Gun ownership and domestic violence
Day after day, we get fed this line in North America about how most homicides by firearms are gang-related, or done by people with illegal weapons, so that it's no use regulating gun ownership. However, this article in The Star points out how crimes against women in Canada are the result of legal weapons. The registry in this case won't prevent murder, just pin down for sure who did it. I know in the U.S. gun-related legislation is a patchwork, but what are the stats down there?
Link to article.
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gun ownership and domestic violence.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16298
Are you implying that tightening gun control in Canada will make those with no respect for human life who perpetrate domestic violence change their minds?
I may be among the few on this board that is typically pro-second amendment (it is one of the areas where I depart politically from the majority of feminists).
To me, civil rights are civil rights. I am against this for the same reason I am against the PATRIOT Act tracking library and bookstore purchases, or fingerprint databases of innocent people.
For the most part, law enforcement should leave alone those individuals for whom there is not reasonable cause to believe they are involved in criminal activity.
The government shouldn't have the authority to track the reading habits of law abiding citizens. The government shouldn't be collecting fingerprint databases of people who are not under suspicion. And, the government should not be tracking the buying habits of law-abiding gun owners. Without a suspicion of criminal activity, it is not the government's business what I am reading, or what guns I own.
kbz
The difference to me is that, while books may espouse philosophies that are deemed illegal or immoral, guns are actually used for crimes that injure and kill human beings. Additionally, knowing what guns you own seems to me to be less of an invasion of privacy than knowing what books you own; guns are objects, books are ideas.
I'm not really sure what my exact stance is on gun control, and I don't think that legally owning a gun should automatically make you a criminal suspect, but I do believe that a certain amount of regulation and, most importantly, education should be required of gun owners.
Ideas can be far more dangerous than guns. Mein Kampf, for instance. The Christian Crusades. The distorted passages of the Koran that drive extremists to kill thousands upon thousands. Soviet Communism. Imperialism. Racial genocide. The Oklahoma City bombing. All are the root of bad ideas, and bad books (or poorly interpreted books) -- not guns.
It would be a far more effective law enforcement tactic to know what someone thinks rather than what guns they own. Guns kill one at a time. Ideas can kill hundreds or thousands at a time.
The point is -- neither is the business of the government. If I'm not doing anything criminal, they don't need to know what I am doing, what I own, or what I read. Until you have just cause, leave me, my guns, and my books alone.
kbz
People read books for all sorts of reasons: entertainment, enlightenment, to know the arguments of the opposition-- just to name a few. The express and sole purpose of guns is to inflict harm. They're not parallel situations of government regulation.
Ideas can be far more dangerous than guns. Mein Kampf, for instance.
Wow. Godwin's Law already? You're even doing better when you talk about all the Crusaders who, you know, knew what guns were.
But even beyond the snark: ideas don't kill people unless individual persons have the means to put the ideas into practice. Why the hell would you make it easier?
And are you seriously arguing that people dying "one at a time" isn't a problem as long as we can interpret "well-regulated militia" to mean "gimme my semiautomatic"?
Yes, ideas can be more dangerous than guns... if the people who have the ideas also have the guns.
We don't want the government investigating what we have the potential to do but not the mechanism, because that's thought control. We do want the government knowing what we have the mechanism to do, so that in the case we actually do it, we can be held accountable for the act itself rather than just the potential to do it.
The point is, reasonable cause is a necessary predicate to police action. Without the means (weapon), the ideas are not dangerous. Without the intent (idea), the weapon is not particularly dangerous. Without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the government has no right to track either.
There is also something to be said for the axiom that additional gun laws can only assert control over those individuals with respect for the law. Criminals, by definition, do not have respect for the law. Thus, the law abiding, not the criminal, are the only ones affected. Disarming the innocent does not sound like a particularly effective crime prevention method.
kbz
Thanks for the link. Interesting part of the article....
"Fact is, according to Canada's Coalition for Gun Control, one out of three women killed by their husbands is shot, 88 per cent of them by legally owned rifles and shotguns.
Fact is, reports the International Action Network on Small Arms, women are three times more likely to die violently if there is a gun in the house.
Fact is, according to Statistics Canada, firearm spousal homicide is down drastically since the gun registry was enforced.
Fact is, when police know that there are guns in the possession of people who are threatening themselves, their families or others, they can take them away."
I didn't know that spousal homicide was down since the registry came in. That is handy information.
I actually support the gun registry. I figure it is a good tax grab for the government. I'm a believer that we should tax things we want used less in society... guns, cigarettes, carbon emissions, etc.
>> I'm a believer that we should tax things we want used less in society... guns, cigarettes, carbon emissions, etc.
It is important to define "we", because there is a significant population that would use such an opportunity to tax abortion, contraception, and traditionally "immoral" activities (such as transsexual operations, anything connected to homosexuality, etc.) out of existence.
Be careful when allowing the goverment to determine, by taxation, what is morally acceptable and what isn't. It may bite us in the end.
kbz
It doesn't say spousal homicides are down, but spousal homicides committed with a gun are down.
Of course, spousal homicide rates have been declining steeply since the 1970s (men are ~half as likely to kill their wives as they were then, women ~a quarter as likely to kill their husbands. Gay marriages are way too small a fraction, and way to recent, to say much. I'm only aware of a single case of a man murdering his husband.) so it may not mean much about the registry.
Eh, really? Do you think guns are going to be used less for crime if they cost more?
Here where I live, guns are already somewhat regulated. What about all the AKs and whatnot used in murders, armed robberies, rape, etc- are those registered? Almost never. What makes you think that the people who disregard the law so much not only to commit crime but also who tend to not obey gun laws will obey any laws about buying legally?
Big screen TVs are pretty expensive, for example. They aren't so expensive if you have a friend at Best Buy who will sell it to you for 100$ or if you have a friend who recently "acquired" one from somebody's home.
And you think that taxes will make usage less? Think of how many people use crack, weed, pills, etc. If being illegal hasn't stopped those people from using, why do you think that taxing something will make usage less?
If a man is going to harm a woman, he will use what is at hand. If he doesn't use a gun, then he will use a knife, a blunt object, his own hands.
There are those who need and desire handguns for self defense of themselves, their families, their homes. Increasing the costs of gun ownership place an extra burden on law abiding citizens, and make them easier targets for criminals.