House votes to reauthorize VAWA in a rejection of the NRA's claim that guns keep women safe

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Mar 3, 2018
9,285
6,138
1,030
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
The challenges in this specific situation where a victim of domestic violence and/or stalking lives and sleeps with their abuser is how do you then secure your firearm when you're in SA white?

When living your life, you should always be aware of your surroundings. There are four levels of situational awareness everyone should live by.
  • White. This indicates someone who is blissfully unaware of anything going on around them. ...
  • Yellow. ...
  • Orange. ...
  • Red.
From the article

April 4, 2019, 5:54 PM PDT / Updated April 4, 2019, 6:20 PM PDT
By Susan B. Sorenson, Director of the Ortner Center on Violence & Abuse

Giving a gun to a woman who has been abused and expecting her to use it against a man who she probably still loves isn’t a good bet. But that’s exactly what is advocated by both Shannon Goessling, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Office of Violence Against Women and, most recently, the National Rifle Association.

On Thursday, the House voted to reauthorize an updated Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in defiance of the NRA. As the fight heads to the Senate, it’s more important than ever to debunk these kinds of misperceptions about intimate partner violence. This is one of those instances when the stakes can literally be life or death.

When thinking about firearms and intimate partner violence, at least two things are at play — fear and risk. Sometimes fear can be enjoyable, as we know from compelling horror movies. When nothing real is at risk, a two-hour stretch of tension-filled anticipation can be fun. And some horror movies — think Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” and “Us” — are framed in a social context that evokes a lively conversation and analysis.

When thinking about firearms and intimate partner violence, at least two things are at play — fear and risk.

We need more than a lively conversation and analysis when it comes to abuse and firearms.

Tucked into many health care intake forms these days, somewhere between queries about one’s history of heart disease and weekly alcohol consumption, is a question about whether a patient feels safe at home. A physician friend relayed the response of one patient: He beats me only once a year, but the other 364 days, I live in fear that today will be the day.

SIGN UP FOR THE THINK WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE

That sort of fear is accompanied by ongoing alertness, heightened sensitivity to sights and sounds, the release of cortisol that can lead to increased heart rate and blood pressure, and other signs of chronic stress. Such fear is neither fun no

r good for one’s health.

Now imagine that fear when the abuser has access to a gun. Although the immediate concern here is whether victims of intimate partner violence should be armed, there is virtually no credible research on the question. But we know a fair amount about the consequences when the abuser is armed.

Opinion | The NRA says guns — not VAWA — keep women safe. Here's what the research says.
 
“The best research to date indicates that women who have been abused by their partner are five times as likely to be killed by that partner if he has access to a gun.

[…]

Only a handful of the women in the study reported that they had used the gun to scare, run off, or threaten their abuser.

[…]

What we do know is that, generally speaking, guns have not protected women from abusers nearly as often as they have been used by abusers. The Violence Against Women Act helps protect women in a variety of ways, including making it harder for abusive partners and stalkers to obtain a gun. One step forward is extending the firearm provisions to include current and former boyfriends.” ibid

The NRA is lying yet again, no surprise there.

And given these facts, the provision in the Act rendering individuals with a domestic violence/abuse misdemeanor conviction a prohibit person is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional.

Those convicted and who are now a prohibited person were afforded full and comprehensive due process, they have only themselves to blame.
 
I know a woman who went to prison for shooting her abusive husband. No one doubted that he was abusive. She filled him full of lead. He lived. The reason she went to prison was she reloaded and shot him some more after he was already well full of holes from round 1 and stopped. Nuance matters in a no-retreat state.
 
“The best research to date indicates that women who have been abused by their partner are five times as likely to be killed by that partner if he has access to a gun.

[…]

Only a handful of the women in the study reported that they had used the gun to scare, run off, or threaten their abuser.

[…]

What we do know is that, generally speaking, guns have not protected women from abusers nearly as often as they have been used by abusers. The Violence Against Women Act helps protect women in a variety of ways, including making it harder for abusive partners and stalkers to obtain a gun. One step forward is extending the firearm provisions to include current and former boyfriends.” ibid

The NRA is lying yet again, no surprise there.

And given these facts, the provision in the Act rendering individuals with a domestic violence/abuse misdemeanor conviction a prohibit person is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional.

Those convicted and who are now a prohibited person were afforded full and comprehensive due process, they have only themselves to blame.
Anti-gun nutters like you are fucking retards... fact
 

Forum List

Back
Top