This week’s post is inspired by two sources: the New York Times subsidiary Women in the world and Al Jazeera. Both deal with guns and domestic violence against women.
Last year, you may remember that Everytown for gun safety made a commercial that was meant to show how violent guns can be in the hands of abusive partners. But the piece backfired and instead demonstrated what we already know. 1) that the police won’t get there in time, and 2) restraint Ning orders are just a piece of paper. It was one of the worst commercials the anti-gun crowd ever used.
Now the representative from New Yorkers for Gun Safety, Leah Gunn Barrett, suggested that “Women are not physically powerful like men are. A gun could easily be turned on the woman” (Garda, 2015). So, a woman less powerful than a man should not have a firearm to defend herself against a more powerful attacker. Did I miss something? If she can’t defend herself with a gun because she is not strong enough, how is she going to defend herself without one?
Let’s go back to that adage, “God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.”
The second article creates the new concept of the “boyfriend” loophole. I’m still a little confused on this because the author does not explain the concept until halfway through the article. She starts her premise by citing that “women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high income countries” (Maloney. 2015) She does not cite what the total murder rates are for these murders regardless of the weapon of choice. Even then, author Allison Maloney can’t help but reference the debunked gun show loophole myth.
If I understand the boyfriend loophole correctly, it argues that certain domestic abuse laws only apply to spouses instead of all intimate partners. And even though men are more likely to assault women then the other way around, it is still fairly sexist that this is the “boyfriend” loophole. What the author is concerned about is that initial orders, which are in place because of an unverified claim, do not imitate a confiscation or restriction on firearms for the accused individual. Strange that we live in a country where guilt must be proven before you take away someone’s rights.
She then loses any credibility she might have when she cites Everytown three separate times in the article. Maybe if she had cited academic research instead of activists, I might give her more credit. But Everytown has always shown that their research is only useful if it supports their claims.
What is also amazing is that she sees that there are problems with NICS. The system is only as good as the information the states submit. Maybe she should petition states to be more active in providing criminal information to the system before she says the system itself is failing.
My guess is that they realize no one is drinking the gun show loophole Kool-Aid, so now they have moved onto the Boyfriend Loophole instead. What it really boils down to is government confiscation of guns based on accusations. So when an individual’s uses a gun that should have been removed, they will say how to new system failed as well because the individual had no requirement to register and the government had no way to track what guns the individual owned. The next step will then be registration. The playbook is so easy to read it’s sad.
Maloney, Alli (2015) The boyfriend loophole is costing women lives. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/09/18/the-boyfriend-loophole-in-u-s-gun-laws-is-costing-womens-lives/
Everytown for Gun Safety (2015) Will your Stop this? YouTube video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUAL6ie1ufc
Garda, Imran (2015) Third Rail Barrett interview Al Jazeera. Retrieved from: https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=024485c2-0e39-4fcb-9519-1e4868d85e8b
Updated 30 October 2016 for grammar and to properly cite references.