Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Domestic violence and guns- recipe for danger

October is Domestic Abuse Awareness month. Why do we have to remind people that too many women are being abused by their husbands, partners, or friends/family members? It's a no brainer that domestic abuse is happening way too often. It's a no brainer that we should all be working to stop domestic abuse. And most of all, it's a no brainer that guns cause the majority of domestic murders. The state of Nevada is worried about domestic abuse. All states are worried about this domestic safety problem. From the article about Nevada:
Per capita, Nevada had 2.62 women killed per 100,000 people in 2010, the VPC report said. That’s more than double the national rate of 1.22 per 100,000 people. The next closest state was South Carolina at 1.94.
Sue Meuschke, executive director of the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, attributed the high rate to several reasons, including the economy and Nevada’s gun culture.
Because of the poor economy, women in dangerous domestic situations are waiting longer before they leave, Meuschke said. It’s because they have less options for money, housing and other basic resources.
Guns are also a problem, Meuschke said.
“There is a culture that says that you should possess a firearm,” Meuschke said. “And, unfortunately, mixing firearms and domestic violence is a recipe for murder.”
In Minnesota, where I live, the latest Femicide report shows this:
Access to Firearms: In 2011, 12 of 23 (52%) intimate partner femicides were committed with firearms. While the percentage of femicides using firearms fluctuates year to year, murder with firearms is the most frequent weapon of choice, supporting the studies showing that possession of firearms can increase the risk of lethality. 
In 11 of the 12 gunshot cases, the perpetrator then killed himself. 5 of the 6 family members, friends, and interveners were killed by gunshot.
Federal law prohibits domestic abusers from being able to purchase guns. Let's take a look at this report from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. First this background statement from the linked report:
So now, something about the laws. From the report:
Federal law prohibits purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by persons who have been convicted in any court of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and/or who are subject to certain domestic violence protective orders.8
Federal law defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as an offense that is a federal, state or tribal law misdemeanor and has the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon as an element.9 In addition, the offender must:
be a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
be a current or former cohabitant with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian; or be similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.10 
But, of course, there are always limitations or exceptions. Here are some, from the report:
These federal prohibitions have significant limitations. First, domestic violence affects persons in relationships that fall outside the protections of federal law. For example, dating partners are not within the federal prohibitions unless the partners are/were cohabitating as spouses and/or have a child in common. The risk of domestic violence being committed by a dating partner is well-documented. Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.13 In a recent study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles, the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.14 Many states have addressed this gap in federal law by enacting laws that expand the relationships subject to firearm purchaser prohibitions for domestic abusers.
But state laws can be confusing and sometimes in conflict with federal law in these cases. I just had a conversation with my local Sheriff while attending a fund raiser for a local shelter for abused women. He was frustrated that he could not deny a permit to acquire (required in Minnesota for purchases of handguns and assault weapons) because of a provision in Minnesota law that differs from federal law. Here is the Minnesota law referring to domestic abuse charges and firearms. He contacted someone at NICS and found that because Minnesota law allows for returning guns to a domestic abuser after three years, that means he can't deny this permit. It also has to do with language regarding whether someone only threatened violence or actually used violence against the woman or abused person. In a follow-up conversation with him, he was still frustrated and had been studying both the state and the federal laws and is having trouble figuring out the very complicated language. These laws are written sometimes by the very people who have a vested interest in their provisions, such as the NRA. There is no reason that a domestic abuser should get his guns back whether he only threatened a woman or actually used violence, in which case he loses guns and his rights for life. Raise your hand if you would feel safe knowing that someone who threatened you with violence was now able to purchase guns. And remember, this is only from federally licensed firearms dealers. We all know that in most states, anyone can purchase guns from private sellers without a background check.

We can hope that programs designed to deal with domestic abuse will make a difference. As someone who sits on the board of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, I am proud to know that the program is training people all over the world to deal better with domestic abuse. The Duluth model is now famous for how law enforcement deals with domestic abusers. From the web site about what the Duluth Model does:
Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.
Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.
Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community’s response to battering.
The immediate response to reported abuse has saved lives. The coordinated community response is extremely important to help abused women deal with abuse right away and get the system in place for dealing with the abuser and getting help for the abused. I respect the local law enforcement officers who respond to domestic abuse cases. Their lives are at risk every time they walk into a domestic situation. Sometimes they are injured or even killed if the abuser has a weapon. From the linked article:
According to “Police Chief” the magazine, an officer is injured in one out of every three domestic violence related calls.
DeWanna Hamlin of Family Services in Winston-Salem thinks domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous officers respond to because of the unperceived dangers.
“I think it is the unknown.  Not knowing what to expect, not knowing what weapons are going to be involved, and not knowing who is behind those closed doors,” said Hamlin.
Recent Federal Statistics show since 1996, roughly 100 officers in the United States were killed responding to domestic violence related calls. Hundreds more were injured.
“When the abuser feels like he or she is losing power or control over the situation that is generally when see more serious domestic violence or explosion so to speak,”  said Hamlin.
Sadly, Hamlin and other domestic violence experts believe most of the deaths related to domestic violence could be prevented if people better understood the warning signs and were willing to report it.
 ”Even when there is not a history of involvement with law enforcement, generally the assault we hear about is not the first time domestic violence has happened,” said Hamlin.
That is 100 too many officers killed in domestic cases. Officers are trained to deal with domestic cases but when they step into the middle of an incident where someone has a weapon, it becomes immediately unpredictable and dangerous.

The bottom line is that domestic abusers should not have easy access to guns. Their intentions are not good ones. Almost every day there is a story somewhere in the country of a man ( usually a man) who shoots a woman in a domestic abuse case.  Often he also shoots himself. We are better than this. Until we start using common sense regarding our nation's and state's gun laws, we will continue to see domestic murders. There is absolutely no reason why our elected leaders should be allowed to get away with avoiding this issue. Lives depend upon their actions. We need to demand a plan.


  1. Women in these situations can sometimes downplay the danger that their armed husbands can represent to them and their children, disbelieving that their husbands could do such a thing, but sometimes they know full well and are afraid. Certainly, a gun in the home represents a danger, particularly in those situations.

    There is a great organization here in Eugene, Oregon, called Womenspace (http://www.womenspace.org/) to help women and their children escape. I've volunteered and donated with them, and am currently raising money to help them (in part). Every city should have such an organization.

  2. This is disgusting. Such a shame that this is allowed to happen. We need husband control. Obviously, registering husbands, background checks before marriage, and proper husband storage laws would have saved all of these women!

    1. Mockery of a very serious issue is asinine. Gun availability to violent men with temper problems is the problem here. There are solutions to at least some of these cases.

    2. Hey FRANK, are you one of those men who believe that to be masculine you have to hit people?

      That is the new mantra on the right - that if boys aren't allowed to get into fist fights in school, they'll become weak sissies because our education system is being 'feminized'. The false premise of the right is that if boys have to learn to resolve their conflicts without violence, they won't be men tends to carry through to interactions between the genders.

      An equal tragedy here is not the ignorance and insensitivity of comments like yours, but the underlying false values of what is masculine.

      It is of course not ONLY husbands who are abusers.

      This is the kind of comment I would expect from someone who has no answer for the statistics that show that a gun in the home poses a MUCH greater threat to women and children, than it does a guarantee of any greater safety for those women and children.

      The one factor that japete has left out is that those who feel they need control and dominance and authority to be 'real' men, what are often described as authoritarian personalities, often gravitate to law enforcement.

      The proportion of law enforcement who themselves engage in domestic abuse, is much higher than the stats for the rest of the population. And these are the people who are supposed to be investigating and protecting domestic violence victims and arresting abusers.

      In those law enforcement related abuse cases, the presence of the service firearm and other firearms figures as one of the primary aspects, the core aspects, of actual abuse, or threat of abuse.

      So straighten up Frank, and try to come up with something more intelligent to offer to address the problem in a discussion, instead of trying to be snide about a problem that results in painful injuries, fear, and death.

      You couldn't be more inappropriate, and therefore you marginalize your own point of view more than we possibly could.

      Try again. Maybe with a little more will and effort you can do better, if you apply yourself to it.

    3. Dog gone,
      One of the first things I observed when the Lautenberg Act passed was varying law enforcement types jumping through hoops because many suddenly became unable to posess weapons. There was similar craziness in the army.
      I do agree that a large component in domestic violence revolves around control or the partner. I have a hard time accepting that when it comes to domestic violence, law enforcement seems to often have a path to enable to keep their jobs when they run afoul of the Lautenberg Act. If its serious enough to ban a regular citizen, then why should it be different for a police officer.

    4. Police officers who abuse their partners should be in the same boat as everyone else. What proof do you have for your assertion? People who threaten others with domestic abuse should have to jump through lots of hoops. They are dangerous. Lives depend on it.

    5. Japete, here is something I found from a police union,

      I also found this site directly addressing the issue, http://www.womenandpolicing.org/gunban.asp

      I tried looking it up on the startribune website, but it doesn't seem to go back far enough. There was a fairly high ranking Minneapolis officer who had to go to court to get his domestic violence conviction expunged because of Lautenberg. If I recall correctly, he ex even testified on his behalf.

    6. Japete, I did find that data, it's from a union guy opposing the act. Here is what he said about the MPD officer:
      Lieutenant Dale Barsness of the Minneapolis, Minnesota Police Department pled guilty in 1991 to a fifth degree domestic assault against his wife. Lt. Barsness, head of his department's homicide unit, was forced to give up his firearm in December 1996, as were three other officers in his department, two of whom had over twenty years of experience on the force with only this single blemish on their record. In Minnesota, if you cannot possess a firearm, you cannot be a law enforcement officer. Fortunately, a judge in Hennepin County used a little-known rule to set aside his guilty plea by demonstrating that the conviction created a "manifest injustice." Fortunately Lt. Barsness is now back on the job--where he belongs--as are three other officers disarmed in similar circumstances. However, all of these officers remain in legal limbo because the County Prosecutor has sixty (60) days to appeal the expungement. Though the motion to appeal has not yet been filed, the County Prosecutor has stated publicly that he will appeal any expungement granted by the Hennepin County Court.

      Here is where I found it, http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/313.htm

    7. Mark- you have reached your limit of comments. I can't keep responding to you. You are over thinking all of this. If you think it's O.K. for police officers to get their rights back after committing misdemeanors, I don't know what to say. They should be following the law. Why are you trying to excuse them?

    8. Japete, in my first comment, I thought I was clear that I disapproved of the breaks given to police officers who ran a fouls of the Lautenberg Act.

  3. Japete, Please keep in mind that there are many studies which document female on male abuse and that is often underreported. And from my limited reading on the Duluth Model, it seems to be skewed in the patriarchal violence model.
    I am a little concerned that you want to outlaw posession of firearms for life due to a civil order? Especially since you've said here that you dont have any problem letting some felons posess firearms after they've served their respective sentence.

    1. Had that discussion before on this blog. The number of female-male domestic abuse cases are quite small by comparison. You guys all have the same talking points. It's tiring. The whole world knows that most domestic violence is male on female. So no more discussion about this because it isn't worth debating. The Duluth Model is skewed that way because that's the way it is. DAIP deals with female domestic abusers as well. Have a good night.

    2. Japete, I'd suggest you take a look at this. It seems to conflict with your view. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

      Among relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were reported to be the perpetrator in a majority of cases (70.7%), as reported by both women (67.7%) and men (74.9%). To look at the data another way, women reported both greater victimization and perpetration of violence than did men (victimization = 19.3% vs 16.4%, respectively; perpetration = 24.8% vs 11.4%, respectively). In fact, women’s greater perpetration of violence was reported by both women (female perpetrators=24.8%, male perpetrators = 19.2%) and by men (female perpetrators = 16.4%, male perpetrators = 11.2%).

    3. Not had time to read the whole thing. I did get this- " Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

      Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)."

      So a group of people in one age category-18-28 for this study. As you know, I did not say women never inflict violence. I have seen a film in which women were sent to prison for partner violence and death. In most of the cases, it was the result of the man beginning the violent relationship and the woman reciprocating. That does not excuse it, however.

      I find it interesting that it is almost all men who comment on this blog. It is almost all men who make mythical claims about their need for self defense and talk macho about their guns. It's almost all men who commit gun murders in the incidents I link to. And it's all men who try to claim that they are not responsible for most of the violence in our society whether towards their partners or someone else. And men own most of the guns in our country. You don't have much of a case.

      Mark- I don't have time in my day to answer all of your comments. You should be doing something else with yourself besides looking at my blog. In future, I plan to limit the comments I publish from you and to which I respond. You are a demanding person. Have a nice day. I will be traveling so not publishing comments from you.

    4. Further- why do we have a national Violence Against Women Act? To protect women from violence mostly perpetrated by men. If we had a Violence Against Men Act we could probably reduce the number of overall gun deaths in this country by a great margin.

    5. ssgmark is just playing hard to get. Who in their right mind would even mention female on male domestic violence in a serious discussion? His comments are just obfuscation and nonsense.

    6. @ssgmarkcr: How many of those female-on-male acts of violence were with lethal weapons? And how many of those attacks were lethal? How do those numbers compare with male-on-female numbers?

    7. Yeah, and how many of the female on male acts caused anything like the comparable damage done to women and children?

      To compare them as equal is dishonest.

      In the case of women perpetrating violence against men, it is nearly always the case that men COULD defend themselves, but they don't.

      It is not usually the case that women could equally defend themselves by choice against men; there is usually an inherent difference in strength, particularly upper body strength, as well as other disparities in income, etc., which figure into the equation of the domestic situation.

      I do not condone violence by women against men. I put myself in harms way to prevent that, I took on the power of attorney for a male family member in a divorce where his crazy and violent wife was abusive, and where he was concerned about self-defense for fear it could be twisted to try to make him out to be the abuser. The solution I offered was that by being another woman, the entire dynamic of any abuse claim would change where I was involved.

      It took a while, and involved first a civil an then a criminal restraining order, but eventually it became clear to the courts that it was his wife, who then became his ex-wife, who both made threats to intimidate and engaged in actual violence. But it took getting him half-way round the world to do it, and in the process putting me in sufficient danger of violence that I had to get a carry permit.

      And FYI - my getting a gun ESCALATED the level of conflict, it didn't at any point make me safer, quite the opposite. But it did create a dynamic where the ex-wife's true colors came out for the court.

      That was under 'shall issue'. Now, under 'may issue', she'd have gotten a firearm herself much more easily, and either I or my cousin, possibly both of us would have a much greater chance of being killed during that domestic conflict period of the divorce.

      Guns don't make men any safer than they do women; escalating the gender arms race simply makes everyone at greater risk of that potential arms violence.

    8. Dog gone, I can appreciate that getting your permit must have not been fun considering the circumstances that caused you to get it. Was the woman you wrote of showing the controlling component of domestic abuse often linked to male on female abuse?
      I imagine someone who is controlling will resist losing that control if challenged, which seems to be confirmed in what I've read. Was the escalation a result of the abuser's power of the abused being challenged? I'm presuming that the only way she would have found out of your carry permit is if you found it necessary to show your willingness to defend yourself or your friend.
      Was there anything you think might have worked better to protect yourself AND keep you safe?

  4. japete says: "...it's all men who try to claim that they are not responsible for most of the violence in our society whether towards their partners..."

    Testosterone is an ingredient for violence and men obviously have more of it, but some women also have that hormone.

    I know a guy who was carrying a concealed firearm when he was attacked by his girlfriend. Not wanting to engage her, he ran away from her and locked himself in a room. She put her foot through the door before she calmed down. I myself was in a relationship with a woman who had to be taken away by the police.

    You don't know hell until you've lived with someone with BPD, which is unusually dominant in women.

  5. MIGO, educate yourself before you make such ignorant comments like "but some women also have that hormone".

    ALL WOMEN HAVE TESTOSTERONE, occurring normally. Among other things, in women, it is essential for achieving orgasm, and being low in normally occurring levels of testosterone is associated with a variety of female problems, including being inorgasmic.

    HOWEVER, pay attention here MIGO, this is for your education, since you must have missed it in 'health class' -- men NORMALLY have 50 to 60 TIMES the amount of testosterone that women do.

    So, if you believe for a moment that women who behave aggressively do so because they have elevated testosterone levels, you are badly misinformed.

    Women can be provoked just as men do; the endocrinology and exocrinology of that reaction is different. Testosterone is not only secreted by the testes, it is secreted by the ovaries AND by the adrenal glands -- but in trace amounts by the latter two organs compared to normal testicular secretion.

    I routinely find myself, because of my involvement with theriogenology, of knowing more about reproduction, particularly the male side, than most men.

    High levels of testosterone CAN equate to aggression levels. So can higher levels of protein in the diet.

    There is absolutely NO correlation between BPD and testosterone aggression. They are not similar. Having BPD is an illness; having testosterone is not, although because it is a steroid, those who take illegal steriods, soemtimes referred to a 'roid rage' do, often, demonstrate a distinct and dangerous amount of aggression.

    Before you ask for our sympathy regarding BPD, I suggest you look at why BPD is considered a problem for women, because it often relates to abuse by men.

    From a Stanford University report:
    "The increased frequency of borderline disorders among women may also be a consequence of the greater incidence of incestuous experiences during their childhood. This is believed to occur ten times more often in women than in men, with estimates running to up to one-fourth of all women."

    What I find intriguing about BPD is the behavior and thinking pattern that typifies it called 'splitting'; it seems a common problem pattern in the thinking of gun nuts as well.

    Migo, among my friends, there is a phrase, "he read a book once". It refers to people who think they are instant experts on a topic because they once read a book on the topic, or had a limited experience with some aspect of a topic. Often, when pressed, it turns out the 'instant expert' didn't even finish reading the 'I read a book once' volume, or that it was only a periodical article.
    It is a catch-all phrase for knowledge that has neither depth nor breadth.

    You appear to have read a book once. The good news is that you can read more than one, and learn more than you now know, if you want to.

    1. Dog gone, quite frankly I know everything you've said and more. I just don't waste as much time as you writing my post or proofreading them because Joan has rejected so many of my civil and factual posts, that it's pointless to invest too much time in them. I'm amazed that you wasted your time writing all of that because of a typo on my part.

      I don't need, nor do I want, your sympathy. Again, I'm amazed at how frequently you make such comments about me without even knowing who I am. It's almost as funny as that other reader that pegs me as crabby and flabby.

      My only goal is to introduce balance to a very biased blog. Domestic violence is not as black and white as Joan would like it to be. There are many factors and many grey areas. BPD is one such grey factor. I provided the book link as a favor to anyone reading this who might want to learn more about the subject, but more as a helpful way to define the term BPD. Those who think BPD might be in their lives can either read the book or consult a professional, but I would strongly recommend the latter. They certainly shouldn't try to garner any other advice about this very serious subject from this blog.

    2. Poor Migo. What the heck are you talking about? I just love the way you guys feel sorry for yourselves and stretch the truth. Give it up. I publish almost all of your posts. Get over yourself.

    3. I thought that what I was talking about was clear in my original post, before you and dog gone went off on a tangent again with your judgments and his rants.

      If it wasn't clear, then I'll repeat myself. While men are more aggressive, women can initiate domestic violence, and BPD can be a part of that for various reasons. I know from firsthand experience that domestic violence is a difficult, frightening, and tragic experience for everyone involved.

      The most important point is that domestic violence is preventable with help. It's a very simple point. Can we bring focus back to this important point?

    4. Right Migo. When dog gone and I make comments we are ranting and judgmental? But your comments are always, of course, cogent and reasonable. The point is, as you realize, that guns are a major problem.

    5. Poor Migo, isn't judgmental?

      Yes, I agree that guns can be a problem in a DV situation, but they don't have to be. My example doesn't make it as black and white for me, so I can't support blanket confiscation by the sheriff in a DV home without more details. A DV situation doesn't change the illegal use of a gun. Brandishing, threatening, injuring, or murdering someone with a gun is illegal regardless of whether it occurs at a convenience store with a stranger or in a DV home with one's partner.

      DV can exist in a home with no weapons and no physical violence. DV can occur with words alone.

      So if you want to bash on guns, go ahead, it's your blog. However, my focus remains on the DV itself. As complex as DV can be, it is a problem with a solution as long as both people seek out help. DV can also be extremely problematic for gun owners, so it's really in their best interest to resolve the DV situation quickly and effectively, if not for the love of their partner, then for the love of their guns.

    6. Good grief, Migo. Since I have a sister who was shot to death in a domestic argument, don't you think I understand what goes on with DV? Since I am on the Board of a major domestic abuse intervention program, don't you think I care about preventing domestic violence. Bashing on guns???? Guns kill people. Domestic abusers with guns kill people. We need to prevent that. Part of the prevention has to do with access to guns. To say otherwise is dishonest and ignoring a major factor. But go ahead and ignore the role guns play. You are in the minority of people who would even think of saying such a ludicrous thing given the facts.

    7. I'm sorry Joan if I gave you the impression that you don't care. I know you care and I was very aware of your personal tragedy when I wrote my posts. I hope you don't believe I treat your tragedy lightly, because I don't.

      However, to me, DV is very different from murder.

      Guns and DV? Man beats woman? It's simply not that black and white for me. Of course, guns can be a problem in DV, but they can also be problems in depression, alcoholism, and virtually everything else, so I can't see a unique connection between, nor a unique solution for, DV and guns.

    8. The interesting thing is Migo, there is no unique connection- there is a common connection- guns. Guns don't go with depression or mental illness; guns don't go with alcohol; guns don't go with domestic violence. I'm sure you see the connection. When a gun is available, it will get used in those situations. I write about guns in connection to all of them. This post happened to be about domestic abuse awareness and the danger of guns in domestic abuse. I don't know how else it could possibly be taken. Unfortunately, gun violence is not unique to anything. It is, in and of itself, a terrible national problem that happens anywhere and everywhere and perpetrated by all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.

  6. japete says: ...When a gun is available, it will get used in those situations...

    I say, it could be used. I believe it's possible for people to get angry and verbally hurtful towards each other without actually wanting to kill or physically injure each other. So threatening those involved in a DV incident with a person felony or a permanent loss of gun rights might cause them to implement a draconian solution that doesn't address the real problem.

    For example, to avoid DV related legal issues, one of the involved parties could be evicted from the home. The resulting financial chaos can only make things worse in some scenarios by eliminating the resources to get the counseling necessary to permanently solve the problem for that relationship, and/or future relationships.

    That counseling can also prevent future violence. That's what I want, and I believe that black and white laws against DV and/or guns can interfere with that. In the experience that I'm aware of, the evicted DV party eventually attempted suicide after a short failed marriage and is now in bankruptcy. So I will continue to remain strongly biased against those who believe that simple laws can be used to solve DV, because I know those laws can sometimes cause much more harm than good.

    1. Migo- one size does not fit all. I believe judges take that into account. That being said, sometimes doing something draconian does actually further exacerbate a bad situation. I do agree with you about that. But the laws are in place for a reason. A domestic abuser who threatens violence should not have guns, period. We should be hyper vigilante about stopping those folks from getting guns which are the most lethal. Yes, woman can be stabbed and beaten as well or drowned or whatever. But in cases of domestic abuse that end in murder, the majority were from gun injuries.