Monday, June 6, 2016

Domestic Violence; A Deceptive Case for Gun Control

Supporters of Ballot Question 1—universal background checks, which will ban private gun sales—like to quote statistics that (correctly) point out Nevada has the highest rate of domestic violence in the nation. They also like to quote the fact that domestic killings often involve guns, and guns in the home increase the potential for such guns to be used in domestic violence. These are all facts, but bare facts by themselves without context is disingenuous. For gun control groups, domestic violence is just another scare tactic to advance their agenda of gun disarmament and not an actual concern of theirs.

The proponents of banning private sales are targeting women using fear to garner support. They make statements to the effect that “States without private-party background checks on gun sales have higher rates of domestic violence.” Correlation does not imply causation. True, Nevada is at the top of the list for domestic violence, but nothing ties domestic violence to private gun sales. Implying that a lack of background checks on private gun sales is related to domestic violence is a false comparison. It’s like saying that “States with legalized gambling also have a higher chance of legalized prostitution" to specifically call out Nevada.

Women victimized by domestic violence don’t need to be victimized again by those with a political agenda. Not only are these women intimidated by their abusers, they are further intimidated by the scare tactics of groups like Nevadans for Gun Safety. What these groups do is take advantage of a woman’s fear of being abused or being subjected to further abuse and say to them “If only we could ban private sales, your ex-husband couldn’t hurt you.” It targets their basest fears and theoretically is an easy sale.
As contributor John pointed out, domestic violence is a crime of passion which cannot be predicted, detected, or stopped by laws. 
“Most domestic violence killings are crimes of passion. Someone doesn't plan out in advance that they're going to kill their spouse while they argue over money or bills or the kids or whatever. The argument starts, it escalates and they lose control and grab a gun they already own and use it to kill someone they are angry at in the heat of the moment.” 
How would banning private gun sales, selling a gun the same way to private persons sell a car, stop or reduce domestic violence? In statistics kept by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, murder in domestic violence cases was less than 1%.   
“In 2002 family murders were less likely than nonfamily murders to involve a firearm (50% versus 68%). Parents were the least likely family murderers to use a firearm (28%), compared to spouses (63%) or other family members (51%). Among crimes recorded by police, 2% of family violence involved a firearm, compared to 6% of nonfamily violence. A weapon was used in 16% of family and 21% of nonfamily violence.” 
In 2010, about 16 women were murdered by men in Nevada with guns, 45% of the total weapons used. Most women assaulted in domestic violence are assaulted with bodily violence or objects rather than firearms (as the preponderance of domestic violence is non-fatal). Unfortunately, many domestic violence victims choose to remain in an unhealthy situation, perhaps not knowing how to leave, and further expose themselves to danger.

Advocates also fail to ignore the fact that women can and do use firearms to successfully defend themselves against a violent domestic partner, often a man who is large and stronger than they are. Firearms equalize a disparity in strength between the sexes.

One women, forced to go through New Jersey’s byzantine gun permitting process, was killed by her violent ex. The proposed background check law is so poorly written that it forbids anyone from lending a gun to a person who might be at risk without going through a background check, even just overnight. If a gun is lent because of an immediate threat, the law would require it be done in the heat of the moment and handed back as soon as the situation has ended. So if anyone needs a gun outside of business hours when the Brady Point of Contact center is closed, or if the local gun stores aren’t open that day, a woman who urgently needs a gun will not be able to arm herself.

Gun control advocates cannot win based on the facts, so they must resort to hyperbole, outright deception, and fear tactics to scare a woefully uninformed population into voting away their rights.

Reader Ryan pointed out that the Lautenberg Amendment prohibits those convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms. Nevada has a similar provision of state law. John said "The problem is that nobody hunts the convict down to find out if he has guns already and orders him to turn them in or otherwise dispose of them (sell them, give to family, etc)."

Even Michael Bloomberg’s highly biased anti-gun publication, The Trace, admits that far too often, those convicted of domestic violence are never required to surrender their firearms. So if the system is broken, tell us again how just one more law will help?

1 comment:

  1. As usual, the gun control people don't see the forest for the trees.Any issue that can even be remotely tied into guns is fair game for them. It's basically fear-mongering at the lowest level and the more this can be pointed out and exposed, the more people will hopefully see through the dog and pony show.