Hey, no fair! They weren’t killed with guns!
I mean, they weren’t killed by people with guns, since people kill people, guns don’t kill people.
ph
So you don’t have anything to support your contention that there are more ‘edge cases’ of DV than other crimes, and are just throwing a hissy fit because you got called out on it?
Right. As far as I can tell there is a general consensus in that thread that the individual in question screwed up to begin with, handled it wrong back then, and furthermore has not exactly been shiningly immaculate ever since.
True, but as they say, ignorance (of collateral consequences) is no excuse (in the originating case) and more recently he knew better having been told so by others (yourself included).
There is an entire *other *issue with a criminal justice system that operates to incentivize plea-dealing to save the state the hassle of a trial, dissuade the accused from fighting the charge, and spare the victim being subjected to adversarial questioning on the public record, and where people don’t fully grasp what the plea deal entails; and about what are the means to prove rehabilitation. Worth debating separately in its own right.
But that runs into how with DV it is not rare to get a “never mind, don’t want to pursue further” from the alleged victim, which is something the Lautenberg Amendment was trying to take into account under a reasonable understanding that the system propended to real serious assaults being pleaded down if at all pursued, so they extended the civil penalties to the misdemeanor range as well.
Still, as mentioned before both here and in the other thread, the subject went right ahead and owned it from the start, whether or not it was the smart or right move, so it’s what they have to deal with.
(Also, from the statements in the other thread, the restrictions apparently had already *failed *to kick in in a couple of prior instances, which is yet another entirely separate thing to worry about…)
As to the matter of “by definition any person convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal” ISTM that is yet another debate on legal and social semantics and on connotation v. denotation.
*I don’t see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.
*
Slapping, not punching in this case. You’re trying to poison the well, and I’m calling you out on it.
That being said, if you’re guilty of gun violence, you should not own a gun. Taking away gun rights for slapping your wife/mate in a domestic abuse incident is just stupid.
So slapping is cool, but punching isn’t? Only domestic violence above a certain threshold (as defined by you) should count?
Bullshit.
That’s a declaration, but I don’t see why preventing someone who is willing to engage in domestic abuse from acquiring more effective tools for violence is ‘just stupid’, especially given the well-supported connection between people who engage in domestic violence and who later kill their partners. Is there any deeper justification than assertion for the claim that it is ‘just stupid’ to restrict violent criminals, specifically those who engage in domestic violence, from legal access to deadly weapons?
Un-fucking-believable. The insanity of gun rights fundies has no bounds.
So it’s “stupid” to take away gun rights from people convicted of violent crimes, as long as that violence is directed towards one’s wife/girlfriend/mother of children/etc.?
It’s fucking hopeless. The bloodbath will never end.
Unless I misunderstood Flyer, he/she seemed to be saying that, since officials can be corrupt and judges and juries are not infallible, it’s unjust to take away someone’s right to possess guns because that person was convicted of a domestic violence crime.
I did not suggest that it’s okay to rob a liquor store. That’s bullshit. I did suggest that his/her logic implied that the same standard should be applied to anyone convicted of a crime, including someone convicted of sticking up a liquor store. It’s admittedly a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the logic is fairly clear.
Gun ownership by someone who committed a misdemeanor 15 years ago hardly strikes me as anything to get excited about, as far as danger to me, my loved ones, or random strangers is concerned.
We’re only hearing the guy’s side of the event, and he is going to present a version of events that flatters him.
That’s still no reason to take away his guns, if the incident did not involve a gun. He admits to slapping his wife, and even if it wasn’t in self defense, that’s still no reason to take his guns.
Un-fucking-believable. The insanity of gun rights fundies has no bounds.
Asshole, have you ever heard of the concept of supporting a cause you’re not a part of? I support gay rights, even though I’m straight. I support civil rights, even though I’m not black. And I support reasonable gun rights, even though I’m not a gun nut. And reasonable gun rights does not include taking away some’s guns for domestic abuse incidents. It would be just as stupid to take away someone’s guns for getting involved in a bar fight. There are, as has been mentioned before, shades of grey, but people on both extremes don’t want to see that. They see it as black and white, with one side being right, and the other being wrong. The real world doesn’t work like that.
So all convicted murderers are murderers and all convicted rapists are rapists and the Innocence Project is just a front for criminal organizations whose goal is to get their felons back into the public.
Moron.
The fact that someone is a violent criminal who has been convicted of assaulting someone close to him is, in fact a reason to bar him from owning guns. It has been a legal reason in the US since 1996, and is certainly a concrete, identifiable reason. You can argue that it’s not a good reason, but all you’ve done is declare that it isn’t a reason over and over, which isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind.
I’m a big fan of gun rights in general, but I’m perfectly fine with restrictions on gun ownership for people convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are a good number of pro-gun people who think that violence against people they live with ‘doesn’t count’ is pretty disturbing.
So slapping someone while being assaulted in several ways and nearly having his eyes gouged out makes one a “violent criminal.”
You are aware of the post that kicked off this discussion, yes? You’re saying it was ok for her to beat the crap out of him to her hearts content? And he was obligated to sit there and take it?
‘Cos that sounds like what you’re saying.
Sssshh! We’re not allowed to discuss men’s rights here!
I guess I’d say you misunderstood, or at the very least, read too far into it. Flyer implied that people (in positions of power, I assume) can make mistakes and officials can be corrupt.
I did not suggest that it’s okay to rob a liquor store. That’s bullshit. I did suggest that his/her logic implied that the same standard should be applied to anyone convicted of a crime, including someone convicted of sticking up a liquor store. It’s admittedly a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but the logic is fairly clear.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that you were using Flyer’s logic to get from officials can be corrupt to it’s okay to rob a liquor store if you’re the victim of a corrupt official, but I disagree that the logic is clear. In fact, I’m again asking you to explain how you got from point A to point B. I can understand why the suggestion of reach people eating poor people’s babies, but this one isn’t clicking.
STFU. this has nothing to do with what I said. I’m asking certain people why- given the information we have- they feel they can declare the person in question a “violent criminal.”
maybe it just makes them feel better about themselves.