2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,972
- 52,240
- 2,290
This has come up in Virginia.....
Regardless of waiting for a Court Order of Protection, should women who are being stalked be allowed to carry a gun without a permit if they don't have one? On a side note...does a Court order of protection actually stop the murder of these women?
And finally, which would you rather have...a Court order of protection...or a concealed hand gun.....?
In the Washington Times: Gun Control Advocates "Leaving threatened women defenseless" - Crime Prevention Research Center
Protection orders are pieces of paper that can only do so much to keep women safe from violent men. But at the end of March, Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe vetoed a bill that would allow domestic violence victims to temporarily carry a permitted concealed handgun for 45 days without a permit. This is the length of time it can take to process a permit application.
Mr. McAuliffe said it is “dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves.”
Guns do make it easier to kill. But there is a simple biological fact that gun control advocates like Mr. McAuliffe ignore. Men are typically much stronger physically than women, particularly when it comes to upper body strength. Unfortunately, real life isn’t like the movies where one single woman is able to knock out and overpower several well-trained men. Men also tend to be faster runners. Even without a gun, men can do a lot of harm to or even kill a woman.
A gun represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does in a man’s ability to hurt her.
----
Mr. McAuliffe pushed for Virginia to use background checks to stop people from getting guns if they are under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. But there is little evidence that background checks stop violent crime. Michael Bloomberg’s group, Everytown for Gun Safety, praises these laws for reducing the rate at which intimate partners kill women, but the group never actually examines how crime rates change before and after laws are adopted. They look across states and ignore the fact that the states that already had low rates at which intimate partners kill women were the ones that adopted these laws. When you look at murders before and after changes in these laws, no benefit was found.
Mr. McAuliffe points out that in 2014, there were “112 family and intimate-partner related homicides.” But he pads this number by counting 46 deaths that didn’t involve guns. More bizarrely, the state data looks at homicides, not murders. Most people don’t realize this, but homicides include self-defense killings. So Mr. McAuliffe’s number includes cases where a woman legitimately used a gun to defend herself from a violent partner. Nor does the state note that many of these intimate partner homicides were cases involving prostitutes.
Regardless of waiting for a Court Order of Protection, should women who are being stalked be allowed to carry a gun without a permit if they don't have one? On a side note...does a Court order of protection actually stop the murder of these women?
And finally, which would you rather have...a Court order of protection...or a concealed hand gun.....?
In the Washington Times: Gun Control Advocates "Leaving threatened women defenseless" - Crime Prevention Research Center
Protection orders are pieces of paper that can only do so much to keep women safe from violent men. But at the end of March, Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe vetoed a bill that would allow domestic violence victims to temporarily carry a permitted concealed handgun for 45 days without a permit. This is the length of time it can take to process a permit application.
Mr. McAuliffe said it is “dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves.”
Guns do make it easier to kill. But there is a simple biological fact that gun control advocates like Mr. McAuliffe ignore. Men are typically much stronger physically than women, particularly when it comes to upper body strength. Unfortunately, real life isn’t like the movies where one single woman is able to knock out and overpower several well-trained men. Men also tend to be faster runners. Even without a gun, men can do a lot of harm to or even kill a woman.
A gun represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does in a man’s ability to hurt her.
----
Mr. McAuliffe pushed for Virginia to use background checks to stop people from getting guns if they are under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. But there is little evidence that background checks stop violent crime. Michael Bloomberg’s group, Everytown for Gun Safety, praises these laws for reducing the rate at which intimate partners kill women, but the group never actually examines how crime rates change before and after laws are adopted. They look across states and ignore the fact that the states that already had low rates at which intimate partners kill women were the ones that adopted these laws. When you look at murders before and after changes in these laws, no benefit was found.
Mr. McAuliffe points out that in 2014, there were “112 family and intimate-partner related homicides.” But he pads this number by counting 46 deaths that didn’t involve guns. More bizarrely, the state data looks at homicides, not murders. Most people don’t realize this, but homicides include self-defense killings. So Mr. McAuliffe’s number includes cases where a woman legitimately used a gun to defend herself from a violent partner. Nor does the state note that many of these intimate partner homicides were cases involving prostitutes.
Last edited:
