it is a bitch to get guns back, which is crap.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know. But, what about a person "accused" of something?
 
SMTA said:
Generally attempted suicide falls under the same rules.

I hear that it is a bitch to get guns back, which is crap.
Click to expand...

Then plan B comes into effect.
I know of a few truckers where a person committed suicide, they crossed the road for a deliberate head on collision.
Drivers tried evasive action, but the car-truck just kept on changing back to a head on collision.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
Click to expand...

No one should lose their rights unless they are currently incarcerated. When they are released then they should have all their rights restored. If they can't be trusted with all their rights then they shouldn't be released until they can be trusted that they are no longer a danger to others. I don't give a **** that domestic abuse is only a misdemeanor in some states,push to make it a felony so they can serve more time behind bars.Besides those misdemeanor laws for beating your wife are probably holdover laws for when women were treated like property and 2nd class citizens. In our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.Merely being suspected of a crime or charged with a crime does not prove guilt and therefor you should not be treated as though you are guilty.
 
jamesrage said:
No one should lose their rights unless they are currently incarcerated. When they are released then they should have all their rights restored. If they can't be trusted with all their rights then they shouldn't be released until they can be trusted that they are no longer a danger to others. I don't give a **** that domestic abuse is only a misdemeanor in some states,push to make it a felony so they can serve more time behind bars.Besides those misdemeanor laws for beating your wife are probably holdover laws for when women were treated like property and 2nd class citizens. In our legal system you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.Merely being suspected of a crime or charged with a crime does not prove guilt and therefor you should not be treated as though you are guilty.
Click to expand...

So therefore you would be supportive of a child molester keeping custody of their kids while they awaited trial then?
 
Aberration said:
This is already the law. If you are convicted of a domestic violence offense its illegal to own firearms.

Now. How do you know someone owns a firearm?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thats is not the law in many states. Moreover, they can keep a firearm while awaiting trial.
 
Casper said:
It is already covered under the background check, you know that right?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. That all depends upon the state currently. Depends on how well the state reports to the federal background database. Also there is no provision right now to remove guns already in possession.
 
Last edited:
SMTA said:
Horse****.

The individual who is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Presumption of innocence is a basic tenant of our legal system - read up on it sometime.
Click to expand...

Sure, so you would be in favor of a suspected child molester keeping custody of their kids while they await trial then to be consistent with your principles then right?
 
Aberration said:
It's Federal law.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimin...ons-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

OK, did some research on this. It is the law that anyone convicted of domestic violence cannot own a firearm. See: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

However, there is no provision right now for removing guns from the home they already possess.

2. Removal of Firearms: The federal prohibitions on firearm possession by domestic abusers do not ensure that guns that are already in the possession of an abuser are removed. A March 2013 investigation by the New York Times found that more than 50 people in Washington State were arrested on gun charges in 2011 while subject to protective orders, and that, over a three-year period, more than 30 people in Minnesota were convicted of an assault with a dangerous weapon while subject to protective orders.15 A survey of domestic abusers enrolled in Massachusetts batterer intervention programs between 2002 and 2005 found that perpetrators who continued to possess firearms after they were prohibited from doing so by federal law were more likely to attempt homicide or threaten their partners with guns than domestic violence perpetrators who had relinquished their firearms.16 Studies have also identified numerous instances of individuals killed by domestic abusers using firearms even after those abusers had become prohibited from possessing guns.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Sure, so you would be in favor of a suspected child molester keeping custody of their kids while they await trial then to be consistent with your principles then right?
Click to expand...

My brother was and is the custodial parent. His ex would take their daughter, every time she got visitation, shopping for a doctor to sign off on abuse. 7 times. The last time it was supposed sexual abuse. We had custody for 3mo. First my mother had custody, but her current husband had an abuse allegation 20 years ago. No charges as the girl admitted it was fabricated. But that alone is supposedly cause to remove custody. For us to get custody we had to go through the whole foster care application and review. Until that time she was in a complete strangers foster care. Foster care is rampant with abuse. Damn right I think accused parents deserve due process.

Do you even know what a man has to go through when faced with those charges?

**** family court. One of the most disgusting institutions we have in this country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
OK, did some research on this. It is the law that anyone convicted of domestic violence cannot own a firearm. See: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

However, there is no provision right now for removing guns from the home they already possess.
Click to expand...

There is no provision to remove them because not only do the police not have the resources, too busy with traffic violations I guess, but there is no way of knowing who owns what.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom