Judge ruled abusive ex-husband could keep weapons, now ex-wife dead

[Underseer]

http://www.decaturdaily.com/news/li...cle_831e2153-436e-5321-84f4-b331d7dd4053.html

Before she and two others were shot dead near Ardmore on Sunday, Debra Ann Rivera twice had asked a judge to order her ex-husband to surrender his guns because of alleged abuse.

The request was denied both times.

You want to reduce crime?

Take guns away from men with a history of domestic abuse.

Don't want to take away the guns of wife-beaters? Then learn to live in a more violent society with more murders and more mass shootings. Stop blaming crazy people for this shit. It's not crazy people.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

 

[ZiprHead]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

My wife's best friend was married to a wife beater. The last time he beat her, the police were called and he was arrested. His firearms were taken away from him almost immediately.

BTW, they are now divorced after many years of abuse.

 

[Underseer]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

Sorry, but that is just false.

Statistically, crazy people are no more likely to commit violent crime, but are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

A history of domestic violence is the single best indicator of a possible mass shooter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.decaturdaily.com/news/li...cle_831e2153-436e-5321-84f4-b331d7dd4053.html

Before she and two others were shot dead near Ardmore on Sunday, Debra Ann Rivera twice had asked a judge to order her ex-husband to surrender his guns because of alleged abuse.

The request was denied both times.

You want to reduce crime?

Take guns away from men with a history of domestic abuse.

Don't want to take away the guns of wife-beaters? Then learn to live in a more violent society with more murders and more mass shootings. Stop blaming crazy people for this shit. It's not crazy people.

Rather than jumping on every shooting as evidence for gun laws, consider the situation more carefully.

1) Note the sequence of events. They granted a temporary order but not a permanent order. That says she had nothing to back up the request. Should we simply take people's rights away based on unconfirmed allegations?

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

As usual with anti-gun arguments the only way you'll actually accomplish the objective you're after is by a complete gun ban and disarming everyone.

This is a case where the only real defense is more guns, not less. If they had been armed they might have had a chance against him. I would never take out a protective order against someone who had been violent without first getting a CCW permit.

 

[laughing dog]

Rather than jumping on every shooting as evidence for gun laws, consider the situation more carefully.

1) Note the sequence of events. They granted a temporary order but not a permanent order. That says she had nothing to back up the request. Should we simply take people's rights away based on unconfirmed allegations?

A temporary order does not necessarily imply she had nothing to back up the request. Do you have a link to back up your claim or is your claim a conclusion to which you jumped?

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

 

[marc]

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

And isn't it the claim that if most people were armed then mass shootings wouldn't happen because the shooter would know they wouldn't get away with it? Isn't this an admission that some of these shootings would still happen regardless if everyone was armed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rather than jumping on every shooting as evidence for gun laws, consider the situation more carefully.

1) Note the sequence of events. They granted a temporary order but not a permanent order. That says she had nothing to back up the request. Should we simply take people's rights away based on unconfirmed allegations?

A temporary order does not necessarily imply she had nothing to back up the request. Do you have a link to back up your claim or is your claim a conclusion to which you jumped?

Got some other explanation for why the temporary was granted but not the permanent?

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

Sorry, but that is just false.

Statistically, crazy people are no more likely to commit violent crime, but are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

A history of domestic violence is the single best indicator of a possible mass shooter.

Evidence? Are you saying people who commit domestic violence are completely sane? Mentally fit?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

For fuck sakes! Anyone remember the last time a Republican ran on a platform and executed a political vision of mental health reform?

Also, curious, even after that, how do you keep still mentally ill people from having weapons? Also, is misogyny a mental illness?

 

[Toni]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

Sorry, but that is just false.

Statistically, crazy people are no more likely to commit violent crime, but are much more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

A history of domestic violence is the single best indicator of a possible mass shooter.

Evidence? Are you saying people who commit domestic violence are completely sane? Mentally fit?

Most are sane and mentally fit. Having a bad temper and being unwilling to learn to control it or to deal with strong emotions in a productive manner is not a mental illness.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

http://www.decaturdaily.com/news/li...cle_831e2153-436e-5321-84f4-b331d7dd4053.html

Before she and two others were shot dead near Ardmore on Sunday, Debra Ann Rivera twice had asked a judge to order her ex-husband to surrender his guns because of alleged abuse.

The request was denied both times.

You want to reduce crime?

Take guns away from men with a history of domestic abuse.

Don't want to take away the guns of wife-beaters? Then learn to live in a more violent society with more murders and more mass shootings. Stop blaming crazy people for this shit. It's not crazy people.

Are you feeling ok Underseer? You didn't mention conservolibertarians at all in this OP.

As for the topic, yes, you need gun control. Its nuts down there in the USA.

 

[phands]

Research published in the last week or so showed that mental health issues have essentially zero to do with mass shootings, despite the anguished lies of the gun loons.

Guns have no place in a civilised society, but America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilisation.

 

[Emily Lake]

A history of domestic violence is the single best indicator of a possible mass shooter.

I don't think I've run across this claim before. Do you happen to have a source or supporting information for it?

 

[ZiprHead]

NPR - In Texas And Beyond, Mass Shootings Have Roots In Domestic Violence

 

[laughing dog]

Got some other explanation for why the temporary was granted but not the permanent?

As long as we are making up answers, sun spots.

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

Or guns might be taken away and no shooting.

 

[RavenSky]

Got some other explanation for why the temporary was granted but not the permanent?

Yes. Habit of the court system is this particular county. Per the article, this same court denied another woman a protective order and the ex-husband was allowed to keep his guns, and she too was murdered.

So again, what evidence do you have to back up your claims? None? As usual? Then to clarify for new members, you are asserting your OPINION again as if it is fact. It isn't.

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

Removing his guns makes it one hell of a lot harder for him to shoot three innocent people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. Habit of the court system is this particular county. Per the article, this same court denied another woman a protective order and the ex-husband was allowed to keep his guns, and she too was murdered.

So again, what evidence do you have to back up your claims? None? As usual? Then to clarify for new members, you are asserting your OPINION again as if it is fact. It isn't.

2) Note that this was a murder-suicide. A protective order is utterly useless in such situations, someone planning suicide doesn't care what the law will do to them.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

Removing his guns makes it one hell of a lot harder for him to shoot three innocent people.

What you are missing is how many are taken from those who pose no threat. False claims of domestic violence are often used to gain advantage in a divorce or custody battle. American law is based on innocent until proven guilty, something you seem to be ignoring.

 

[Toni]

Yes. Habit of the court system is this particular county. Per the article, this same court denied another woman a protective order and the ex-husband was allowed to keep his guns, and she too was murdered.

So again, what evidence do you have to back up your claims? None? As usual? Then to clarify for new members, you are asserting your OPINION again as if it is fact. It isn't.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

Removing his guns makes it one hell of a lot harder for him to shoot three innocent people.

What you are missing is how many are taken from those who pose no threat. False claims of domestic violence are often used to gain advantage in a divorce or custody battle. American law is based on innocent until proven guilty, something you seem to be ignoring.

What you seem to be missing is any sense of decency that it is preferable, at least in some cases, to remove firearms and other weapons from the possession of someone who is threatening (or accused of threatening) another person than it is to allow such an individual to maintain possession of the means to easily end the life of another person. Someone can always have his guns returned. You cannot give someone his or her life back.

Somehow, I feel as though if it were generally women who took guns to men they were angry with, you'd be all for confiscating firearms from any woman who was accused of looking cross eyed at a man or even harboring harsh thoughts.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes. Habit of the court system is this particular county. Per the article, this same court denied another woman a protective order and the ex-husband was allowed to keep his guns, and she too was murdered.

So again, what evidence do you have to back up your claims? None? As usual? Then to clarify for new members, you are asserting your OPINION again as if it is fact. It isn't.

You have clue what someone in this situation cares about or is planning. Perhaps an order that took his guns would have completely changed his plans. Do you have a link to evidence to support your claim or is just another example of you jumping to an unwarranted to conclusion to buttress your argument?

You don't know for sure but trying to take his guns very well might precipitate the attack.

Removing his guns makes it one hell of a lot harder for him to shoot three innocent people.

What you are missing is how many are taken from those who pose no threat. False claims of domestic violence are often used to gain advantage in a divorce or custody battle. American law is based on innocent until proven guilty, something you seem to be ignoring.

What you are missing is that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about; but I note that you are perfectly fine with a woman and 2 other innocent people being murdered.