Once Every 16 Hours, An American Woman Is Fatally Shot by a Current or Former Romantic Partner

[Nuclear Unicorn]

This was posted over at the other group --

Once Every 16 Hours, An American Woman Is Fatally Shot by a Current or Former Romantic Partner

On Thursday, January 28, Tania Adams, a 41-year-old mother of three, was gunned down by her estranged husband in the clubhouse of a planned community she worked at in Homestead, Florida. He then wounded one of her co-workers before fatally shooting himself. According to a fundraising drive set up to help pay for her funeral expenses, Adams had left the man, whose name was not released, around Christmas. By then he’d allegedly threatened her life “numerous times.”

The next evening, 44-year-old Cheryl Snyder Tremmel was shot several times in Hemitage, Pennsylvania while attempting to move out on her husband. As she lay dying of her wounds, Edward Tremmel, texted her father, “I’m sorry that it has to end this way,” then shot himself in the head.
====
Three days after Ashley Jones was murdered by a former partner in Newark, NeShante Alesha Davis, a 26-year-old elementary school teacher, was found shot to death in a parking lot outside of her Fort Washington, Maryland home. She had been heard arguing with Daron Boswell-Johnson, the 25-year-old father of her toddler, over a $600-a-month child support petition. Two-year-old Chloe was found in her car seat, dead of a gunshot wound. Boswell-Johnson has confessed to the murders.

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/woman-shot-killed-frequency-domestic-violence/

My first thought was, "Where are the cops?" Long before these heinous acts turned to murder there was a history of intimate partner violence. In fact, nearly 2 million women and men suffer from intimate partner violence. Maybe I'm just being too damned naïve but I can't help but think if abusers were not free to abuse then 2 million people would be safer and the above would be a non-issue.

The thing of it is: Every one of these murders is a failure (or in some instances, refusal) of the state to act to protect. Moreover, the state is not obligated to act even if a Restraining Order has been issued.

Yet, in spite of this fact, those who would impose nuisance fees and stalling regulations on gun owners are imposing them on the victims of these crimes.

The police cannot, will not and do not have to protect anyone. Therefore, the first, last and best line of defense is the individual.

Consider that women killed by intimate partners will be murdered by gun 55% of the time, that means there is another 45% who will be murdered by a means other than a gun. Some people need to start acting as if that other 45% matter -- and the other 2 million non-murdered victims as well.

GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS THE PROBLEM

But then what struck me was the attending commentary. I can only assume the reason this was posted at the other group was to protect it from comment.

Some states prohibit domestic abusers from possessing guns, some don't. Some states only prohibit abusers from buying guns, not possessing them. Some states prohibit the possession of guns by abusers on a temporary restraining order, others wait until a judge hears the case and adjudicates the order to permanent status (usually two weeks). Almost no states have a mechanism of determining who owns guns and how many. Almost no states have a mechanism of removing guns from the possession of even convicted abusers. Those that do seldom enforce that part of the law. When guns are seized from a domestic abuser it's a simple matter to buy one on the open private market.

I'm not sure why the poster insists on claiming, "Some states...some states...some states" when all states are governed by the Lautenberg Amendment --

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

But I think the poster gives away the game when he writes, "Almost no states have a mechanism of determining who owns guns and how many."

I've seen quite a few intimate partner violence stats in my admittedly meager number of years (more than I wish I had) but I have never seen any stats tied to the number of guns owned. In fact, the number of guns owned appears to be an issue only to the poster.

At this point the whole thing looks like one massive exploitation of victims who need genuine protection, not posturing on their already bruised backs.

Then the poster signs-off with this --

This is a serious issue for women and the men who love them. Pay attention, people.

Yeah, if only.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. I waited over 24 hours

No replies here. Over there (I just checked) 9 recs. No replies there, either.
Nothing to say in reply.

I can only infer as to your puzzle:

I'm not sure why the poster insists on claiming, "Some states...some states...some states" when all states are governed by the Lautenberg Amendment

The only way to actually remove guns requires knowing that they are there. That means either searching (which would require a warrant) or REGISTRATION.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Sadly, DV only seems to be an issue so long as it can be used to advance an agenda.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Such utter BS

Abuse should be an agenda for everyone and DV is everyone's business. Trust me, should anyone in my family or circle of friends have abuse problems, their SO, cohabitator, roommate, cellmate, parent, child... could expect a bit of my swift agenda in their business.

People need to do whatever it takes to help, unite with and share the burdens of anyone abused. There are too many to leave to law enforcement and social workers. We must all get involved.

[pablo_marmol]

4. Infuriating, sickening, hypocritical this. ^^

Yet when a consistently pro-rights Democrat suggests that we pay a severe political price for this brazenly and unapologetically foul behavior, we are dismissed as naive.

Good Dog ------ the stupid. It burns.