Friday, February 4, 2011

In Minnesota Guns are Bad News for Women

Dog Gone of the wonderful site Penigma, I presume having never seen my original post Guns and Women, in which I coined the now popular expression, guns are bad news for women, sent me this fascinating article.

TRYING TO LEAVE: In 2010, 67 percent of the homicides occurred after the victims had left or were attempting to leave their abuser.

PREVIOUS THREATS: At least 40 percent of the victims in 2010 had experienced prior abuse, and in at least three instances, the women had experienced threats to kill.

WEAPON OF CHOICE: In 2010, nine of 15 intimate-partner homicides were committed with firearms.

Of course this was all covered in The Famous 10% too.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.



    If that information is correct, Minnesota requires either a transfer permit before buying a firearm (which may take up to 7 days to approve) or a 7 day waiting period, making sure that if any of those victims WANTED to purchase a firearm for self-protection immediately, that right was legally stripped from them. I wonder if any of them wanted to get a gun for self and couldn't in time? The report doesn't seem to cover that.

    Meanwhile, 9 of the 15 abusers had no problems getting their hands on a firearm to murder an innocent victim. I wonder if any of them were prohibited by law from having a firearm?

    Even if they were prohibited by law, thinking the law would have stopped them when they were already hell-bent on murder is extremely naive.

    Same data, different perspective. I abhor laws that only disarm the victims.


  2. Orygunner, as a woman in Minnesota who acquired a firearm in response to the difficulties in enforcing a restraining order against a stalker (although not in Minneapolis), I can vouch for the efficiency with which the police expedite firearm acquistion when appropriate. Try same day.

    This doesn't disarm the victims; that is baloney.

    And yes, from experience, I can tell you that DOES help prevent someone hell-bent on murder. Maybe not every person, every time, but it helps some of the time.

    Lets be candid - you will twist and distort any data to try to make guns unrestricted, even to criminals. The Minnesota gun check, more stringent than the federal data base gun check, includes stalkers and domestic abusers from legally acquiring guns.

    Thank you Mike for the Penigma compliment!

  3. @Dog Gone, well then, you managed to deal with a police department that appreciated your situation and expedited your request.

    What about victims in places with a MANDATORY waiting period? Or places with police departments that don't believe armed citizens are in their best interests, and delay permits as long as possible? Surely it DOES happen that people are denied their right and suffer a worse fate than if they had been armed?

    I'm curious about the situation you describe that the permit system stopped someone intending to murder. What were the specifics of that? How do you know they tried to get a gun and just gave up?

    I don't intentionally twist or distort anything, merely provide my opinion and my view, just as you do. If you're going to make that claim, you must provide specifics of what I've twisted and distorted.


  4. Orygunner, One important point you're leaveing out is that many of these murders were not done by people who weren't "hell-bent" on doing anything. They were, for the most part, rageful men who already had guns. You don't think they went out to buy a gun just for this murder, do you? I don't think that's how domestic abuse happens.

    And my question is the opposite of yours. How many of them were lawful gun owners? Most, I'd guess, because the lawful gun owning community is generously populated with people who should be prohibited and are not.

  5. @Mikeb,

    Are you trying to make a correlation between murderers and lawful gun owners? That's a faulty correlation, trying to smear lawful gun owners because there were murderers in their midst.

    I guess I could suggest that because drunk drivers that killed people have (had) legal driver's licenses, that people with driver's licenses are generously populated with people that shouldn't be allowed to drive?

    Yeah, it's a car comparison, but ignore that and see my point: there's about 80 MILLION gun owners, and in one state, in one year, you're giving an example of nine people to suggest that the gun owning community is generously populated with people that shouldn't own guns?

    What, really is your evidence to conclude the "generously populated" comment? What is your idea of that? Half? One-third? How about five percent? One in a hundred?

    Since over 79 million gun owners weren't irresponsible with their firearms and caused harm to anyone last year, I don't see where you're getting a generous anything.