Guns and Domestic Violence
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/opinion/guns-domestic-violence.html Version 0 of 1. To the Editor: Your nine-part series of editorials, “The Home Front,” is important journalism on current domestic violence issues facing us nationally. An important question that the series implicitly asks is, “Do we have the resolve to seriously reduce domestic violence?” Thus far, the answer is no. The biggest challenge facing our domestic violence response is the continual blaming of domestic violence victims. “Why does she stay?” is the seminal question considered by all who intersect with the survivors of violence, including judges, the police, prosecutors, probation, defense attorneys, legislators and others. It is truly the elephant in the room. It is this bias that places victims in harm’s way, allowing them and their children to potentially become the victims of gun and other violence. If we truly want to advance all domestic violence prevention strategies, including gun violence prevention, implicit bias training is critical for all who are involved in this process. This training will allow all of us to place the blame for domestic violence where it justly belongs — on the batterer. EUGENE M. HYMANLOS ALTOS, CALIF. The writer is a retired Superior Court judge. To the Editor: Representatives on the state and federal levels can do much more to help protect potential victims of gun violence. On the state level, it is time for all of us to urge our state legislators to enact “gun violence restraining order” laws. This is key to helping family members and law enforcement officials get a court order to at least temporarily prohibit a dangerous individual from possessing a firearm. This is one step toward helping prevent gun violence. On the federal level, the House recently passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. This means that a person who lives in a state where it is easy to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon can bring that weapon to any other state. So a state like New York, which has relatively strict gun laws, must allow someone from any other state to carry a concealed weapon in New York. This is unacceptable! We need our representatives at the state and federal level to step up and pass laws to protect us, not endanger us. LORI SASLOW, GREAT NECK, N.Y. To the Editor: Your editorial series barely mentions the men who are murdered and maimed by their female spouses or partners. Has the editorial board never heard of battered men syndrome or the fact that interpersonal violence is frequently perpetrated by women? It is true that women are more likely to use knives or fire to commit their murders, rather than guns, but that doesn’t make it any better for the victim or justify leaving out men who are regularly targeted by their partners. WAYNE JOHNSONSANTA MONICA, CALIF. To the Editor: Re “Women’s Lives Cut Short”: Without a doubt, stronger limits on abusers’ ability to obtain guns are needed to save women’s lives. An equally critical step that Congress can take is to improve access to protective orders by increasing funding for the Legal Services Corporation. The best remedy for survivors is often a protective order from a civil court. Access to legal help increases the likelihood that a victim will successfully obtain such an order. According to a recent report from the Institute for Policy Integrity, 83 percent of victims represented by an attorney successfully obtained a protective order, as compared with just 32 percent of victims without an attorney. Yes, we must keep guns out of the hands of abusers. Likewise, we must make it possible for more women to protect themselves. ELIZABETH A. ARLEDGEWASHINGTON The writer is deputy director of Voices for Civil Justice. To the Editor: Re “When Abusers Are Most Lethal”: I have been a divorce lawyer who represented abused women, a County Court judge with power to issue restraining orders, a state police officer and, most recently, a federal prosecutor enforcing federal gun laws. It continues to amaze me that so many people still think that if only the National Rifle Association would get out of the way, Congress could pass some magic law that will stop gun violence. There is no such law, and domestic violence restraining orders are clearly not the answer. You say so yourself, noting that “one-third of homicides related to intimate-partner violence occur within one month of a restraining order being issued, and one-fifth within two days.” It is already against the law to assault or kill someone; why would anyone think that a judge signing a piece of paper would change someone’s mind about that? As you note, all it does is further enrage the man. And these orders give women a false sense of security, thinking that they work. A woman needs practical advice. First, get away and stay away from violent men. Have an escape plan, have car keys in the car, talk to a neighbor and see if you can go there while the police are coming. I told them to get a gun, or bear spray or a Taser, and learn how to use it. Those who think that violence can be confronted and defeated with words, laws and pieces of paper are naïve. C.A. CROFTS, CHEYENNE, WYO. To the Editor: In “There Is Common Ground on Guns,” you write, “There’s little disagreement that these shootings should end, that laws should be better enforced, that criminals should be punished.” Not so fast. While everyone wants to end mass shootings, are gun rights extremists willing to accept common-sense gun laws to achieve the objective? According to a just released CBS News Survey, 51 percent of gun owners feel that mass shootings are “something we have to accept as part of a free society.” The National Rifle Association equates freedom with unfettered access to firearms and has thus opposed every federal gun regulation introduced since Newtown. Of course we all agree that “criminals should be punished.” But enforcement of laws requires resources. For years, the N.R.A. has fought, with considerable success, to weaken the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal government’s key agency for enforcing gun laws. Actions speak louder than words; the gun lobby is more concerned with profit than with ending mass shootings. JONATHAN PERLOECOS COB, CONN. The writer is director of communications for Connecticut Against Gun Violence. To the Editor: I applaud your editorials about the link between guns and domestic violence, but while you imply that there is general agreement that, as Senator Frank Lautenberg said, “wife beaters should not have guns,” no one should forget that Florida passed a law making it a crime for doctors to ask if there is a gun in the house. It took years of court battles to get the law overturned. And the long arm of the National Rifle Association has led Congress to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to do public health research into gun violence and gun accidents in the home. BARBARA GOLDPHILADELPHIA To the Editor: What about mandatory liability insurance for gun owners? 1. It would add to the cost of buying a gun. 2. Any gun that is not covered by insurance could be confiscated. 3. You can imagine how much more thorough the background checks that would be carried out by the insurance companies would be than the present government background checks. 4. The gun owner’s insurance would cover only the owner. But the law could make the owner responsible for anyone who used the gun. I am sure that would persuade people to keep their guns under lock and key. The insurance would go way up if others were allowed to use the gun. This approach could actually help change the national attitude toward guns and make responsible gun owners feel more responsible, and careless gun owners think about the problem more carefully. SHEILA SCHWID, NEW YORK |