Nearly Eleven Murder-Suicides Occur Across America Each Week

"Nine out of 10 murder-suicides involve a gun, 65 percent involve an intimate partner...

"To help reduce the tragic toll of murder-suicides in the United States, the study’s recommendations include:

• Stronger domestic violence prevention legislation and the establishment of state domestic violence task forces.
• Restricting access to firearms where there is an increased risk of a murder-suicide; for example, where an individual has a history of domestic violence and/or has threatened suicide.
• Aggressive enforcement of laws that prohibit individuals with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction or who are the subject of a protective order for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
• Establishing a comprehensive, nationwide database to track murder-suicides."

https://vpc.org/press/nearly-eleven...than-1200-lives-annually-new-vpc-study-finds/

We should all be able to agree on these recommendations. Some people shouldn't have guns.

 

Then said individuals should not be allowed to remain free in society where they can pose the greatest amount of harm to others. If one is too dangerous to legally own a firearm, they are too dangerous to remain free in society.

In case it were not known, either to yourself or the violence policy center, it is already illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to legally own firearms. Therefore nothing more than can be done, short of lifetime incarcerations for certain offenses. But it will ultimately be argued by detractors that such a proposal is far too costly to sustain. Thus once again confirming that the importance of saving lives is directly contingent upon the amount of money that must be invested in the proposal, and that saving money is far more important than saving lives.

 

Some people should be where they belong therefore preventing them from having access to guns, why is it you is you are stuck on treating the symptom and not the problem, would you prescribe aspirin to cure cancer, because basically that is what you are doing.

Could it be you don't care about lives, your only goal is to disarm the law abiding turning them into easy prey for criminals?

The truth is if you truly cared about life you would advocate for solutions to solve the problem, not a symptom of a problem existing, but you don't do that, which exposes your true motives and agenda.

 

Guns are part of the problem. A lot of murder suicides involve male gun owners shooting an intimate partner and then themselves. Women are not safer in homes where guns are kept. In fact, they are much more likely to be murdered in such homes according to many studies. So your "solution" is actually part of the problem.

 

Someone can commit murder-suicide in any number of weapons (for examples, knives, hammers, drugs, poison, etc.). The root of the problem of domestic violence is not being addressed by removing guns from the homes.

 

..there's a lot of difference, between murder and suicide.

And blaming 'Guns!!' .. for either of them is absurd.

The irrationality and madness of progressive indoctrinees never ceases to amaze..

 

And a majority of those shootings where perpetrated by felons who where prohibited from possessing guns, if those laws had been enforced the shooting would never had happened.

Totally false and has been actually proven to be false, what you are doing is leaving out what I already mentioned that is those guns where not being possessed to protect a woman they where possessed by her husband or boyfriend who in most cases was a prohibited person, and if the laws prohibiting such had been enforced no one would have been killed.

The problem is laws are not being enforced and all the anti's do is demand more laws which is insanity, but that's the way they roll, insane as it may be.

That's a flat out lie, I never offered a solution.

 

A claim that cannot be substantiated through citation of anything other than the so-called "study" of Arthur Kellermann, based on findings related to those who are predisposed to engaging in criminal activity to begin with.

 

Use of pharm products to treat depression and anxiety is at record levels. Even the commercials list "suicidal thoughts or actions" as side effects.

Why didn't this make your list?

Also, gay, and transgender people have a high rate of suicide. Should they be denied gun rights?

Do you really believe that misery comes from a gun?

 

Very sad.

Very often male victims of Domestic Violence are arrested and treated as abusers. If these men could get help instead of being arrested, the number of them going beresk would decrease.

 

Where did you get that?

 

The Helpseeking Experiences of Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: An Overlooked Population and Implications for Practice

 

Oh. Where I live, if there is evidence of violence, women are arrested even if the man refuses to press charges. When someone raises an angry hand once, you can be sure they will do it again.

Thats why human behavior is the issue. Not guns.

 

An "either-or" fallacy. Both are part of the problem. Armed violent people do more damage than unarmed violent people.

 

Plenty of misery comes from guns. Guns significantly increase the likelihood that a homicide or suicide attempt will be successful.

 

Incorrect. Kellermann's findings are substantiated by many other studies.

"More than 30 peer-reviewed studies, focusing on individuals as well as populations, have been published that confirm what Kellermann's studies suggested: that guns are associated with an increased risk for violence and homicide. 'There is really uniform data to support the statement that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of firearm-related death and injury,' Wintemute concludes. Gun advocates argue the causes are reversed: surges in violent crime lead people to buy guns, and weapons do not create the surge. But if that were true, gun purchases would increase in tandem with all kinds of violence. In reality, they do not."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

So you don't think that more guns is the solution? Well, you're certainly right about that. In fact, women who were murdered by their partners were much more likely to have lived in homes where guns were kept than abused but living women:

"Another large case-control study compared women who were murdered by their intimate partner with a control group of battered women. Only 16 percent of the women who had been abused, but not murdered, had guns in their homes, whereas 51 percent of the murder victims did. In fact, not a single study to date has shown that the risk of any crime including burglary, robbery, home invasion, or spousal abuse against a female is decreased through gun ownership. Though there are examples of women using a gun to defend themselves, they are few and far between, and not statistically significant."
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...n-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/

Your side cares more about guns than the safety of women. Your side wants stalkers and abusive boyfriends to have guns:

"WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, has settled on its next target on Capitol Hill: blocking Congress from reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, a 1994 law that assists victims of domestic and sexual violence.

"The House is set to vote on the legislation this week; the law expired in February. But the bill includes a new provision — aimed at curbing sexual violence by expanding law enforcement’s ability to strip domestic abusers of their guns — that the N.R.A. does not like. The measure closes the so-called boyfriend loophole by barring those convicted of abusing, assaulting or stalking a dating partner or those subject to a court restraining order from buying or owning firearms.

"Under current federal law, those convicted of domestic abuse can lose their guns if they are — or were formerly — married to their victim, live with their victim, have a child with their victim or are a parent or guardian of their victim. The proposed provision would extend those who can be convicted of domestic abuse to include stalkers and current or former boyfriends or dating partners."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/nra-domestic-violence-congress.html

 

Osama bin Laden or Timothy McVeigh might disagree with your assessment.Violent people do violent things, with or without guns.

 

Supposedly "unarmed" violent individuals were responsible for murdering over three thousand individuals and injuring many thousands of others in the september eleventh attacks.

A supposedly "unarmed" violent individual murdered eight six individuals and seriously injured four hundred and eighty six others in the city of Nice in the nation of France.

Violent individuals who do not have access to firearms, are just as dangerous as those who do have access to firearms.

How is it even being proposed to keep violent individuals from becoming armed in the first place? What is the proposal for such? What is going to be presented for consideration, that has not been presented hundreds of times before and proven to be an utter failure at accomplishing its supposed goal? The state of California has proven every one of their firearm-related restrictions is an abject failure, as they cannot even keep track of their own firearms to prevent the criminal misuse. So what more can truly be done?

 

The number of suicides and homicides successfully committed each year without the use of firearms proves such claims are factually incorrect. Violence is not contingent on the presence of a firearm, it exists independently of such.

 

The fact future individuals chose to outright ignore the findings of Arthur Kellermann in their own studies is not relevant to the discussion. His findings showed those who were most likely to commit suicide, was the same group most likely to be engaged in criminal activity.

These individuals fail to prove, conclusively, that it is legal individuals who are directly responsible for the majority of firearm-related incidents in the united states. They instead rely on the causation/correlation substitution fallacy to trick the easily fooled into believing such is the case, when in truth there is no evidence to actually prove such as being the case.

 

If the matter is truly about the care of individuals who are victims of domestic violence, then the position on the part of yourself and others should be that a single act of domestic violence qualifies for a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. The argue less, that such is not warranted, is to suggest that violence against others is acceptable and the guilty party should be given the opportunity to prove themselves again, and again, and again.

If these individuals cannot be trusted to legally own a firearm because of the danger they pose to others, then they are too dangerous to be allowed back into society and cannot be allowed to be free under any circumstances. Either support lifetime incarcerations for all domestic abusers, or admit the lives of women are not of actual importance. The matter is that simple.

 

Totally false, such laws already exist and are being abused, therefore adding more right violating laws which bypass due process must be stopped.

Then again I guess you would support a law that allows men to be castrated if a restraining order was issued against them.

No trial, guilty as charged, cut em off.

Yup that's the antigun way of thinking.

 

Interesting. Do you believe those willing to risk the penalty for murder wouldn't risk the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm?

 

According to one oft-cited study, you have a higher risk of homicide if you live alone, or rent.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506