They say you don't need a gun because "The Police will protect you"? ..

[virginia mountainman]

Cash-strapped Topeka, Kansas, has decided to stop prosecuting domestic violence casses in order to save money....................................

.............Shawnee County has already dropped 30 domestic violence cases since it stopped prosecuting the crime on Sept. 8. Some 16 people have been arrested for misdemeanor domestic battery charges and then released after charges were not filed.

I guess the Police WON'T protect you from an abusive spouse after all..

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/weird/Cash-Strapped-Topeka-Stops-Prosecuting-Domestic-Violence-131468933.html

[We_Have_A_Problem]

1. The police....

...are not obligated to protect you anyway. Depending upon them for protection is pretty damned stupid.

[tularetom]

2. The courts ruled awhile back that the police have no obligation to protect you from anything

So if you are concerned that you may need protection from something, better do it yourself.

[valerief]

3. The police are paid to protect the 1%. nt

[unblock]

4. while guns may be useful for those facing a break-in,

they are vastly more dangerous to their owners in volatile domestic situations.

if the advice of getting a gun makes any sense at all for a victim of domestic violence, it should be preceded by GET THE F*** OUT OF THAT SITUATION (and, if applicable, take the kids with you). THEN consider if you need to get a gun to protect yourself in your new and carefully secured residence.

[ileus]

6. and why won't people get out of the situation? I've never understood that.

[unblock]

10. a combination of learned helplessness and fear of escalating the violence

suggesting they stay in the situation and get a gun is likely to run smack up against both, which is why many domestic violence victims wouldn't take that advice anyway.

[SteveM]

7. Your advice would certainly be useful...

...if one could afford to obtain a "new and carefully secured residence."

The cutbacks referenced are the result of a souring economy which may not allow for such expensive choices. However, where possible, that would be a good idea.

I note your delineation between break-in and "domestic situations." Often, volatile domestic situations involve a break-in. Do you have data which support: " are vastly more dangerous to their owners in volatile domestic situations?" Thanks.

[unblock]

11. agreed that getting them out of a dangerous situation is frustratingly hard.

there are women's shelters and relatives and perhaps other possibilities, but i agree that it's hard for domstic violence victims to wrap their heads around all the logistics involved in unending their world, especially when adding in the speed and secrecy they may need.


perhaps inaccurately, i tend to think of "domestic situations" as situations where the abuser and victim are still living in the same residence. in which case, if the victim has access to a gun, so does the abuser. that is, unless the victim keeps it a secret, in which case the victim may have one and only one opportunity to use it successfully lest it be equally at that access of the abuser, possibly seconds later as it is wrestled from the victim's hands.

if "domestic situations" is taken to include situations where the victim has already moved out (hence the need for a break-in by the abuser), then that's the situation in which a gun may make more sense -- the victim having already gotten out of the situation -- along with a host of other security precautions.


as for statistics, he's the first thing i found via google:

http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp#5

i'm sure there are other and better sources. i see that most of the concerns on that website are about the abuser's access to a gun, though as indicated, if you're in the same residence, a victim's access to a gun greatly increases the abuser's access to a gun.

[gejohnston]

12. I am sure there are better sources

because LCAV or Brady claims are every bit as suspect as the NRA. Some of their citations like the FBI etc, but some refer to suspect studies funded by groups that also provide most of Brady's funding.

[SteveM]

18. Thank you for your answer...

Many of the studies you cite have been scrutinized in these threads, and by researchers elsewhere, and have been found wanting. However, since you mention the CDC, you may wish to visit this site:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm


"In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed (Table)."

I think the public health model of gun control was overwrought to begin with, and apparently the CDC agrees.

Ardent gun-controllers/prohibitionists, like prohibitionists in the past, tend to graft on some sort of public health, mental health, and social welfare models to lend an air of credence to what is essentially a culture war, centered on prohibition of a thing, status or behavior.

I don't know how to maneuver through the archives of DU's Guns Forum, but you will find a thorough and detailed discussion of universal NICS testing.

[gejohnston]

8. on this point

we agree:

if the advice of getting a gun makes any sense at all for a victim of domestic violence, it should be preceded by GET THE F*** OUT OF THAT SITUATION (and, if applicable, take the kids with you). THEN consider if you need to get a gun to protect yourself in your new and carefully secured residence.

[ileus]

5. it's better to get beat up or killed than be a rude impolite baser gunner toter.

[Logical]

9. The key word here is "misdemeanor"!

[one-eyed fat man]

13. Domestic violence misdemeanor

Has special meaning when it gums to gun laws.

The Lautenberg Amendment is unique among all Federal gun laws in that it is the only one that makes no exemption for the police or military.

No person under 18 may possess a handgun, except for police and military on duty. A person can join the military at 17 and be issued a pistol.

No person may possess a firearm if convicted of a felony, except for police and military on duty.

On the other hand, any ever convicted for a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence is forever prohibited. A policeman or soldier becomes unemployable with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

The irony is if he KILLS his wife, murder is a felony, but not a domestic violence misdemeanor. He could theoretically serve his time, join a police department and carry a firearm on duty, but not if he slapped her.

[Logical]

16. Wow, what a stupid law that is. thanks! n-t

[gejohnston]

14. which begs the question

why is it a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions? Is it not assault and battery? It should be a felony.

[Logical]

15. I imagine this is more yelling and screaming. Or a shove. Nothing more.

[rl6214]

17. That's just great