Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States

Read the OP again, it mentions a** murders, that could be kinky.

 

It's no different than the drivel you are constantly posting.

 

If you understood our laws you understand people with a history of domestic violence are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

Are all you interested in doing is spamming this forum with anti-gun drivel?

 

Yet they do it over and over again.

 

And that will certainly feed into the claim of mortality caused by pregnancy is a reason to allow abortion. Mind you, I am absolutely pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion, nor would I use the aforesaid argument, but there will be any number of people going to latch onto that....

 

They can also contract HIV and that's expensive in more ways than one.

 

Which kills a lot more infants than firearms, but it's hard to turn that into an anti-gun rant.

 

I'd semi-agree with you all the way up to that last statement.

Do you, by any degree, realize the cost of raising a child, even for the basics? While receiving child support, rarely is it 'profitable' for the receiver since their income is also considered in the calculations of the child support. So it behooves both parties to consider the cost of creating a child in the long term.

 

Oh gees... more "Men are such beasts!" silliness.

 

As the father of three, I am well aware of the cost of raising kids. And as the ex husband of a woman who married... divorced... married... divorced... married divorced and married divorced... making babies along the way, collecting child support from multiple husbands while always having a new husband to pay the bills... I am also aware of how some women make a lucrative career of having children.

 

There is a certain type of man that has no respect for women and a certain type of woman that expects no respect from men. They come together over and over.

 

More like... there is a certain type of man that has no respect for women and a certain type of woman that has no respect for men. These losers, men who see women as nothing but sex, and women that see men as nothing but a checkbook, are all too common.

 

At least you said 'some'. Hardly the majority, IMO.

I'd say that the husband paying the bills for children that the mother is collecting child support for, is a deficiency on the husband's part.

 

I agree on your "deficiency" comment. But I would also suggest that predatory women are just as common as predatory men.

 

Different types of predatory.

According to your take, she is looking for a wallet, he's looking for.... let's just call it 'availability'.

 

Users losers are user losers no matter what the sex or method.

 

It's not uncommon in high poverty areas for a man to start living with the woman who's already on welfare and section 8. And they both think companionship is enough. And then she has even more babies with a guy not willing to support his own child. That is more likely situation where violence occurs.

 

I am a West Point graduate with a Master's Degree. I retired from the Army as a Lieutenant Colonel and went to work for a major aerospace company. There is no "class" distinction in women that use men.

 

Both studies cited here indicate that its primarily ethnic minority women, especially black women, who are at higher risk of being murdered during pregnancy. Given that blacks are twice as likely to be living in poverty and other minorities only slightly less likely to be living in poverty, and poverty is one of the leading causes of violence, I think its disingenuous to try to blame this problem on guns. The problem is ghettos- dense urban areas filled with drug addicts, criminals and desperately poor minorities with no way to get out of it. No amount of gun control is going to solve their problems. Guns do not cause violence, and a drug addicted criminal ghetto gangbanger doesn't need a gun to kill his pregnant girlfriend, though of course he'll use a gun instead of a knife or bat if he has one. But that doesn't make her any more or less dead... But it sure is easier to virtue signal about gun control than it is to try to get the drugs, gangs, poverty and despair out of the ghettos!

 

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a lower class man...perhaps a more criminal element, that use women. That move into THEIR houses and eat THEIR food and come and go at will. They may have SEVERAL women being taken care of by the government that they visit. These are the men that tend to be violent. And women allow them in with them and their children.

I totally agree that there are women that use men. And they can be women with family means or they could be poor women. Personally i think that though those women are dispicable, I don't think those women are putting themselves at risk. The men are more at risk in that situation.

 

People should not have a "history" of violence of any kind, domestic or other. To me a history of violence would indicate repeat violent behavior over a period of time. Why would we give a person who commits domestic violence second chance? A person who is violent towards anyone in their family/household should be treated like a mad dog; euthanized.

So, to answer your question: Yes, deny them a gun. Euthanize them!

 

if they have a goof prenup

many women marry old rich men for just this purpose

 

remember this case? women said she was on the pill... just forgot to mention "the pill" was a fertility drug

"Bakley daughter says mom tricked Blake"

https://archive.triblive.com/news/bakley-daughter-says-mom-tricked-blake/

"The slain wife of actor Robert Blake tricked him by taking fertility drugs instead of birth control pills, her daughter testified in California."

 

People who have been found guilty of domestic abuse and/or violence are already prohibited from owning firearms, by law.

Odd that you don't already know that.

 

Oh! Bulltwang! That is just trolling