# Catch .22LR, or "No Guns For You!" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catch-22lr-or-no-guns-for-you/480408 "2009-01-08T18:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catch-22lr-or-no-guns-for-you/480408/41 "2009-01-10T17:35:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Someone who shoves his wife will reasonably kill her if he has a gun? I think that connection is slight at best. [Really?](http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm) > [@](#): > > More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male. > .. > Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun. > .. > A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative. And so on. Plenty more, if you’re serious about looking into the matter. > [@](#): > > Why only domestic violence? Is it somehow better if a man walks up and punches a random stranger? He can keep his guns through the whole trial in that circumstance. Not necessarily. That can be a condition of bail or parole if the situation warrants. > [@](#): > > What about misdemeanor DUI? That is potentially more dangerous to society as a whole, why no lifetime ban there? Another strawman. DUI license suspensions do continue to lengthen substantially with repetition, and can lead to lifetime suspensions and even imprisonment. Bet you knew that too. > [@](#): > > What other misdemeanors should result in a lifetime punishment? I thought that this was a key factor that separated misdemeanors from felonies Likelihood to reoffend, and danger to society, do get taken into account by the judicial system when establishing restrictions and penalties. Do you consider that M’s domestic partner, in this case, has any right to protection from him at all that the state can and should help provide, or are you, like **Bricker** , only interested in the lawyerly jousting surrounding M himself? To either of you does M’s “right” to gun possession trump Mrs. M’s right to life itself? :dubious: Still looking for the circumstances of the charge dismissal here … ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catch-22lr-or-no-guns-for-you/480408/42 "2009-01-10T22:12:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In New Jersey, a person must have a permit to purchase a handgun. The law provides various grounds that disqualify a person from getting or renewing such a permit; among them is this: > > > [@](#): > > > > No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued: . . . (8) to any person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the ‘Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of > > 1991,’ and whose firearm has not been returned. > > Pretty reasonable, yes? I’d say no, not reasonable at all. Were the guns seized because the domestic despute involved his use of a firearm? Or was it the case that because there was a domestic despute, it is common for police to ask about firearms in the house, and the guns were seized that way? If so, then something is wrong with PoDVAo1991, and how a firearm is used in a despute. If no firearm was involved, and were taken simply because they were in the home… something is wrong in a big way here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catch-22lr-or-no-guns-for-you/480408/43 "2009-01-12T16:00:00Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > I’d say no, not reasonable at all. Were the guns seized because the domestic despute involved his use of a firearm? Or was it the case that because there was a domestic despute, it is common for police to ask about firearms in the house, and the guns were seized that way? If so, then something is wrong with PoDVAo1991, and how a firearm is used in a despute. If no firearm was involved, and were taken simply because they were in the home… something is wrong in a big way here. No firearm was used in the dispute. The law required that any person charged with a domestic violence offense surrender his firearm ID card and guns during the pendency of the charge; if not guilty, the items would be returned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catch-22lr-or-no-guns-for-you/480408.md?page=2)