Thanks NRA..

[Lorizael]

What kind of experiments are you wanting to run?

Nothing mad scientisty. I'm in the utopia business, but I don't think I'm smart enough to design one all by myself. With science, I don't have to be. I can just run experiments on systems that already exist to observe how they respond. By experiments, I mean different laws, social attitudes, etc. But there are limits to what variables can be changed. If I change particular variables--the constraints of the system--then I'm no longer testing the system itself, and my results become meaningless. For America, one of the constraints is that gun rights are inviolable. This is a pretty extreme constraint, but that's good. There are plenty of other systems without that constraint, which means we should really run tests on a system with it.

[Sava]

Utopia is your business.

And business is _____???

[Lorizael]

What I find interesting is that nobody here (seemingly) rushes to the defense of so-called "mentally ill" people who have their rights restricted despite not committing any crimes. In 2007ish, I checked myself into an inpatient program to deal with stress/anxiety/depression near the end of the semester. It took me the whole summer to catch up. When I finished, I learned that for the next 5 years, I would be denied a firearm ownership license because of this. I was never arrested. I never committed a crime. I never went before a judge. It's just... BOOM, rights gone.

So forgive me if I don't give two flying ****s about the gun rights of stalkers. **** them.

Oh, I'm with you there, and I've posted plenty about that in the past.

[Sava]

Oh, I'm with you there, and I've posted plenty about that in the past.

[Dauphin]

That's not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Unless it can be demonstrated that someone is almost certainly going to be a danger to society with a gun, there needs to be a system in place that returns rights to convicted citizens.

(I'm not a big fan of the right to bear arms at all, but I'm making this argument within the context of the US system, where that right does exist.)

Slightly different to the original posit I was responding to.

Restricting rights because of a directly linked demonstrated behaviour (e.g., paedophiles prohibited from certain locales such as schools) is very different to restricting rights based on what you might do despite there being no evidence you are significantly more likely to do it than the general population.

Is stalking directly linkable to subsequent gun murders in a significant enough way to warrant a restriction of the right? I doubt it is and the law is misdirected, but it if it was linkable, the law may be sensible.

i.e. I think I agree with you on this. I just think that there is no reason why all rights need to be restored at the same time.

[kentonio]

Is stalking directly linkable to subsequent gun murders in a significant enough way to warrant a restriction of the right? I doubt it is and the law is misdirected, but it if it was linkable, the law may be sensible.

From the op..

Domestic abusers who have access to guns are over seven times more likely to kill their partners than those who don't have such access. A report released by the Center for American Progress last week shows that stalkers and physically abusive dating partners can be just as deadly as a violent spouse. One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found that three-quarters of the women killed, and 85 percent of women who survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate partner, had been stalked in the previous year. And almost half of all intimate-partner homicides are committed by a non-married, non-cohabitating dating partner who was not covered by federal gun restrictions.

[Lorizael]

One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found that three-quarters of the women killed, and 85 percent of women who survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate partner, had been stalked in the previous year.

Without the stalking rate for women not the victims of murder/attempted murder, this statistic is meaningless.

[Dauphin]

From the op..

The stat is a bit difficult to interpret properly - the facts provided have no comparative contextualisation.

For example, it is a statistical fact that most if not all gun murders are committed by people with guns. Ergo, people with guns are the ones who need to have their right to guns restricted as it is clear they are far more likely to commit a gun murder. People who don't have guns can have the right to a gun as they won't be likely to commit a gun murder (so long as they never exercise their right and actually get a gun).

[Uncle Sparky]

I guess I'm not totally convinced that all those convicted of stalking are necessarily dangerous. I've seen some people convicted of stalking for something that was really just silly.

That's like saying that someone convicted of terrorism isn't necessarily dangerous. I think 'stalking' is more about the intended effects of the actions of the perp on their victims than the actual actions themselves. If I phone you a dozen times a day, and stand outside of your home and workplace, I'm not necessarily doing anything dangerous... it might terrorize you though.
If I pose a theoretical where myself and some like minded individuals take a church, government office, or other 'target' and torcher and decapitate certain people, we haven't done anything illegal, really, unless we act on the theoretical. If we communicate back and forth... "wouldn't it be interesting if we attacked the governor's office" some invasive bureaucrat might have us arrested or harassed for frivolous reasons.
I think rah might be right... we should be nicer to stalkers and terrorists.

[Dinner]

While I'm all for reasonable gun control, I think this law is a bit of a stretch also.

How is it such a stretch? We already outlaw ex-cons from ever legally owning a firearm so isn't this just extending our standard procedure for an additional class of offenses?

[korn469]

We'll here's some statistics

http://www.upworthy.com/dont-believe-in-the-war-on-women-would-a-body-count-change-your-mind

According to the link husbands and boyfriends murdered 11,766 women between 9/10/2001 and 6/6/2012. Since not all murders are with guns, some percentage, which I don't have wasn't gun violence.

I agree with what Lorizael said earlier in the thread. If passed, I think it would act as an impetus for prosecutors to charge even more people than they currently do to disarm them.

[Uncle Sparky]

We'll here's some statistics

http://www.upworthy.com/dont-believe-in-the-war-on-women-would-a-body-count-change-your-mind

I agree with what Lorizael said earlier in the thread. If passed, I think it would act as an impetus for prosecutors to charge even more people than they currently do to disarm them.

...and that's good, right?

[korn469]

I don't think it's a good thing. Here's some signs of different kinds of domestic abuse

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm

Economic or financial abuse: A subtle form of emotional abuse
Rigidly controlling your finances
Withholding money or credit cards
Making you account for every penny you spend


Once that behavior becomes criminalized, and it should if you follow the logic in the OP because it is domestic abuse, then a partner who with holds money should receive a lifetime, unappealable prohibition from a constitutionally guaranteed right over a misdemeanor. I think that is a bad thing.

[Berzerker]

Domestic abusers who have access to guns are over seven times more likely to kill their partners than those who don't have such access.

how many got a gun after getting mad enough to use it?

[rah]

How is it such a stretch? We already outlaw ex-cons from ever legally owning a firearm so isn't this just extending our standard procedure for an additional class of offenses?

Never giving an ex-con the right to own a firearm is a bit much for me also. Granted determining who is truly rehabilitated would be difficult, I still have a problem with absolutes.
I guess it safer in general but I don't think that automatically makes it fair.