Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 04:52 AM Apr 2016

Governor vetoes bill that would’ve allowed domestic violence victims to carry gun without permit

RICHMOND, Va. -- Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed legislation Thursday that would have allowed anyone who takes out a protective order to carry a concealed handgun for up to 90 days without a permit.

“The governor`s belief is that introducing more firearms into that situation does not make that situation more safe it actually makes it less safe,” Brian Coy, the Governor’s spokesperson, said.

Holt said she appreciates efforts to protect domestic violence victims, but said she agrees with the governor on this one.

“The gun being there makes it more susceptible that there possibly could be an act of violence or something worse,” Holt said.

http://wtvr.com/2016/04/07/governor-vetoes-bill-that-wouldve-allowed-domestic-violence-victims-to-carry-gun-without-permit/
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Governor vetoes bill that would’ve allowed domestic violence victims to carry gun without permit (Original Post) SecularMotion Apr 2016 OP
Sorry you are against Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #1
You're assuming that the outcome with a gun present would be good for domestic violence victim... Human101948 Apr 2016 #3
statistically, gejohnston Apr 2016 #4
Which reserach are you referring to? Human101948 Apr 2016 #8
several studies done by different criminologists over the past gejohnston Apr 2016 #9
Criminologists like Lott who base their conclusion on "estimates?" Human101948 Apr 2016 #11
Lott isn't a criminologist gejohnston Apr 2016 #12
Well, I still don't know who you're citing... Human101948 Apr 2016 #13
What course of action sarisataka Apr 2016 #5
Universal assumption. beardown Apr 2016 #6
According to the poster above training is unneccessary... Human101948 Apr 2016 #7
I didn't say it was unneccessary gejohnston Apr 2016 #10
re: "women are generally naturally better with firearms than men" discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2016 #18
"women are generally naturally better with firearms than men" DonP Apr 2016 #20
"...makes it less safe:" Any research to support this assertion? Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #15
No words for victims sarisataka Apr 2016 #17
Do you often run around telling people what's best for them with the force.of law? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #21
Wrong assumption. beevul Apr 2016 #22
They can still OC...if your life was on the line then OC should be fine. ileus Apr 2016 #2
I normally favor low-cost training and shall issue permits for carrying... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #14
Really progressive of our governor TeddyR Apr 2016 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author CompanyFirstSergeant Apr 2016 #19
 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
3. You're assuming that the outcome with a gun present would be good for domestic violence victim...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 05:58 AM
Apr 2016

when the gun could just as easily be taken from them and used against them. It would also be a temption when suicidal urges take over in an emotionallhy fraught situation. The there's the possibility of collateral damage. Or the abuser, knowing that the victim is armed, arrives on scene with greater firepower. Or just ambushes the victim.

Did the bill require firearms training for these domestic abuse victims?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
4. statistically,
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 09:24 AM
Apr 2016

according to verifiable research, it would dramatically improve her odds. The suicide temptation would be nonsense, unless she is suicidal to begin with. There is a slimmer chance of collateral damage citizens than police. The average twelve year old that passed a hunter safety course is as well trained as NYPD.
Ambush is always possible, but self defense is a fundamental natural right, that includes the best means doing so. In fact, I would argue it is protected by the ninth amendment, just like abortion. Speaking of choice, it is her life and her or his choice. Some politician or pundit who has no clue about firearms, self defense training, criminology, or anything else on the issue has no business telling them what they should do. Some of them are not only ignorant, they are sexist.

It doesn't take much training to hit someone at close range who is trying to kill you. Training is always good, but spending hundreds to thousands of dollars in Gunsite isn't required.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
8. Which reserach are you referring to?
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:42 AM
Apr 2016

You're a trained psychiatrist as well? Do you know how suicidal thoughts take over in highly stressful situations? You just make these major pronouncement in an authoritative (some might say domineering) tone and expect that everyone should take your word as if it came from on high.

A more humane, effective and sensible response would be to provide victims of domestic abuse with programs that get them out of that situation physically, psychologically and economically. Just handing them a gun is a piss poor solution.

A two-year study conducted on 278 women from a midwest
shelter program helping victims access community resources
and support, create safety plans, and locate advocacy services
found that women experienced decreased physical violence and
depression, increased quality of life, and higher social support.

http://www.rootcause.org/docs/Resources/Research/Empowering-Victims-of-Domestic-Violence/Empowering%20Victims%20of%20Domestic%20Violence-%20Social%20Issue%20Report.pdf

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
9. several studies done by different criminologists over the past
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:32 AM
Apr 2016

forty years. Psychiatry is a soft science, not a hard science. Much of it is subjective. I did not say arming herself should be the only course of action, let alone the first or the best. I said the decision should be up to her, not some State functionary who doesn't have to live with the consequences.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
11. Criminologists like Lott who base their conclusion on "estimates?"
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:35 AM
Apr 2016

Wow! That's hard science?

Again with the unsubtantiated stentorian pronouncements.

beardown

(363 posts)
6. Universal assumption.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:04 AM
Apr 2016

All of the world's militarys, virtually all of the world's police, and most certainly all of Bloomberg's security guards assume their outcomes will be better if they carry guns.

Generally, most male domestic abusers are already arriving on the scene with greater 'firepower' (size, anger, weapon, etc.) hence the need for a victim to up-arm.

Good points on training and if the State really cared they'd provide the training. Much cheaper to train the victim than have them blast their own foot or two innocent bystanders and pay for all that damage.




gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
10. I didn't say it was unneccessary
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 11:35 AM
Apr 2016

I said for the most likely scenario, you don't need that much beyond police academy, It isn't a hard skill to learn. Also, women are generally naturally better with firearms than men. That is why many of the shooting sports are dominated by women. I know several women who do very well at the range the first time they use a gun. Dr. Ruth, yes that doctor Ruth, was selected for sniper training because she hit a target at one hundred yards the first time she picked up a rifle.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
20. "women are generally naturally better with firearms than men"
Sat Apr 9, 2016, 10:44 AM
Apr 2016

That's been my experience as well.

In my CCW, Basic Pistol and rifle classes the women all tend to be able to concentrate better, take direction well and follow through on instructions on things like breath control, sight alignment and such.

Maybe they just haven't watched as many Bruce Willis movies?

sarisataka

(21,005 posts)
17. No words for victims
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 10:30 PM
Apr 2016

as I asked in post 5? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189869#post5

Not surprising, people who are anti-self defense usually are worried about how an armed victim will 'escalate' their assault, rape, murder. Yet there is never any suggestion as to what a victim should do to protect her/himself. Apparently a victim should just be an easy victim.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
22. Wrong assumption.
Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:45 AM
Apr 2016
You're assuming that the outcome with a gun present would be good for domestic violence victim...


No. We assume the domestic violence victim can make a better decision for themselves where a gun is concerned, than you or the governor can.

And it is a correct assumption.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
2. They can still OC...if your life was on the line then OC should be fine.
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 05:52 AM
Apr 2016

Otherwise just CC anyway, NO ONE should be forced to walk around an easy target because someone else thinks they'd pad the stats if attacked.

Assuring someone is an easy victim isn't progressive.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
14. I normally favor low-cost training and shall issue permits for carrying...
Fri Apr 8, 2016, 12:34 PM
Apr 2016

whether concealed or open. I think an exception can be made for domestic abuse victims, with a proviso that training be completed in a reasonable time. This kind of exception is recognized in several states where prospective hunters are issued licenses, even though they have not completed hunter ed courses.

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Governor vetoes bill that...