Murder - Attempted Suicide in Los Angeles

[mikeb302000]

The LA Times reports

A man was in critical condition after he shot and killed woman outside a San Pedro home then turned the gun on himself, Los Angeles police said Saturday.

The suspect, described only as a man in his 40s, chased a 45-year-old woman out of the home and fired two shots at her, striking her in the head. The suspect then called 911 and reported the shooting.

Paramedics pronounced the woman dead at the scene.

There's no doubt that guns are bad news for women when it comes to domestic violence. The pro-gun response is usually one of two things. Either they say the women should be armed to protect themselves, which of course is typically short-sighted as the Meleanie Hain case illustrated, or they say women also abuse men in domestic disputes. That one is so defensive and stupid we don't even respond to it.

The fact is that most of these cases of domestic abuse, male-on-female, with a gun are carried out by so-called law-abiding gun owners. These are hidden criminals, assuming this is not their very first time acting as abuser, and they are covered in the Famous 10% under at least one category.

Men like that are not qualified to own guns, yet the ranks of lawful-gun owners are generously sprinkled with these unfit examples.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[FarewellAddress]

1. I believe in responsible gun ownership,

but I also believe in a level playing field, and basic precepts of mutual respect and human decency. So if there is a woman, or anyone for that matter, residing with you, and you want to own a gun, they have to agree to it. If they can prove you did not obtain their consent, 5 years or $10,000. No consent, gun is discharged on the property, mandatory 5 year, 10 year max, and you can never own a firearm again, and all they need is evidence of a firearm in your possession to send you back. It's easy to paint women as the constant victims but lets try treating everyone as adults. If this is a bad guy, she should leave. But if the bad guy wants a gun and she doesn't, there's plenty of studio apartments out there, have a nice life, Jack.

[Glaug-Eldare]

2. Should my wife be allowed to vote if I forbid it?

or should I if she forbids it?

Can we waive each others' 4A protections on our own sole authority?

Can we have each other arrested for demonstrating without permission?

[FarewellAddress]

3. False equivalency

Your rights end where my rights begin.
Your voting doesn't put a bullet in your wife's ballot. Otherwise, you're doing it wrong.

[Glaug-Eldare]

4. Nobody's rights end when I own a firearm.

Nobody's. I am entitled to exercise ALL of my rights, without prejudice, unless they are abridged by due process. The say-so of a spouse or other private citizen is not, and will never be, sufficient "due process" for the denial of a civil right.

If somebody feels threatened by being in the same household as somebody who is exercising a civil right and can't reach an agreement with them, then they're free to stop being in the same household. The law doesn't prohibit Jack and Jill from living in separate homes. The law does prohibit the state from arbitrarily depriving a citizen of their rights because another citizen doesn't approve of it. Too bad for HockeyMom.

[FarewellAddress]

5. Stop inventing timelines

If you own the gun first, she doesn't have to live with you.
If you don't own the gun yet, how is it established that you have the "right" to own the gun?
Are you going to tell me there is anywhere in America where a pure and unadulterated interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the totality of the gun laws of the city/state/region? The government says when and where you can't have your guns, for the protection of you and the rest of your citizenry.
I know this is the internet, and I know that you're sitting behind the keyboard ready to get livid on this faceless liberal asshole who's trying to dump all the guns in the ocean. But there's a copy of American Rifleman sitting on my table right now (the November issue with the hilarious article about S&W botched 1940 Light Rifle) and an NRA card in my wallet. I'm on your side. I want guns in every house, so everyone knows what they do, so tragedies are tragic and rare because our culture is informed, and criminals are piss-scared and few.

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. No sweat, arguing's just a pastime

Somethin' to do 'til I die, I guess. Anyway, I don't see how any right is conditioned on cohabitation or the permission of a domestic partner. They're not judges, so I don't see how their opinion on the desirability or wisdom of gun ownership, suffrage, or free speech has any effect whatsoever on whether another person can exercise those rights. There is a place for protective orders, but those should be issued on the basis of evidence that a person's safety a/o privacy are actually in jeopardy. Lack of the hubby's permission doesn't cut it.

[FarewellAddress]

7. Discussion is always better

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Case in point, ya know? I like the idea of folks talking about this kinda thing before it even gets to a court. Courts are boring, and expensive, no fun at parties. I wouldn't like to come home and see me lady holding .45 Springfield XD without word one between the two of us (unless of course the first words out of her mouth were 'Happy Birthday!') Maybe I've known/been with/made angry some really crazy women in my time who I'm glad didn't have a weapon within reach so they could make a bad decision, but its not about empowering one person over another. We shouldn't forget why these rights are guaranteed to us and not felons, or illegal immigrants, or foreign nationals. We have incumbent responsibilities to one another, and it starts in the home and community, with our friends and loved ones. And a case could be made that unless every adult has some kind of safety certification in the weapon class your getting, it could be a safety issue. If someone who doesn't know how to hold your locked and loaded home defense semi-auto, doesn't know you've lightened the trigger pull to 2.5 pounds, does so and puts one through the ceiling and nicks the lady upstairs, that's an unnecessary problem that a simple conversation with them would've avoided. If having them sign a sheet of paper removes liability from my end, and puts the onus on the occupants of my home to be properly trained, even if i pay for training, which I would, I mean, come one, what's the handgun safety course, $49? That's a weekend of range time, I can spare it. Again, courts are boring, and expensive.

[PavePusher]

17. Projection, much? n/t

[rl6214]

39. So you own a gun, big fucking deal

That doesn't make you on the rkba side.

[mikeb302000]

35. That depends on how responsible you are. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Not false at all

Co-residency should not impact anyone's fundamental rights, including both voting and firearms ownership. How would a wife deciding to own a firearm impact the those of the husband?

[PavePusher]

16. "False equivalency", indeed.

Mere ownership of a firearm does not "put a bullet" anywhere, or violate anyone elses rights.

And you're most certainly doing it wrong.

[FarewellAddress]

19. Not sure if you're aware of this

but the intended purposes of a gun is to "put a bullet" somewhere. It is a gun's entire reason for existence, and many do it very well. Safely within the confines of the de jure theoretical landscape, sure. You can own a firearm, and have it in storage, or in the home of a family member or trusted friend. And in it's absence, perhaps you'd like a warm bottle, or something soft to call "mine".

[PavePusher]

27. Your direct accusation of infantile obsession is noted.

Pure projection, of course, but noted.

It seems you aren't really here for rational discussion,are you...

[FarewellAddress]

28. Your loosest working knowledge of the psychological defense mechanism of projection is also noted.

Have you ever considered this transference may simply be a subliminal acknowledgement of the transparency of your parataxis? Just a thought, doctor, please continue.

[PavePusher]

29. Wharfgarble, eh? Have a good night. n/t

[Eleanors38]

34. I saw a pair of taxis -- nothing transparent about them.nt

[rrneck]

11. Regulating relationships is a bad idea. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. no thanks

creating a new law to solve a problem that doesn't exist is a waste

[holdencaufield]

21. I'm not sure ...

... all this talk of mandatory imprisonment for not having spousal consent isn't all that progressive.

After all, it's not like we're talking about a serious decision like what colour to paint the den. And, for the record, I fully support my spouse having firearms in the house as they were her birthday present from me.

[FarewellAddress]

24. See above

I have the same personal caveat, it's included in the "Discussion is always better" post. And mandatory imprisonment was only lacking spousal/cohabitant consent, combined with the owner discharging the firearm within the home. If it were roommates with cats and allergies, respectively, and the issue went to court, I can see those courts defining those cats as life-threatening hazards, and anaphylaxis as an infringement upon another's rights. But if they're 'attack cats' for personal defense that's a loophole I haven't considered.

[holdencaufield]

26. To my knowledge ...

... I'm not sure anyone was sent to major prison time for owning a cat. I may be wrong, but I don't think even cat owners deserve prison.

[FarewellAddress]

30. Well not to stain the issue but...

If you ever have to clean up a cat's accidental discharge...you may change your opinion

[holdencaufield]

31. I'm all for locking up the cats ...

... just not so much their owners.

[rl6214]

38. My home my choice if I want a gun otherwise get the fuck out

[JoeyT]

8. This would be pretty easy to solve.

Domestic violence conviction? No gun for you! I can't imagine any gun owners disagreeing with that. It isn't like we don't already do that for felonies.

Law abiding gun owners get to keep their guns, asshats that are abusive don't. It's virtually certain it isn't their first time abusing. The abuser has to train both the person he's abusing to take it and himself to give it. You don't choose Everest as your first mountain to climb, you don't pull a gun and shoot your wife out of the blue.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. That is pretty much the case in many jurisdictions

Last edited Mon Nov 5, 2012, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Sometimes that includes if you have a restraining order against you.

[JoeyT]

12. I wasn't sure about that.

Makes sense, though. Thanks

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. I have a minor problem with the restraining order part

In many courts they are granted without demonstration of need and divorce attorneys ask for the automatically. That can have a devastating impact on the subject of the RO. I have known several people who have contested them due to that impact. I also know of a case where a known abusive husband got one against his wife so she could not have a gun to defend herself against him.

If a RO is called for due to violence, I fully support a weapons ban. If they are going to be granted automatically and ex parte, then there should be an option to let the subject keep their firearms.

[beevul]

23. Actually, I'm pretty sure thats federal law. N/T

[Straw Man]

32. Yes, it is.

Questions 11(h) and 11(i) on Form 4473.

[Glaug-Eldare]

33. So new purchases are out, but

4473s have nothing to do with continued possession of owned guns.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. "the Famous 10%"

Well, it's good to see that MikeB has backed off of his previous "50%" assertion. Now we are down to 10%.

There is no doubt that there is some percentage of the population that isn't safe to even walk around in public with the rest of us. They shouldn't be allowed in society at all, let alone be able to operate heavy machinery, or even own guns.

The problem here is, what are you going to do about it without unduly affecting the liberties of the rest of society? How much inconvenience are we all willing to undertake to ferret out "the Famous 10%"?

I am not willing to give up any of my rights as a gun owner because of people who are depressed, have fits of rage, abuse their spouses, commit rape, abuse drugs or alcohol, or are just idiots.

I would be willing to tolerate universal licensing, provided that such a licensing system is opt-out, to prevent the government from having a list of firearm owners, and provided that once licensed I can buy firearms through the mail again.

But other than that, we are just all going to have to live with the fact that in a free society, even the misfits around us will have access to dangerous devices with which they can commit mayhem. Whether it's a car or a gun, there are a small number of mentally unbalanced people all around us.

And understand this: Even if 10% of gun owners should not own guns, that means that 90% of them are just fine.

Rather than trying to see how onerous we can make firearm ownership for the 90%, I think we would be far, far better off as a society making sure that there are good mental health facilities in place that people can take advantage of, and that when they do they can be flagged as people who should not own guns.

[JoeyT]

15. That damned 10%.

8% admit to drunk driving. http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/26/nhtsa-eight-percent-of-americans-admit-to-driving-drunk-in-past/

6-8% of men admit to having raped someone. Depends on the study. That's actually admitting it, not rationalizing it as something else like "No means yes" bullshit.

15% of kids admit to shoplifting. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19860205&id=rz5WAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6OkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1758,1243287

And all of these are admissions, not actual rates, which are probably higher. It looks like at least 10% of the population admits to lawless conduct. So if 10% of gun owners are lawless criminals, they're lower than the norm.

[holdencaufield]

22. If only we had some sort of system ...

... to deal with criminals. Just talking off the top of my head here, how about chaps, with guns, what could arrest law-breakers, and chaps in robes to who could try them and other chaps with big strong houses in which to place the convicted law-breakers. We could call it ... a "justice system"?

If we had all that, we could get on with the business of dealing with ACTUAL criminals and not having to bother law-abiding citizens who are only enjoying their rights under our Constitution.

[JoeyT]

25. +1 n/t

[mikeb302000]

36. Actually the 10% idea came long before the 50% nt

[Atypical Liberal]

40. You shoulda quit while you were ahead. nt

[slackmaster]

20. The "hidden criminals" meme has already run its course

It's soooo last week.

[rl6214]

37. This has got to be a new record for you Mickey

Five links to your blog in one post.