My proposal as a response to mass shootings.

[Eric7216]

Suspect that there is a lot of false charges filed by the spouses. So this would lead to a lot of innocent people being denied basic civil rights.
Arrests is not convicted. The standards for proof of domestic abuse should be the same as any other standard-beyond reasonable doubt. Would not want rights withheld because of he said she said.
Lots of bias in your post. Do you think that only males abuse?

 

[Aberration]

OK, did some research on this. It is the law that anyone convicted of domestic violence cannot own a firearm. See: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ? Gun Law Information Experts

However, there is no provision right now for removing guns from the home they already possess.

I'd also like to point out that being subject to a protective order, which has no due process, is not the same as being convicted of domestic violence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SMTA]

Sure, so you would be in favor of a suspected child molester keeping custody of their kids while they await trial then to be consistent with your principles then right?

I don't make the laws.

Suspected means nothing - same as alleged.

You need to read up on the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't make the laws.

Suspected means nothing - same as alleged.

You need to read up on the presumption of innocence and probable cause.

Luckily you don't make the laws because if you are charged with sexual abuse, your kids will be removed from the home while you await trial.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

My brother was and is the custodial parent. His ex would take their daughter, every time she got visitation, shopping for a doctor to sign off on abuse. 7 times. The last time it was supposed sexual abuse. We had custody for 3mo. First my mother had custody, but her current husband had an abuse allegation 20 years ago. No charges as the girl admitted it was fabricated. But that alone is supposedly cause to remove custody. For us to get custody we had to go through the whole foster care application and review. Until that time she was in a complete strangers foster care. Foster care is rampant with abuse. Damn right I think accused parents deserve due process.

Do you even know what a man has to go through when faced with those charges?

**** family court. One of the most disgusting institutions we have in this country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As someone that used to be a CASA volunteer, I can tell you that Family Courts are in no way a disgusting institution. I cannot imagine the horrors many children would have to endure without them. That said, if your brother was never formally charged with a sex crime, I am not sure how its at all relevant.

 

[Aberration]

As someone that used to be a CASA volunteer, I can tell you that Family Courts are in no way a disgusting institution. I cannot imagine the horrors many children would have to endure without them. That said, if your brother was never formally charged with a sex crime, I am not sure how its at all relevant.

Can you imagine the horrors that fathers have to deal with because of them? Or is it justified because of the children?

You brought it up. Not me. Maybe you should have questioned the relevancy before you posted it. Also you specifically said suspected. Not formally charged.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Suspect that there is a lot of false charges filed by the spouses. So this would lead to a lot of innocent people being denied basic civil rights.
Arrests is not convicted. The standards for proof of domestic abuse should be the same as any other standard-beyond reasonable doubt. Would not want rights withheld because of he said she said.
Lots of bias in your post. Do you think that only males abuse?

Of the 129 mass shooters in the past 50 years in the United States, a total of 3 were women. So there is reason for bias there.

Moreover, women are more likely than men to be victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. Just the same such a provision would of course apply to women just like it would to men. That said, only 11.7% of gun owners are women. So it would not often be applicable in their case when charged with domestic violence.

For consistency, if a child were to report their teacher that their parent was sexual abusing them and there was enough evidence to charge their parent with sexual abuse, should that child remain in the parent's home until the trial? If not, then what is the difference between that, and the police showing up and arresting someone after than they beat the hell out of their intimate partner?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Can you imagine the horrors that fathers have to deal with because of them? Or is it justified because of the children?

If you want to start a thread on this, then go ahead. Frankly, back when I did CASA work, every father I ever saw brought before the family court for custody hearings due to sexual abuse, was a in fact a child molester. So while no court is omniscient, and thus every court can make a mistake, I assure you that in the vast, vast majority of cases they get it right. I am a parent of 3 kids and have frankly never known anyone that lost their kids that did not need to lose their kids. The family court system goes to great lengths to keep families together. Sometimes even to the detriment of the kids. Why do you think people enter social work, become child victims advocates and so on? It sure as hell isn't for the pay. Its because they care a lot. That doesn't mean they are perfect. That doesn't mean they were never make a mistake. That doesn't mean that in rare cases you have someone in that field that shouldn't be in it, but the majority of the time they are good people, doing good work.

You brought it up. Not me. Maybe you should have questioned the relevancy before you posted it. Also you specifically said suspected. Not formally charged.

I brought it up to establish a consistent standard. If one is against someone losing access to their firearms while they are awaiting trial for domestic abuse, then for consistency purposes they should be against children being removed from the home of a parent that has been formally charged with sexual abuse of a minor.

 

[Henrin]

Of the 129 mass shooters in the past 50 years in the United States, a total of 3 were women. So there is reason for bias there.

So only a hundred and twenty nine mass shootings happened in the last half century? So why is banning mass killing not good enough? How many people lived in the US in the last fifty years? How many of them decided to involve themselves in a mass shooting? Why restrict people gun rights for something that only happened a hundred and twenty nine times in the last half century? We have over three hundred million people in the country and you want to restrict all of their gun rights for something that isn't even all that common.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So only a hundred and twenty nine mass shootings happened in the last half century? So why is banning mass killing not good enough? How many people lived in the US in the last fifty years? How many of them decided to involve themselves in a mass shooting?

This would only apply to those (well it already does apply actually) to those that commit physical violence against their intimate partner or child in the home. The majority of mass murders are committed by physical abusers, a firearm in the home of a known physical abuser increases the likelihood of homicide by 500%.

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study

If you want to keep your guns, don't beat your spouse or kids. Pretty simple really.

 

[Aberration]

If you want to start a thread on this, then go ahead. Frankly, back when I did CASA work, every father I ever saw brought before the family court for custody hearings due to sexual abuse, was a in fact a child molester. So while no court is omniscient, and thus every court can make a mistake, I assure you that in the vast, vast majority of cases they get it right. I am a parent of 3 kids and have frankly never known anyone that lost their kids that did not need to lose their kids. The family court system goes to great lengths to keep families together. Sometimes even to the detriment of the kids. Why do you think people enter social work, become child victims advocates and so on? It sure as hell isn't for the pay. Its because they care a lot. That doesn't mean they are perfect. That doesn't mean they were never make a mistake. That doesn't mean that in rare cases you have someone in that field that shouldn't be in it, but the majority of the time they are good people, doing good work.


I brought it up to establish a consistent standard. If one is against someone losing access to their firearms while they are awaiting trial for domestic abuse, then for consistency purposes they should be against children being removed from the home of a parent that has been formally charged with sexual abuse of a minor.

I don't care what excuses you have, you brought it up. You asked the question. I replied with a relevant opinion and my experience to back up that opinion.

The fact that you think they get it right in the vast majority of cases is exactly what supports the heavy bias in the family courts. It's exactly why men must prove their innocence in the face of no proof of guilt.

You didn't say formally charged. You said suspected. Two different things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

This would only apply to those (well it already does apply actually) to those that commit physical violence against their intimate partner or child in the home. The majority of mass murders are committed by physical abusers, a firearm in the home of a known physical abuser increases the likelihood of homicide by 500%.

Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study

If you want to keep your guns, don't beat your spouse or kids. Pretty simple really.

It doesn't take beating your wife or kids to be convicted of domestic violence or to lose your guns. All it takes is her word. Nothing else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

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

I have no dog in this hunt, but as a math guy I feel obligated to point out what I feel is a flaw in your logic:

Your data of 60% of mass shooters having a history of domestic abuse, as presented has absolutely no correlation to how many domestic abusers become mass shooters!

[the latter number above would be extremely small, probably to the point of being infinitesimal & inconsequential]

I would also argue that probably 90+% of the mass shooters wore shoes the day of the incident, but obviously wearing shoes is not a predictor of one's likelihood of going on a shooting rampage.

You do seem sincere in this and I applaud you, but unless you can show quantitative correlation showing domestic abusers are likely to go on to become mass shooters, I can't buy that your scheme will indeed lower the incidents of mass shooting without putting undue burden on the non-culpable individuals in the rest of society.

Now that's not saying removing weapons from domestic abusers cannot be a valid point of discussion and may indeed be an appropriate course of action - but with the data you've presented so far, it cannot be portrayed to necessarily significantly lower the incidents of mass shootings themselves.

And who knows? Perhaps there is legit data out there supporting your theory, but I'm not going to go looking for it!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It doesn't take beating your wife or kids to be convicted of domestic violence or to lose your guns. All it takes is her word. Nothing else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dude if your wife wants to get rid of your guns, she will just sell or pawn them while your at work or the bar or whatever. If your wife files a false police report, she will be subject to prosecution.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I have no dog in this hunt, but as a math guy I feel obligated to point out what I feel is a flaw in your logic:

Your data of 60% of mass shooters having a history of domestic abuse, as presented has absolutely no correlation to how many domestic abusers become mass shooters!

[the latter number above would be extremely small, probably to the point of being infinitesimal & inconsequential]

I would also argue that probably 90+% of the mass shooters wore shoes the day of the incident, but obviously wearing shoes is not a predictor of one's likelihood of going on a shooting rampage.

You do seem sincere in this and I applaud you, but unless you can show quantitative correlation showing domestic abusers are likely to go on to become mass shooters, I can't buy that your scheme will indeed lower the incidents of mass shooting without putting undue burden on the non-culpable individuals in the rest of society.

Now that's not saying removing weapons from domestic abusers cannot be a valid point of discussion and may indeed be an appropriate course of action - but with the data you've presented so far, it cannot be portrayed to necessarily significantly lower the incidents of mass shootings themselves.

And who knows? Perhaps there is legit data out there supporting your theory, but I'm not going to go looking for it!

I think I worded that poorly. 60% of mass shootings occur in the home by someone with a history of being a domestic abuser. For example, guy beats his wife, then one day snaps, shoots his wife, her friends that are over, and then finally himself.

Of those mass shooters that kill outside of the home (usually this is in a workplace), a high percentage of them also have a history of domestic abuse. So in that case its not really a correlation like most mass shooters have shoes on, but rather its comparable to a high percentage of child molesters also looked at child pornography. For example, having a firearm in the home with a known violent abuser increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

 

[Aberration]

Dude if your wife wants to get rid of your guns, she will just sell or pawn them while your at work or the bar or whatever. If your wife files a false police report, she will be subject to prosecution.

She can't. My guns are owned by a Trust where I am the Trustee, and everyone else is just listed as a responsible person. I mean she could, but it's a felony.

Only if someone decides to prosecute her. Which I have never heard of happening. And protective orders are issued all the time over false statements. In fact the bias is so bad that when the law was brought up to the judge in my brothers case, requiring her to pay for his legal expenses plus a penalty for false domestic charges, the judge refused to even entertain the idea.

We all know there is the law, and then there is what they decide to prosecute. Even though we have ideological differences I am 100% positive there are circumstance important to you in different contexts that this happens.

Much like this terrorist being investigated twice and dropped twice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

I think I worded that poorly. 60% of mass shootings occur in the home by someone with a history of being a domestic abuser. For example, guy beats his wife, then one day snaps, shoots his wife, her friends that are over, and then finally himself.

Of those mass shooters that kill outside of the home (usually this is in a workplace), a high percentage of them also have a history of domestic abuse. So in that case its not really a correlation like most mass shooters have shoes on, but rather its comparable to a high percentage of child molesters also looked at child pornography. For example, having a firearm in the home with a known violent abuser increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

I understand what you're saying here and support your cause, but still disagree with the way you're using the numbers. You're working them backwards and using that as the basis for your argument, rather than properly working them forward. Does this make sense?

For example: You state that 60% of the domestic shootings have a history of domestic violence. Fair enough.

But I ask: How many domestic abusers go on to become mass shooters? That is the real question. Can you show me those numbers, because your numbers do absolutely nothing to show the propensity of an abuser to become a mass shooter.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from the noble cause of attempting to prevent domestic abuse, but I still haven't seen any correlation from you showing a significant percentage of domestic abusers go on to mass shootings.

Remember, you presented your OP as a solution to mass shootings.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I understand what you're saying here and support your cause, but still disagree with the way you're using the numbers. You're working them backwards and using that as the basis for your argument, rather than properly working them forward. Does this make sense?

For example: You state that 60% of the domestic shootings have a history of domestic violence. Fair enough.

But I ask: How many domestic abusers go on to become mass shooters? That is the real question. Can you show me those numbers, because your numbers do absolutely nothing to show the propensity of an abuser to become a mass shooter.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from the noble cause of attempting to prevent domestic abuse, but I still haven't seen any correlation from you showing a significant percentage of domestic abusers go on to mass shootings.

Remember, you presented your OP as a solution to mass shootings.

60% of mass shootings occur in the home though. They not some guy going out and killing a bunch of strangers, but rather a guy that kills his family.

 

[SCitizen]

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.

A great proposal. Let us never forget that 30% of nonreciprocal intimate partner violence is committed by women against men. But of course the 30% of batterers who are men should lose their rights to own guns. Maybe someone would agree that the other 70% should also.

 

[Chomsky]

She can't. My guns are owned by a Trust where I am the Trustee, and everyone else is just listed as a responsible person. I mean she could, but it's a felony.

Only if someone decides to prosecute her. Which I have never heard of happening. And protective orders are issued all the time over false statements. In fact the bias is so bad that when the law was brought up to the judge in my brothers case, requiring her to pay for his legal expenses plus a penalty for false domestic charges, the judge refused to even entertain the idea.

We all know there is the law, and then there is what they decide to prosecute. Even though we have ideological differences I am 100% positive there are circumstance important to you in different contexts that this happens.

Much like this terrorist being investigated twice and dropped twice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are a prudent man!

Many people seem to think trusts, corporations, and similar entities are only for the powerful & affluent, but no way - they're for the sane & sensible!

One of the most important things a man can do IMO, is develop good working relationships with reputable finance & legal professionals, and then be forthright and humble enough to take their advice!

 

[SCitizen]

Of the 129 mass shooters in the past 50 years in the United States, a total of 3 were women. So there is reason for bias there.

Octavia Rogers stabbed her three sons to death. Andrea Yates drowned her children. Susan Smith drowned her two sons in a minivan.

 

[Aberration]

You are a prudent man!

Many people seem to think trusts, corporations, and similar entities are only for the powerful & affluent, but no way - they're for the sane & sensible!

One of the most important things a man can do IMO, is develop good working relationships with reputable finance & legal professionals, and then be forthright and humble enough to take their advice!

Thank you. It actually does mean something, especially on this forum.

To be honest though I didn't get it in mind of protecting myself from her. After 12 years I still naively think she is my soul mate and it would never happen.

I got it because I knew Oregon was going pass a law closing the "gun show loophole" and making it illegal to let someone borrow your firearm. Then the laws regarding SBRs and silencers means I can't let others borrow them without my presence. So I just wanted to make sure I had the means for my family to use the firearms and silencers without legal trouble.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

60% of mass shootings occur in the home though. They not some guy going out and killing a bunch of strangers, but rather a guy that kills his family.

I wasn't aware, but will not debate your numbers at this time.

And I'm not trying to beat on this, but we still haven't seen any numbers supporting what percentage of domestic abusers go on to mass shooting? You earlier stated 129 mass shooting incidents in the past half century, but how many domestic abuses during that time period? A quick Google showed a hit saying 1 in 3 women suffer abuse in their lifetimes - that's many many millions!

And while I'm criticizing numbers being used to extrapolate data incorrectly, there was this:

For example, having a firearm in the home with a known violent abuser increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

But a quick Google will show hits proclaiming having a gun in the house without any reference to domestic abuse increases homicide rates 3-7X (depending on the site)!

Numbers have to be used in correct context and extrapolated correctly, or they prove little (or anything, to the uninitiated!).

All I'm saying here, is that the numbers have to be worked forward in order to show correlation to mass shooting - not backwards from the shootings!

 

[Chomsky]

Thank you. It actually does mean something, especially on this forum.

To be honest though I didn't get it in mind of protecting myself from her. After 12 years I still naively think she is my soul mate and it would never happen.

I got it because I knew Oregon was going pass a law closing the "gun show loophole" and making it illegal to let someone borrow your firearm. Then the laws regarding SBRs and silencers means I can't let others borrow them without my presence. So I just wanted to make sure I had the means for my family to use the firearms and silencers without legal trouble.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment!

While I can't specifically comment on your legal advice, if it works as you described it sounds like you found a good solution, and there's nothing like the peace-of-mind of feeling legally protected and secure.

My wife deals with high net worth client families in her business, and virtually every one one is a trust recipient, with their holdings and businesses in trust and/or incorporated. Their assets and income streams are pretty much immune & bulletproof to most suits or other financial calamities, and if their spouses ever decide to hire a divorce attorney they're going to be very surprised by what little assets they have access to.

And if one happens to be a W2 wage earner, trust me you don't want to know their effective tax rate compared to yours - no matter what the marginal rate appears to be on the surface!

I make no judgement here, accept to say: Once you see what the proper legal entities can do, you'll never go without them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not all domestic battery is a felony.

the idiotic Lautenberg amendment made DV MISDEMEANORS sufficient to permanently bar someone from ever owning a gun, Lots of women claimed DV in order to win ugly divorce cases especially if their husband was a cop or a security guard. I don't believe in stripping someone's rights as a citizen on less than a felony conviction though I don't have much problem with someone under felony indictment being banned until he is cleared (of course if he is convicted-he loses his rights as a matter of course)

The Orlando shooter was not a domestic violence perpetrator because his ex wife never was willing to do anything to get him charged