Lurker > ultra_magnus13

adjl posted...

The threshold of proof for imprisoning somebody for several months is - and should be - considerably higher than the threshold of proof for limiting somebody's access to lethal weaponry for several months. The latter is rarely more than a minor inconvenience. The former is devastating, especially if done incorrectly.

There's ample research out there showing the effects of these regulations. This is a solid example that runs through multiple different permutations and combinations of restrictions:
https://www.preventdvgunviolence.org/dv-and-firearms-zeoli.pdf

The exact numbers vary, but the common thread throughout every study examined in that summary is that reducing the accused's access to firearms reduces the risk of their partner being murdered by around 10% (by any means, not just by firearms), with the figure being quite a bit higher in some specific cases. That's a big deal.

The threshold should be no different. If you are dangerous enough you need to be disarmed, then you are dangerous enough you need to be imprisoned.

adjl posted...

See, the issue is that there are four possible outcomes here:

1. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence has their guns taken away
2. Somebody is rightfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away
3. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and has their guns taken away
4. Somebody is wrongfully accused of domestic violence and does not have their guns taken away

Option 1 dramatically reduces the risk of the DV victim being murdered. Option 2 creates a substantial risk that the DV victim gets murdered. Option 3 means the accused can't go to the range for a few months until the case plays out and they're found innocent. Option 4 is neutral.

We can't easily control whether or not they're wrongfully accused, so our choice is between taking away the guns - which will either dramatically reduce the risk of murder or mildly inconvenience the accused - and not taking them away - which will either dramatically increase the risk of murder or maintain the status quo. That's not exactly a difficult choice.

If a judge believed they posed a great enough risk that they should be stripped of there rights, then he could and should have them held in jail until trial.

Not sure if title is disingenuous or ignorant?

My understanding is that this case is in regards to if rights can be stripped from people ACCUSED of domestic violence that have a restraining order placed on them.

Being CONVICTED of a domestic violence DOES and would CONTINUE to specificly prohibit you from owning a firearm.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Adventure Time?

Aaaaadddvvventure Time!

VampireCoyote posted...

sometimes I do half and half

This is the way.

I'm pretty sure California is literally one of the worst states to be poor in. What state are you in now?

Tips and Tricks. Dumb choice to subscribe to. I loved it as a kid, but half of each issue was the "cheats" sections, which was awesome but buying just one or 2 issues a year would cover that area. There news and reviews, my favorite things to read about where pretty light. EGM was probably the most well rounded back in the day. I had a buddy who subscribed to it, and would give me each issue a few weeks after they were out. I purchased a pretty decent amount of Game Informer ,I think it was, as well.

Nearly every environment is improved by dogs. People like to spend time with there dogs, dogs like to spend time with there people.