“It’s always going to be hard to know if you prevented a homicide. What we’re looking for is compliance with the orders in terms of guns surrendered, and generally, seeing if homicides are down.” – Dallas Criminal Court Judge Roberto Cañas in Domestic Violence Offenders in Dallas Are Surrendering Guns Under New Program [via nbcnews.com] [h/t mister3d]
Read the article. Not sure what point you are trying to get across with this quote.
I read the article and gagged at the equivalence made between domestic violence and terrorism by the Dallas mayor.
That’s the kind of political grandstanding and hyperbole that causes more problems than it solves.
Another, FTFA:
“The Dallas-Fort Worth metro area had 38 domestic violence homicides in 2013 — the most of any metro area in the state, “
May well be a meaningless statement. What’s the per capita rate?
Looks like an attempt at manipulation-by-numbers. At least give me both actual number and the rate and let me compare.
As for the problem with the posted quote…yeah, actual data analysis can be a tough thing. So, why bother, right? Just make some dumb butt assumption that ANY seeming correlation with your preconceived expectation is real causation, right?
Do I agree that if a Judge issues an order restricting the accused from possessing firearms, if the accused has had his day in court and with the judge listening to all evidence (not just one sided), Yes.
Do I agree there is no system to track firearms in certain states (mine included) to prevent the accused from having any firearm, Yes.
Do I agree we ought to have a system tracking firearms, No.
I also agree with you on the number of total homicides and not looking at the per capita rate. Yes.
Is the article poorly written with obvious bias, absolutely.
Is data analysis like what he judge is quoting bad. I don’t think so.
I just don’t see what this quote in and of itself has to do with restricting firearms from people LEGALLY allowed to have them.
It must have been a slow day for finding quotes to use for this daily topic. I say if you can’t find a good quote, don’t use a bad quote just to publish something and to me this is a bad quote with no point.
“I just don’t see what this quote in and of itself has to do with restricting firearms from people LEGALLY allowed to have them.
It must have been a slow day for finding quotes to use for this daily topic. I say if you can’t find a good quote, don’t use a bad quote just to publish something and to me this is a bad quote with no point.”
I understand your objection, but I think it is relevant.
It shows the willingness of those “in power” to pretty much make stuff up. This judge is admitting that “they” don’t have much data, and that they do have they don’t really understand, but he’s perfectly willing to let any data fit his preconceived conclusions.
There’s danger in that. And, it’s relevant to the gun rights of law abiding people because if he can make those assumptions in this case, he can do it for us, too.
Baby steps on the slippery slope…
Well, when you consider that the DFW “metroplex” is one of the largest urban concentrations–if not the largest– in America–that really is a meaningless statement. 38 of anything doesn’t sound like a very big number in that context.
And when you consider that statement came from the Texas Council on Family Violence, even more skepticism is in order. I actually applied for a legal position with that outfit years ago. The job posting actually said that the applicants needed to have a “feminist orientation”. I applied mostly to see if they were serious. They were. (Oddly enough, the half-dozen or so people on the interview panel were all women. Imagine that).
Government hates civilian guns. That will always be the case.
He who is armed prefers those around him/her be unarmed.
Any excuse that will get that to happen will always be good to any government, even our own.
Very true. When we began, there was shall not be infringed and government had to eventually be very creative to infringe. Now, it can throw out any excuse and the People have to fight their way back to the exercise of the right. It’s backwards and dangerous to Liberty.
What he’s suggesting by posting this quote, is that even the judge himself is skeptical as to whether this firearm confiscation scheme will have any positive at all, let alone a measurable one, or even whether such an impact can ever be known.
It’s security theater whereby the government immediately and permanenetly tramples someone’s rights today, supposedly in the name of some greater good like domestic violence prevention, which may or may not have some undetectable benefit in the future.
This quote reflects that cavalier mindset typical of gun grabbers.
I don’t see the judges quote that he is trying to fit a preconceived conclusion. I see it as him saying, “We don’t have data now, so let’s get the data and see what it tells us”.
Either way you look at it, the bottom line is should these people that have court orders stating they shouldn’t have guns, not actually have guns and what can we do to prevent them from having them.
Whether you believe judges issue these orders regularly on a whim or actually have a valid reason to issue them is up for discussion.
Even if it were just a matter of data collection, there’s still the issue of what he’s perfectly at ease in doing to collect it; namely, snatch your civil rights.
Suppose his hypothesis weren’t “Taking guns from domestic abusers might reduce murder rates”, but rather “Taking guns from men (or everyone) might reduce murder rates.” What then? The fact remains he’s willing to experiment with your rights.
Why not imprison every guy who’s ever come on a little too strong at a bar, on the off chance that might reduce rapes? Same game with rigged results.
You don’t roll the dice on rights.
” An abuser can fail to say he has a firearm, legal or otherwise. Victims don’t always know a gun exists. And few states keep centralized gun ownership records that would reveal whether the abuser has a firearm.”
Ah, there it is; “centralized gun ownership records.” Figured they’d wiggle that in there.
The bloody shirt they are waving is suspect; they say ” …the nightmare escalated when Ferdinand Glen Smith managed to secure a gun he should never have had.” Since they didn’t say it was officially stolen/straw bought, I’m assuming they don’t actually KNOW. And it looks like the hospital where he shot her is gun free, to boot. If there is going to be an inquisition against alleged abusers, I would at least hope they could be honest about some basic facts. Instead, it seems as though this is a repeat of that ridiculous anti-open carry testimony in the TX house last week.
Those in charge of a Gun-Free Zone should be held responsible for the safety of all people in the Zone since those in charge have taken on the responsibility to create the unarmed victims.
Right. And every airline is responsible for supplying you with a sex partner and privacy booth, since they won’t allow you Mile High Club membership in your seat or in the toilet with your spouse.
It’s private property. Don’t like someone’s gun or public sex policies? Then don’t go there. That’s the mutually voluntary agreement between proprietor and customer you consent to. Or don’t.
It also means you don’t get to go crying to the government to impose, by force of arms, new and unilateral terms upon the business. That erodes their property rights and transfers a benefit to you that you tried and failed to obtain by voluntary agreement.
That’s called statism and it’s just as ugly and immoral under the battle cry “It’s for my God-given right to keep and bear arms!” as it is under the more pithy “It’s for the children!”
If private property rights do indeed trump all else and to continue your absurd argument to its illogical conclusion, why can’t a property owner take you as a slave if you have the misfortune to wander onto their property (their property, their rules, right?). This makes about as much sense as your specious mile-high club example.
umm–if you agree to go there with knowledge of that condition, maybe he can, as long as you continue to stay there voluntarily. . The point is no one is forcing you to go onto someone else’s property. If you do, you are putting yourself in the position of either abiding by the owner’s rules or leaving. This isn’t rocket science.
So you’re taking my point, premised on mutual, voluntary agreement upon terms, and replacing it with your own point about an individual “wandering” (I’ll take that as inadvertently) onto someone else’s property, where they have no idea the rules and no reasonable expectation of what those rules might be?
How is that at all a valid comparison, when there’s nothing mutual or voluntary about your counter example? If you’re just going to play cutesy and evade my point with your jiggery-pokery, then we’ve gone as far as we can with this conversation.
+1
Considering that our spouses can easily off us while we’re sleeping…
Read the linked article:
The showcase story about the unfortunate murder victim Karen Smith seems to be plucked out because it made headlines.
“The nightmare escalated when Ferdinand Glen Smith managed to secure a gun he should never have had.”
The main story is about confiscating guns from abusers and then used the Smith story that shows that an abuser went and got a gun, thus rendering this confiscation effort unrelated. Someone intent on murder especially in an abuse case is motivated and acquisition of a firearm is barely a speed bump.
So they didn’t even use a case where they failed to confiscate and then the murder happened.
Key chain pepper spray??
Ms. Smith should have partnered with Mr. Wesson.
It is hard to know how many will become victims when law abiding citizens are disarmed.
SCIENCE! and poetry in motion…no I don’t plan on reading this…
The Science of Soviet Socialism.
I guess gun control is a lot more “art” than “science”, huh? Or better yet, “artiface”.
When you don the black robe, correlation is causation.
I think he’s onto something. After all, there was no such thing as domestic violence before gunpowder was invented. Men just looked at their fists and knives and growled in frustration, not having any outlet for their anger.
Here is the tell tale quote in the article:
“An abuser can fail to say he has a firearm, legal or otherwise. Victims don’t always know a gun exists. And few states keep centralized gun ownership records that would reveal whether the abuser has a firearm.”
They are concerned about the absence of registries of gun owners and guns.
Comments are closed.