If he had a history of domestic violence it would literally take only one of those to be reported and have him charged with. All his guns would be taken from him
The logic of that has never made sense to me. If you’re taking his guns away it’s acknowledging that he is a significant enough danger to others that he can’t have access to weapons. If it’s already gone that far why not lock him up to keep him away from the people he is a danger to? It’s not like he couldn’t go on to harm them with some other weapon in the future.
But why is that acceptable? They’re either dangerous or they’re not. Removing their guns doesn’t remove their ability to do harm. It only removes one specific method. How are we arriving at the point of taking their guns if not via a conviction in a court of law?
Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.
There is a big difference between “anger issues” and having demonstrated that you have so little control of yourself when you’re angry that you assault/murder someone. Those in the second category should not be allowed to go about unsupervised until they get their shit together. I’d say the same thing about children and people with mental health issues that prevent them from being responsible for themselves. I’m not saying control isn’t appropriate here. I’m saying it’s not sufficient.
I actually wasn’t referring to this case when I mentioned anger issues. I used it as an example of a common trait that a person can have while also wielding a weapon, which is insane to allow. Obviously someone who demonstrates the capacity to harm others shouldn’t have firearms either. But it shouldn’t even need to get that far to begin with. Sounds like we agree on this point.
Ah, so guaranteeing the patriarch has access to firearms is really an act of mercy for his victims.
But why guns? What about syringes of phenol? Make sure each man has one for each family member so he can perform painless honor killings. This seems like something a healthy society would do.
If ONLY she had Killed him FIRST this WOULDNT have happened And that’s LITERALLY the Only Way to have Prevented that!
Only thing that can stop a bad dad with a gun is a good daughter with a gun. Checkmate, Obama.
it mentions that there was a history of abuse that went unreported to the police. I suspect changing that could have prevented this, too.
If he had a history of domestic violence it would literally take only one of those to be reported and have him charged with. All his guns would be taken from him
The logic of that has never made sense to me. If you’re taking his guns away it’s acknowledging that he is a significant enough danger to others that he can’t have access to weapons. If it’s already gone that far why not lock him up to keep him away from the people he is a danger to? It’s not like he couldn’t go on to harm them with some other weapon in the future.
Because there is a greater threshold of due process needed to imprison someone (like a conviction in court of law) rather than disarming them.
But why is that acceptable? They’re either dangerous or they’re not. Removing their guns doesn’t remove their ability to do harm. It only removes one specific method. How are we arriving at the point of taking their guns if not via a conviction in a court of law?
Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.
There is a big difference between “anger issues” and having demonstrated that you have so little control of yourself when you’re angry that you assault/murder someone. Those in the second category should not be allowed to go about unsupervised until they get their shit together. I’d say the same thing about children and people with mental health issues that prevent them from being responsible for themselves. I’m not saying control isn’t appropriate here. I’m saying it’s not sufficient.
I actually wasn’t referring to this case when I mentioned anger issues. I used it as an example of a common trait that a person can have while also wielding a weapon, which is insane to allow. Obviously someone who demonstrates the capacity to harm others shouldn’t have firearms either. But it shouldn’t even need to get that far to begin with. Sounds like we agree on this point.
Oops now she gets stabbed with a kitchen knife and bleeds out painfully
Ah, so guaranteeing the patriarch has access to firearms is really an act of mercy for his victims.
But why guns? What about syringes of phenol? Make sure each man has one for each family member so he can perform painless honor killings. This seems like something a healthy society would do.
People are much less likely to actually use knives than guns. And if they do, their target has a greater chance to get away.
Guns are either kept in a locked box/rack, or on you/close at hand.
Knives are found in the kitchen. Ive never seen anyone put down a gun in the kitchen and just walk away from it for half a day