when SingleDad said we should "discriminate".. of course some thought in terms of peoples rights based on a group of people as a whole... however.. to discriminate can mean.. "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately" [/QUOTE]
Exactly. Discrimination has a broader definition than just acting on prejudice.
No.. I don't know what to do to fix things. BUT.. I do know that something needs to happen. And unless you walked on the other side you can not fully understand why anything is better than nothing. [/QUOTE]
Exactly.
akmom said:
Where I live, repeated threats to kill or injure someone is third-degree assault (a class C felony), so your mother's killer wouldn't have qualified to own a gun here. That is assuming that existing laws were enforced.
What you say makes sense, but there are two problems -
1. The vast majority of domestic violence cases either never get reported, or are withdrawn as quickly as they are reported. And of the few that does actually reach a court room, only a small percentage is convicted. That is the grip in which these offenders hold the victims.
2. By the time he is prosecuted, it is too late. The damage has been done.
Yes, repeated threats to kill someone is a crime here, too. As is child abuse. As is pointing a gun (at anyone) except in self defense. But AKAIK, mom2all's mom never reported it. Battered women vary rarely do. I didn't report my foster father either, because by then experience had taught me that no one would take the word of a troubled teenager over that of an approved foster parent. And in that sense, I wasn't an exception either. So both of us were stuck. Unlike mom2all's mom, I survived. But the price for my survival has been very, very high.
akmom said:
So I think we need to specify what we are solving for: mass murders or gun crimes in general? Because it appears these are two separate problems with different solutions.
I would say both. I think one is a function of the other, and neither can be solved with a single solution. Both are functions of intrinsic problems in society. Both are functions of a flawed law-enforcement system, a flawed welfare system, and a society that in many way, is sick to its core. "Solving" these problems will not happen over night. I think what both mom2all and I are advocating is steps that can make small differences quickly, in order to buy us time while we look for ways to address the root cause.
Perhaps gun-control is not the solution. Perhaps there are other, better solutions. But we can't find them unless we have a conversation about it. These things need to be talked about. We need to stop fighting each other and unite in an effort to solve a problem. You are not required to agree with me, but both sides need to look at the other side's suggestions with an open mind. Perhaps there is a way we can reconcile the two and find a best-of-both-worlds solution. But we'll never get there unless we are willing to listen to each other with open minds.
akmom said:
For example, if we want to address domestic violence, and all the gun fatalities it precipitates, then we have to better identify when it happens, and then actually follow through with getting people convicted so that existing laws can be enforced to de-arm them. That probably requires investing in resources for DV victims (safe harbor, following through with charges and prosecution for offenders, counseling for financial independence and battered woman syndrome). If we want to solve for accidents, then we could improve or even mandate access to gun safes and gun safety training. That wouldn't infringe on anyone's rights.
Both those solutions would certainly go a long way towards solving some parts of the problem. You will recall that mandatory gun safes is one point that I've advocated from the start - not only to prevent accidents, but also to keep legal guns from ending up on the black market and in criminal hands.
akmom said:
I guess I take just take issue with laws that would infringe on my right to have a gun - which I feel that I need, and have needed for defense (though not against humans) - because someone else is a criminal or irresponsible. What really scared me were the suggestions to comb through a person's medical records or search their home at any time.
I don't think anyone said it should be allowed to be done "at any time". I believe it should form part of the approval process - ie, it happens once, before you are approved. Doing that would have saved both mom2all's mom and me. If you are a stable, responsible person, you needn't be afraid of such an inquiry. I do, however, understand that such a process is open to abuse and should be monitored and policed VERY closely. There needs to be clear guidelines on when a person is considered unstable and when not, and who gets to make that decision, under which circumstance. It cannot, and should never come down to a tick-box on a form stating simply that a person has been in treatment for mental illness, and that is it.
akmom said:
But I do think that a case has been made that many people who own guns shouldn't have them. Because they are already criminals, and we are failing to enforce existing laws that would de-arm them. If anything, maybe this shows that we are not taking it seriously enough.
That is definitely part of the problem. But fixing that will also require a change in legislation, but ever more so, a huge change in attitude for the average man on the street.
How can you expect more abused women to report their abusive husbands, when 70% of women who are killed by their husbands, are killed when they attempt to leave? How can you expect children to report abuse when history has proved that no one will believe them, and while there are actually US states where physical injuries are required for something to be classified as abuse? How do you prove that someone threatened you? How do you prove that a gun was pointed? How do you report someone when you know the chances of conviction are tiny and that when your suit fails, that person will be out and free, and ready to take revenge?
You can't.
That is the problem.
And to make matters worse, when the person who has threatened you walks out of that court room, he will be given back his guns, like mom2all's mother's murderer, because he isn't a criminal in the eyes of the law.
I know right. I seem to do that all the time. "I'm done with this or that thread." then I just cant stay away.
