• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

My proposal as a response to mass shootings.

What do you think of the proposal?


  • Total voters
    21

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
43,659
Reaction score
23,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY

So the woman being abused won't have a way to defend herself anymore?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So the woman being abused won't have a way to defend herself anymore?

The abuser gets his firearms confiscated. If the woman owns a gun she can keep it of course. That said, its quite rare for a woman to successfully defend herself against her spouse with a gun. Most people are not willing to shoot their spouse regardless of how abusive they are.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,813
Reaction score
8,958
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Assault in any guise is a crime. Assuming the offender is convicted he should automatically have his right to own a firearm removed.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Assault in any guise is a crime. Assuming the offender is convicted he should automatically have his right to own a firearm removed.

From a statistical perspective though, the guy that beats his wife or kids is much more apt to perpetrate a mass shooting than the hothead that gets into fights in bars.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
10,336
Reaction score
5,440
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What's to stop the person who's arrested from buying another gun once they are released before trial (assuming there is one)?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What's to stop the person who's arrested from buying another gun once they are released before trial (assuming there is one)?

They would have to be banned from purchasing a gun while awaiting trial. Often their is a trial regardless these days because most states have opted to allow the prosecutor to prosecute the individual for battery regardless of whether the wife or girlfriend that was beat wants to drop charges.
 

11Bravo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
899
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From a statistical perspective though, the guy that beats his wife or kids is much more apt to perpetrate a mass shooting than the hothead that gets into fights in bars.

If they are a felon from the charge, how are they buying the firearm?
 

11Bravo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
899
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From a statistical perspective though, the guy that beats his wife or kids is much more apt to perpetrate a mass shooting than the hothead that gets into fights in bars.

Sorry disregard my last post. I didn't read your OP correctly.

I think disqualifications for owning a firearm should unanimous. If we can prove that anyone who commits that type of abuse will shoot people up, then we ban it across the board for not only felons, but for lesser charges (IE: Plea deals). However, 60% doesn't sound like proof. It just sounds like a lot.

It's a valid point, but 40% of Americans stemming from that abuse do not commit those atrocities. That's almost half.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,813
Reaction score
8,958
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
From a statistical perspective though, the guy that beats his wife or kids is much more apt to perpetrate a mass shooting than the hothead that gets into fights in bars.

Didn't know that. Interesting.

I'm honestly fine with taking guns away from anyone whose been convicted of a violent crime - even hotheads in a bar. Are you thinking of only doing so in the case of domestic abusers?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sorry disregard my last post. I didn't read your OP correctly.

I think disqualifications for owning a firearm should unanimous. If we can prove that anyone who commits that type of abuse will shoot people up, then we ban it across the board for not only felons, but for lesser charges (IE: Plea deals). However, 60% doesn't sound like proof. It just sounds like a lot.

It's a valid point, but 40% of Americans stemming from that abuse do not commit those atrocities. That's almost half.

I don't think you will find any other predictor of violence that is stronger than a 60% correlation. Moreover, the threat of losing your firearms if you beat your wife would be a pretty big incentive not to beat your wife. Also, as I pointed out, for first time offenders you could have a provision to get your rights to own a gun restored if you complete a court approved treatment plan.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,125
Reaction score
43,723
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why only that violent offense and why not only after a conviction?

Conviction of any violent crime should result in loss of rights for the duration of the sentence. I oppose the idea that one is given a life no 2A sentence yet is allowed to roam freely among us. If they pose a clear and present danger then do not release them and simply hope everyone plays along with the (not stated) plan to keep them from ever gaining access to a gun.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Didn't know that. Interesting.

I'm honestly fine with taking guns away from anyone whose been convicted of a violent crime - even hotheads in a bar. Are you thinking of only doing so in the case of domestic abusers?

The correlation between domestic abusers and those that commit mass shootings is so strong that I singled them out for this proposal / poll.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why only that violent offense and why not only after a conviction?

Conviction of any violent crime should result in loss of rights for the duration of the sentence. I oppose the idea that one is given a life no 2A sentence yet is allowed to roam freely among us. If they pose a clear and present danger then do not release them and simply hope everyone plays along with the (not stated) plan to keep them from ever gaining access to a gun.

So a guy beats the hell out of his wife and gets arrested for it. You would leave his guns in the home until he was convicted? Moreover, if a guy beats his wife up, he probably won't do any time the first time for it. If he does, it will be a few months in county. The risk though is that these individuals have about as high of a risk of committing a mass shooting as anyone out there.

My proposal is basically this:

1. You get arrested for domestic violence, all the guns you own are confiscated while you await trial.

2. If you are found innocent, then they are returned to you.

3. If you are found guilty, then you lose them. You are then given the option after you serve your sentence to go through a court approved treatment program and if you complete it, you can have your rights to own and purchase firearms restored.

4. If you have 2 or more convictions for domestic violence, you can never own a gun legally again.

It seems to me that would both reduce the number of mass shootings as most occur in the home by abusers, and it would also provide a pretty strong incentive not to beat your wife.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,125
Reaction score
43,723
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sorry disregard my last post. I didn't read your OP correctly.

I think disqualifications for owning a firearm should unanimous. If we can prove that anyone who commits that type of abuse will shoot people up, then we ban it across the board for not only felons, but for lesser charges (IE: Plea deals). However, 60% doesn't sound like proof. It just sounds like a lot.

It's a valid point, but 40% of Americans stemming from that abuse do not commit those atrocities. That's almost half.

Are you kidding me? You are asserting that 60% of domestic abusers will become mass shooters? Very, very few ever commit a mass shooting of that teeny tiny number it would appear that about 6 in 10 of those very few was a prior domestic abuser. Most domestic abuse never gets reported much less results in a conviction.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Are you kidding me? You are asserting that 60% of domestic abusers will become mass shooters? Very, very few ever commit a mass shooting of that teeny tiny number it would appear that about 6 in 10 of those very few was a prior domestic abuser. Most domestic abuse never gets reported much less results in a conviction.

I think he misspoke. More than 60% of mass shooters also are domestic abusers. The strongest correlation you can find between mass shooters and anything is with domestic abusers.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,813
Reaction score
8,958
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The correlation between domestic abusers and those that commit mass shootings is so strong that I singled them out for this proposal / poll.

Well then since I'm suggesting a superset of what you are I agree with you.
 

dimensionallava

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
6,414
Reaction score
1,524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
violent felons should have the right to own guns
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Against my better judgement, I am going to start a poll / thread on mass shootings and a form of gun control as a response. So hear goes.

More than 60% of mass shootings are related to domestic abuse, and an even higher percentage are committed by those that have a history of physically abusing their wife, girlfriend, and or their kids. So as a response to mass shootings, instead of banning those on the terrorist watch-list or no fly list from purchasing guns and ammo which does have some issues related to due process as you may not even know you are on the watch list much less have a path to clear yourself and get off. Why not confiscate all firearms in the home anytime someone is arrested for physical abuse in the home, and if convicted of physical domestic abuse, that individual loses the right to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition? You could have a provision to have your rights to own a gun restored after you serve your sentence for domestic abuse and court approved treatment program for it. However, if you get convicted of domestic abuse more than once, you lose your rights forever. Your firearms are removed from the home while you await trial if you are charged with domestic abuse.

As most mass shootings occur in the home (abusive man shoots his wife and others before shooting himself), it seems this could have a real impact. Moreover, many public mass shooters have also beat their wife or girlfriends in the past. Furthermore, in my opinion, any piece of **** that beats their wife or kids probably doesn't have a high respect for human life when you get down to it.

So anyway, what do you think of the proposal?

The link between domestic abuse and mass shootings was discussed on this NPR episode this morning:

The connections between mass shootings and domestic violence | Radio Times | WHYY

Where the government decides that a citizen is suspicious it should be allowed to restrict her rights? That is one slippery slope. But when a crime has been proven, the storyline changes.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
26,039
Reaction score
16,903
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Where the government decides that a citizen is suspicious it should be allowed to restrict her rights? That is one slippery slope. But when a crime has been proven, the storyline changes.

So a guy has a house full of guns he owns. He beats the hell out of his wife. You would leave those guns in the house while he awaits trial?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
So a guy has a house full of guns he owns. He beats the hell out of his wife. You would leave those guns in the house while he awaits trial?

I don't know what crimes should be so punished and would have to give it more thought. But possibly yes.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,125
Reaction score
43,723
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So a guy beats the hell out of his wife and gets arrested for it. You would leave his guns in the home until he was convicted? Moreover, if a guy beats his wife up, he probably won't do any time the first time for it. If he does, it will be a few months in county. The risk though is that these individuals have about as high of a risk of committing a mass shooting as anyone out there.

My proposal is basically this:

1. You get arrested for domestic violence, all the guns you own are confiscated while you await trial.

2. If you are found innocent, then they are returned to you.

3. If you are found guilty, then you lose them. You are then given the option after you serve your sentence to go through a court approved treatment program and if you complete it, you can have your rights to own and purchase firearms restored.

4. If you have 2 or more convictions for domestic violence, you can never own a gun legally again.

It seems to me that would both reduce the number of mass shootings as most occur in the home by abusers, and it would also provide a pretty strong incentive not to beat your wife.

Why not take all of the knives, clubs and string that the abuser owns too? A teeny tiny number of abusers might someday become mass shooters, yet many more will commit other (non-gun related) violent crimes - why should we focus only on the gun rights? First remove all privileges, such as driving - i bet those abusers are road rage prone as well. ;)
 
Top Bottom