The gun grabbers always say they want a conversation, but somehow that rarely seems to work out.
Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center in Rhode Island has a solution to the domestic violence problem. Referencing the Sutherland Springs asshole, a prohibited person able to purchase weapons because the Air Force failed to obey the law, she wrote:
Despite all of these warning signs and a well-documented dark past for such a young person, he was able to amass a gun collection that he used to kill dozens of innocent souls – including those of a pregnant woman, her unborn child and numerous children. If you knew what you now know about this shooter, would you have in good conscience had any part in selling him a gun? If he could beat up a puppy and an infant with his bare hands, what would he have done with a gun in his possession? Unfortunately, we – and the 26 dead, the numerous injured, their families and our grieving nation – know the answer.
It’s time we stop putting guns into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Support gun legislation to stop the violence and protect innocent lives, before it happens again.
Right off the bat, she violated Rule 1a: If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.
You might also note the lack of a specific… heck, any proposed solution; just “gun legislation.” I figured an “Executive Director” ought to know how to get things done. Maybe her letter just got edited down for space. So I asked her. To start that conversation.
What gun legislation are you proposing; a new law requiring agencies to report convictions as the law already requires?
True, a little sarcastic; but I’d already hit “send.” But really; I want to see if she’s come up with something workable.
An answer!
I’m not proposing a specific gun legislation but would totally support whatever can be done (current or future legislation) to prohibit guns from getting into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Any legislation that can keep guns away from those who would use it senselessly in a domestic violence situation is great!
So that would be totally (whatever, is she a 16yo Valley Girl?)… No.
So much for the conversation.
So basically you have no idea what current laws are, or how effective they might be, or what news laws you want, but you do want more of what you don’t know.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I’ve had more profound discussions with a cat.
And bless your heart, Lori; that confidentiality disclaimer on your email? Pretty useless. You’re not my attorney, I’m not your client, and we have no contractual relationship. But I can certainly understand why your employer might want your… carefully considered thoughts on issues kept quiet.
Update: I waited for another reply before I posted this, but not quite long enough.
I do know what the new laws are and how they still are not strong enough. Our local government is still trying to figure it out as well.
I dunno… if they don’t work, maybe it isn’t that they aren’t strong enough. Perhaps, they’re 1) the wrong laws, and 2) targeting the 99.9814% of millions of gun owners who aren’t the problem.
As you may have noticed from previous number-crunching, I’m quite analytically inclined. When I see or hear something that doesn’t sound right, it gnaws at me until I check it out. Like this:
Emotions run high during Politech’s gun control forum
“So it’s really a touchy issue on a sense of security. Also if you want to go to domestic violence, most women who are around guns, 50 percent of the time will be shot using their own weapon,” Gavran said. “So there are a lot of challenges with that.”
Really? 50% of women around guns will be shot with their own weapon?
My guess is that emotions ran high because lies like that were allowed.
According to a MarieClaire.com and Harvard Injury Control Research Center survey 32% of women live in households with firearm. I think that counts as being “around” guns. 32% of 162,000,000 women would be 51,840,000. 50% of those would be 25,920,000 women shot.
The FBI’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report says there were only 1,217,400 violent crimes (male and female; murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) last year. Yet ditz Gavran claims that just women shot is more than 21 times that.
But maybe Gavran meant 50% of the MC/HIRC reported 12% of women who own guns. That gets us down to 9,720,000 to about 8 times the number of total violent crimes for males and females alike.
Let’s stroll over to the CDC’s WISQARS and see what they say about it. 6,368 total nonfatal firearms assaults, and 1,950 fatal firearms assaults, for a total of 8,318. A far cry from 25,920,000 or even 9,720,000.
OK, I’ll be generous. Rather than what she said, maybe she meant to limit the population strictly to domestic violence cases; so 50% of female domestic violence victims.
Uh oh. It says here that females are the victims in 85% of 960,000 estimated annual domestic violent incidents, giving us 816,000 victims, half of which would be firearms by Gavran’s claim: 408,000. Only 49 times the number of fatal and nonfatal female firearms injuries the CDC reports.
Wait. 12% of women own guns. So .12 times 816,000 is 97,920. Half of that is 48,960. Only six times as many as the total the CDC reports.
Pure. Effing. B. S.
But as the man said, there’s more.
Perry was able to speak on what he considered naivety in regards to fears of students carrying guns around the campus. Gavran responded to Perry, saying there were accidental discharges around some universities in Texas.
She went on to say there is no way of knowing all of the effects of Campus Carry because the Clery Act legislation does not require reporting of accidental discharges.
I searched. I found one. More than a year ago. If the ditz has better data, she should cite it.
The state of Virginia has an interesting piece of legislation in play right now. HB 1852 allows someone with protective orders to carry a concealed handgun after they apply for a permit. Normally you cannot carry a gun until after you have received your permission slip, and that can take up to 45 days. Days you may, or may not have. The emergency permit is good for 45 days, and you can only utilize the “by-pass” if you have applied for a permit.
The bill passed the Senate by a 27-13 vote. It had already been approval by the House of Delegates.
“Governor” McAuliffe had a chance to help domestic abuse victims with similar legislation last year, but he chose to side with the abusers and vetoed it. His aide says he plans to again prevent victims from being able to obtain life saving tools in an emergency situation this year. Of course McAuliffe is not the only one siding with abusers. A confused Demoncrat named Favola also took a very firm stand against women:
“We already have a victim who’s vulnerable and very concerned and anxious, and we’re going to allow this person to bypass whatever requirements we might have for concealed handgun permits – one of which is training – to go ahead and get the gun,” she said.
“We should base public policy on evidence-based research. Folks who have studied this issue, folks who have advocated for the rights of women, folks who have spent many years evaluating domestic violence situations tell us that it is not wise to interject more firearms into a situation that is already volatile,” Favola added. “In fact, when a firearm exists in a situation of domestic violence, it’s actually the woman who is five times more likely to die.”
I would say probably not if the gun is in HER hand. So this Favola thing thinks it’s far better to allow the victims to remain vulnerable, anxious and concerned. I guess no one pointed out to her there was nothing to prevent the woman from getting her gun and taking it and getting training if she needed it, or wanted more. I rather suspect if a woman feels the need to get a gun to protect herself, she will want to be able to use it effectively. But that thought process may be too deep or McAuliffe and Favola. But they probably have taxpayer funded protection don’t they? They’ve never known that fear, so it doesn’t exist does it?
Prohibit acts of violence, force, or threat or criminal offenses that may result in injury to person or property.
Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner as the judge deems necessary for the health and safety of the Petitioner.
Prohibit such other contact with the Petitioner’s family or household members as the judge deems necessary for their health and safety.
Order any other conditions the judge may deem necessary to prevent acts of violence, force, or threat, criminal offenses resulting in injury to person or property, or communication or other contact of any kind by the respondent.
And what does one have to do to obtain such a magical piece of paper?
Several forms must be completed to obtain a preliminary protective order. These forms are available at the civil clerk’s office, and can be completed at the court or taken home to complete.
You must complete the forms on your own, and you must be present to file them.
When all of the appropriate forms have been completed, the clerk will present the petition to a judge. They will review the forms and make a determination whether to issue the preliminary protective order or not. If approved, a court date will be set within 15 days and notice of the hearing will be served on the respondent.
Fifteen days, wow. But you can get an emergency order. They also helpfully tell you what to do in the event that the order is violated:
You should immediately call 911 and tell them you have a protective order and the respondent is violating it. You may also file violation charges with the magistrate.
I guess they mean if you live, then I guess you wait for the police to show up with their guns to save you.
This restraining order thing is interesting.
The Independent Women’s Forum points out how restraining orders can become a tool in a woman’s bag of dirty tricks. By that I mean that some women get a restraining order to gain the upper hand in a contentious divorce. The man gets booted out of the house, possibly loses unfettered access to his children, and it may give her a leg up in court for division of property. It can also cost an innocent man his Second Amendment rights. TV host and liberal wing-nut David Letterman once had a restraining order issued against him. The judge didn’t really think wing-nut had done anything, but the woman had filled out the paperwork correctly.
Security specialist Gavin de Becker says in his book The Gift of Fear restraining orders are “homework assignments police give to women to prove they’re really committed to getting away from their pursuers”, they “clearly serve police and prosecutors”, but “they do not always serve victims”.
How effective are restraining orders? From Psychology Today I learned they work about half the time. They work for people that tend to follow the rules. If the guy is saying “If I can’t have you no one will” he quite possibly will not care one whit about that piece of paper. The victim may or may not be consistent in reporting violations, the police may or may not be consistent in their approach to reported violations. If the victims has been inconsistent in reporting, they will probably be more inconsistent in their response.
The rest I’m going to pretty much quote:
Problem Four: Sometimes the presence of a Temporary Restraining Order makes what was a dormant situation instantly worse. Gavin de Becker says “Sometimes when we engage we enrage.” This means that if the subject has not bothered the victim prior to this point, getting him served in court with a civil stay-away order may suddenly give him a reason to become a never-ending irritant to the victim. “You’re giving me a restraining order? I’ll give you a reason to give me a restraining order!” and then the games begin.
Problem Five: Are the police, the domestic violence advocates, and the victim using a Temporary Restraining Order as the primary placating tool/security blanket, when a better plan exists? Sometimes it makes good safety sense for the victim to move away. When I was a dv investigator, we often told victims to get a TRO, as part of our usual attempts at due diligence and giving them all of their options. In retrospect, it often made the situation worse and created a false sense of security that once the order was served, the police were now somehow waiting right around the corner to help.
Some domestic violence victims participate in their own murders by not reading the warning signs, not trusting their intuition, and over-relying on the ever-flawed criminal justice system for help. The life they have to protect is their own.
Move away? Move away? Someone who is already a victim has to move away from job, family, friends and whatever support system they have? So reality strikes, the restraining order is every bit as strong as, well, a piece of paper.
Another state has a similar bill going through their legislature. Indiana has House Bill 1071 which would allow those who have been granted a protective order to use that order to obtain a temporary permit to carry a gun. Those wishing to use the order as a carrying permit must be 21 years old and must follow all regulations to receive an actual concealed carry permit.
A firearms instructor and attorney, Guy Relford testified that some of the women he has trained have told him that their attackers went away when they saw the gun, they didn’t have to shoot, they went away. Apparently allowing women the means to defend themselves did not cause blood to run in the streets. Then Demoncrat Summers rode in on her unicorn and stated:
“I think that your energies should be in strengthening up that protective order, doing some other things in a domestic violence situation instead of giving a scared to death woman a gun,” Summers said.
Summers did not dismount her unicorn long enough to specify just HOW she could strengthen a protective order enough that a determined abuser wouldn’t blow that off as well. But, well, hey, she’s a Demoncrat.
So Governor McAuliffe has little regard for the lives of at risk women it seems to me. It appears he is much more concerned about protecting abusers as he is also much more concerned about New York than he is Virginia. So McAuliffe with the help of other Demoncrats is starting a “Binder full of women”, much like Governor Chris Christie has a binder of women. Women like Carol Browne who died due to New Jersey gun laws. A binder of victims who were denied the emergency equipment that could have saved their lives. Or like Castle Rock vs. Gonzalesthe children who are victims when the magical restraining order fails.
Perhaps McAuliffe, various Demoncrats and Governor Christie think domestic violence is funny, that’s it’s all like “Goodbye Earl”. But then, they have taxpayer funded security don’t they? Right, I forgot, the fear and danger isn’t real.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
