:dubious: Do you think that what you euphemistically describe as “issues among family members” (by which you appear to mean “murders of family members”) do have a rightful place in discussions of gun ownership for other purposes?
That is, do you believe that shooting a family member in a domestic dispute should disqualify the shooter from owning guns for recreational/hobby/hunting etc. reasons?
Moreover, although IANAL I doubt that your attempted distinction between “emotionally issue” [sic] and “criminal intent” is valid. Shooting someone when you’re angry, jealous or otherwise upset can still involve criminal intent:
So no, just because you’re emotionally upset when you shoot the family member you’re quarreling with does not mean that your crime is “not related to criminal intent”.
Other posters have already pointed out how far off base you are in your claims about the “rarity” of domestic gun crimes.
It’s obvious this has escaped what passes for a mind in your case, but I didn’t say family homicides are rare compared to other homicides. I said they’re rare compared to instances of street crimes. Which they are.
In terms of the reasons why people want to own guns for self-defense, yes, they do. So do rapes, robberies, home intrusions, shootings in places of business, etc.
Nope. I stated this in so many words, as a matter of fact, and why. Are you sure you phrased this the way you intended?
Well now, that’s different question, isn’t it? Of course I think that someone who shoots a family member should be disqualified from owning or possessing a gun altogether (provided that the shooting was not in self-defense that is). I also think they should be disqualified from being free and not in jail, or at least until they’ve served a period of time commensurate with their crime.
Certainly. Prosecutors and judges have perverted the meaning of premeditation and criminal intent to include all sorts of things most people don’t think of when they hear the terms. I’ve seen it argued that the very act of reaching for a gun prior to shooting someone is clear evidence of premeditation and criminal intent. So what? I’ve never once heard of anyone desiring to own guns so as to protect themselves or their families from random unknown people who have shot family members and then headed out in search of someone else to shoot. Have you?
Since you’re so fond of nitpicking my every word I feel compelled to point out that it wasn’t other “posters” who made that claim, only one. And he’s an idiot whom only a fool would believe about anything.
To reiterate what I said above in this very post, my statement was, “…murders among family are rare compared to instances of street crime”.
I was right. He wasn’t. And neither are you.
Now, is there anything else I’ve said that you’d like me to repeat or clarify since you’re evidently so challenged in the ability to correctly comprehend what I’ve already stated in black & white?
:dubious: ISTM that if you use a term with well-established legal significance, you don’t get to blame “prosecutors and judges” for having “perverted” it because that well-established legal significance means something different from what you’d like the term to mean.
I don’t see what you consider objectionable in such an argument.
And neither do you, apparently.
So, again, you’re trying to argue that shooting family members doesn’t really “count” as far as the dangers of guns to society are concerned, because it doesn’t usually turn the shooter into an indiscriminate predator upon the general public?
But you’re trying to argue that the reasons people want to own guns for self-defense (i.e., to protect themselves against criminal predators) should be assessed separately from a significant component of the way such guns actually get used (i.e., in domestic violence and accidents).
That’s not an honest argument. Even if somebody buys a gun solely with the intention of protecting himself from criminals, if he then gets angry and shoots his wife in an unexpected domestic dispute, it’s appropriate for society to take that outcome into account when considering what restrictions ought to be placed on people owning guns.
Criminal acts of gun violence committed by gun owners are still part of the negative consequences of gun ownership, even if the gun owner didn’t plan to commit such acts when originally acquiring the gun.
Or indeed if those acts aren’t committed by the gun owner him- or herself, despite still being nothing more than “family issues”:
It seems to me that many gun owners focus almost exclusively on risks to themselves, while also making two fundamental errors: 1) dramatically overestimating the risks from the environment (esp. brown people); and 2) removing themselves entirely from particular categories of risk (e.g., accidents and human frailties).
“I took my kids and fled from my abusive husband, and I’m worried he’s going to find us and kill us, as he’s threatened to do in the past. So I bought a gun to protect us.”
That seems like an argument that people would take seriously. Both individually, and as a general reason pro-gun ownership.
Somehow I don’t think pro-gun advocates would accomplish much by stressing that without guns people wouldn’t be able to defend themselves from family members.
Maybe not, but that’s not a valid reason for excluding domestic gun crimes from discussions of gun control measures. Just because most people who commit domestic gun crimes may not be professional criminal predators and may not have intended to commit any crimes when they acquired the gun doesn’t mean that their emotionally-impelled gun violence isn’t a serious problem.
And pro-gun advocates should not get away with trying to dismiss or exclude this problem from gun-control debates just because it’s not rhetorically advantageous for them.
I would argue that gun control would make it harder for the husband to get a gun, and hence much less likely that he will actually be able to kill them. Not 0%, of course.
Honestly, I’m very surprised. Domestic abuse is something that I would guess everyone (apart from abusers) condemns. I don’t think there would be much sympathy for a person shot in self-defense when trying to seriously harm their spouse or children or other family members.
I’m really very curious about this; do you think your viewpoint would be shared by a majority of pro-gun advocates? What about the nature of domestic abuse do you feel makes it not compelling as an argument for pro-gun people?
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not actually advancing the argument. I just think it’s one that I can imagine pro-gun advocates taking seriously.
It’s very simple. People want guns in order to protect themselves and their families from home intrusions, robberies, rape, carjackings, killings, etc. They are not remotely willing to give up that protection and expose themselves and their loved ones to these dangers in order to keep someone they never heard of and never will from possibly being killed with a gun by someone in their family.
People look out for their own first and that’s how it should be. It’s regrettable that some people get killed by family members, but that doesn’t override people’s quite proper desire to defend themselves and their own family members from criminal attack.