cooling off period

[ktgrok]

Maybe part of the problem with gun legislation is that many ideas get lumped into one bill, then picked apart. I'm wondering if a better approach is to start with something simple, not expensive, and fairly easy to implement - a cooling off period before you can take a gun home. I'm thinking this might be something that people on both sides of the aisle could get behind, since we have waiting periods for many other rights in various states in america - from marriage licenses to actual voting. (in my state there is a time period  of 29 days between when you register to vote and when you can actually vote in an election). 

And since the poll is anonymous, maybe we will get a decent idea of people's true feelings on this?

What do you think?

[WildflowerMom]

I voted for longer than two weeks.   
 

a cooling off period is common sense, imo. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by WildflowerMom

[bolt.]

I voted "other" because I think the "cooling off period" should be as long as it takes to arrange for one's self to attend and pass a safety course and have your application looked over for important disclosures and/or to check your references before approval. Maybe there's a course tomorrow? Ok, no problem. How long does the bureaucracy take? Maybe a couple of weeks. Maybe longer. Maybe less.

[Rachel]

I would be ok with different lengths of cooling off periods. Someone who already owns a gun and has for a period of time, military, law enforcement, have a shorter cooling off period than a first time gun owner. 

[HS Mom in NC]

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused.  If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

[bolt.]

7 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused.  If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

It's my understanding that (absent extensive self-defense weapons training) having a firearm on your person or in your dwelling when you are at risk of violence *increases* the probability that the weapon will be used by the assailant against the owner.

If you are going to be assaulted (stalked, threatened, abused) it's best to be assaulted with no firearm nearby. You are more likely to survive the assault. You have no control over whether your assailant will bring one... but you can control whether or not you bring one for him.

Therefore, most gun regulation would keep her safer for longer. Because most gun regulations would make it less likely that she would become another untrained person bringing greater deadly potential into an already volatile situation.

She's safer without a gun.

She's safest if he can't get one either.

Edited June 2, 2022 by bolt.

[kbutton]

Yes, but I don't really know what time period I would suggest. Listening in with what I think will be a good suggestion.

20 minutes ago, Rachel said:

I would be ok with different lengths of cooling off periods. Someone who already owns a gun and has for a period of time, military, law enforcement, have a shorter cooling off period than a first time gun owner. 

And some version of this makes a lot of sense to me. 

[TravelingChris]

24 minutes ago, bolt. said:

I voted "other" because I think the "cooling off period" should be as long as it takes to arrange for one's self to attend and pass a safety course and have your application looked over for important disclosures and/or to check your references before approval. Maybe there's a course tomorrow? Ok, no problem. How long does the bureaucracy take? Maybe a couple of weeks. Maybe longer. Maybe less.

What if you already had a gun course before?   Like both dh had military training and I had law enforcement training.  And as I said, I had to teach my two older kids about gun safety because we lived in an area at that time with criminals running by and possibly disposing of guns they used.

[TravelingChris]

8 minutes ago, bolt. said:

It's my understanding that (absent extensive self-defense weapons training) having a firearm on your person or in your dwelling when you are at risk of violence *increases* the probability that the weapon will be used by the assailant against the owner.

If you are going to be assaulted (stalked, threatened, abused) it's best to be assaulted with no firearm nearby. You are more likely to survive the assault. You have no control over whether your assailant will bring one... but you can control whether or not you bring one for him.

Therefore, most gun regulation would keep her safer for longer. Because most gun regulations would make it less likely that she would become another untrained person bringing greater deadly potential into an already volatile situation.

She's safer without a gun.

She's safest if he can't get one either.

Wrong even the CDC admits that up to 2.1 million guns are used for defensive purposes each year.  We aren;t talking about a woman living with an ex.  Rather, a woman escaping an ex.

[HS Mom in NC]

9 minutes ago, bolt. said:

It's my understanding that (absent extensive self-defense weapons training) having a firearm on your person or in your dwelling when you are at risk of violence *increases* the probability that the weapon will be used by the assailant against the owner.

If you are going to be assaulted (stalked, threatened, abused) it's best to be assaulted with no firearm nearby. You are more likely to survive the assault. You have no control over whether your assailant will bring one... but you can control whether or not you bring one for him.

Therefore, most gun regulation would keep her safer for longer. Because most gun regulations would make it less likely that she would become another untrained person bringing greater deadly potential into an already volatile situation.

She's safer without a gun.

She's safest if he can't get one either.

Knowing 2 people who shot those who were trying to attack them, I'd need to see a link to well done studies to believe you. And the question wasn't about what happens when no one has a gun, it was about a cooling off period. Also, I know several women who were abused without guns and didn't have the physical muscle mass to stop their male assailants, so again, please post a link that takes those factors into account so I can read up on it.

[TravelingChris]

I think that there may be different background check times too.  The first time I bought a gun, I had to come back after a few days. ( and that was a present for dh, just like he bought his first gun as a present for me). It also was before we both had Known Traveler numbers The second time, it was approved while I was in the store though I left it in the gun store to get laser sighting added.

[Pam in CT]

This would only relate to a "cooling off" time period if combined with some sort of sliding-scale time requirement with different intervals based on prior training as some pp have suggested.

But the thought occurs to me that if our gun policies were to require substantive safety training, that would open up new sources of revenue for groups like the NRA (that I believe once provided a fair amount of such safety programming).

[Bootsie]

12 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused.  If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

I was the victim of a serious stalking situation--so serious that I was meeting with homicide detectives.  The only reason I will even mention it on this board is that I know that the stalker has since died.  I had several detectives and those in law enforcement sit me down and encourage me to get a gun.  I have always been anti-gun and the situation cause me to think really long and hard about the situation--not just in theory but in very real terms.  In the end, I made the choice not to get a gun.  But, I was glad was able to make the choice, and I would like other women to be able to make that choice for themselves.   

The stalker would be a person, who when most people talk about limiting access to guns to certain people, would been one of the people who had a gun in those scenarios.  He was in his late 20s, clean cut, college educated, medical military retirement, worked as a security guard, and had gone through the police training school.  

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

To get a conceal carry permit here it usually takes a couple weeks(or six plus months depending on the county). Once you have it, though, you can just go buy a gun.  
My husband has ordered most of his hunting rifles and they usually take about a month to come in.  I’d be in favor of not keeping certain types of guns in stock and having to wait a month for one to come in.

[SKL]

38 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I always ask myself these questions in light of a woman being stalked, threatened, or abused.  If she decides to purchase a gun to protect herself from a man who would disregard a restraining order, would (insert gun regulation here) help keep her safer?

This was my first thought also.

Of course there needs to be training for anyone who doesn't know how to shoot well ... and I don't know how that works exactly for people in short-term danger.  (Would be nice if they could ask the cops to protect them, but that method is not as reliable as it should be.)

[SKL]

24 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Knowing 2 people who shot those who were trying to attack them, I'd need to see a link to well done studies to believe you. And the question wasn't about what happens when no one has a gun, it was about a cooling off period. Also, I know several women who were abused without guns and didn't have the physical muscle mass to stop their male assailants, so again, please post a link that takes those factors into account so I can read up on it.

Yeah, the statistics don't reflect how many bad guys thought, "she has a gun, I'd better find another vent for my frustrations."

[TravelingChris]

Just now, SKL said:

Yeah, the statistics don't reflect how many bad guys thought, "she has a gun, I'd better find another vent for my frustrations."

Actually not only does the CDC have those statistics but I saw another source too.  It happens about 2 million times a year=more than bad shootings do.

[SKL]

Just now, TravelingChris said:

Actually not only does the CDC have those statistics but I saw another source too.  It happens about 2 million times a year=more than bad shootings do.

I mean people who don't even start an attack / break-in, because gun ownership itself is a deterrent.

I agree there are also many situations where attackers have backed off upon seeing the victim with a gun.

[Terabith]

I would really like the CDC to be able to do research on things regarding firearms.  Part of our problems is because our laws prohibit RESEARCH in regard to anything about guns, there's a ton we do not know. 

[Janeway]

I voted other because my vote is yes, but I don’t have any idea as to how long.

[Heartstrings]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

I voted "other" because I think the "cooling off period" should be as long as it takes to arrange for one's self to attend and pass a safety course and have your application looked over for important disclosures and/or to check your references before approval. Maybe there's a course tomorrow? Ok, no problem. How long does the bureaucracy take? Maybe a couple of weeks. Maybe longer. Maybe less.

Just checking, so you’re cooling off period also imagines regulations for applications, disclosures, and reference checks?  Because those are not needed at this time in many states.  Which I’m for, myself.   Just checking because you worded it as though those were already standard.  

[ktgrok]

56 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

What if you already had a gun course before?   Like both dh had military training and I had law enforcement training.  And as I said, I had to teach my two older kids about gun safety because we lived in an area at that time with criminals running by and possibly disposing of guns they used.

Honestly, do you think that you personally need a gun immediately, with no waiting period? 

But fine, for purposes of the poll, lets talk about a waiting period for someone with no other certifications. Assume something may or may not be different for a person with certain additional training. (which, really, in itself is a form of a waiting period, assuming you didn't do the training on the spot, the day you first wanted a gun, you know?) 

Maybe some level of tiered system sort of like how you can go through security faster at an airport if you did additional background check ahead of time. 

 

[Katy]

I put longer than two weeks, but I mean for a license not for every purchase. 

I’d be fine if there was universal gun safety classes required in schools, and a purchasing license required with an age limit of 25, real fingerprint background checks including romantic partners in the past 5 years or parents if there have been no partners, at least 3 other people, and an official licensing training program that takes 3-4 months and requires qualification (cleaning, disassembling, reassembling, and enough practice to achieve tight shot grouping even in stressful circumstances for a license, and re-qualifying requirements annually) mostly because that kind of skill is the only thing that will make a person skilled enough that carrying a gun is going to help them rather than hurt them. 

With that kind of license I’d be okay with no waiting period. 

[ktgrok]

I get the bit about a woman leaving an abusive ex, I just think we have more men buying a gun and shooting their ex than we have women who get one and need it right on the spot, that day, to defend themselves. I think overall more lives saved by preventing spur of the moment purchases. Women leaving an ex generally plan ahead - getting paperwork, stashing money, etc. They could include that waiting period in that time frame, I'd think. 

[TravelingChris]

8 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Just checking, so you’re cooling off period also imagines regulations for applications, disclosures, and reference checks?  Because those are not needed at this time in many states.  Which I’m for, myself.   Just checking because you worded it as though those were already standard.  

There is a federal application that you have to fill out each time.  If by disclosures, you mean does it ask questions- yes, it does,  We did need reference checks for our Concealed weapons permit.  Bur not to buy a gun.  I think that the federal check is better than references.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

I get the bit about a woman leaving an abusive ex, I just think we have more men buying a gun and shooting their ex than we have women who get one and need it right on the spot, that day, to defend themselves. I think overall more lives saved by preventing spur of the moment purchases. Women leaving an ex generally plan ahead - getting paperwork, stashing money, etc. They could include that waiting period in that time frame, I'd think. 

Not to mention a lot of those women end up in prison for murder & their kids are in foster care because instead of a gun they should have kept the cash and called the police to ask for an escort out of town. 

[Pam in CT]

re enabling CDC to collect apples-to-apples gun violence data and to fun research into things regarding firearms

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I would really like the CDC to be able to do research on things regarding firearms.  Part of our problems is because our laws prohibit RESEARCH in regard to anything about guns, there's a ton we do not know. 

The Dickey Amendment that the NRA successfully lobbied for in 2004 and effectively chilled (did not explicitly ban) any CDC funding toward data collection or gun safety research was clarified in 2019 in an omnibus budget bill in the wake of Parkland.  So it's possible for Congress to appropriate funding now, if the will is there.

There's a bill in the Senate now to authorize $50M in CDC funding for such research, if you feel moved to petition your legislator, as is your Constitutional right.   ("I'm calling to ask that the Senator support the passage of S 281, To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention, currently in committee.")

 

[MercyA]

 

1 hour ago, Rachel said:

I would be ok with different lengths of cooling off periods. Someone who already owns a gun and has for a period of time, military, law enforcement, have a shorter cooling off period than a first time gun owner. 

Given that domestic abuse occurs at a higher rate in both military and law enforcement households than in the general population, I'm not sure about this. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

Wrong even the CDC admits that up to 2.1 million guns are used for defensive purposes each year.  We aren;t talking about a woman living with an ex.  Rather, a woman escaping an ex.

I’d like to see the source for that statistic. “Defensive purposes” likely has a wide definition and I’d be willing to bet couples like this would count this as having “defended” themself using their guns:

 

[HS Mom in NC]

7 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

I get the bit about a woman leaving an abusive ex, I just think we have more men buying a gun and shooting their ex than we have women who get one and need it right on the spot, that day, to defend themselves. I think overall more lives saved by preventing spur of the moment purchases. Women leaving an ex generally plan ahead - getting paperwork, stashing money, etc. They could include that waiting period in that time frame, I'd think. 

That doesn't address the stalker issue.  You can't get a police escort round the clock once you know you have a stalker. And imagine yourself telling a woman facing some sort of threat from a man that because more men get guns to threaten women than women get guns to protect themselves, that she shouldn't have immediate access to one.  You wouldn't really say that to her, right?

And it's not just getting out of town and relocating in your new life, abusive men track women down after they leave.  Again, she can't get round the clock police protection in that situation until he shows up later.  

Do other people not personally know abused women and have they not heard the details of their stories? I'm surprised by the comments here that seem to indicate that.

I grew up in a house headed by a single mother in a very rural area before 911.  She kept a loaded shotgun on hand and a wolf-German Shepherd hybrid because calling the police (dial 0 for the operator, have the operator link you to the police station 10+ miles from your home) and wait for them to arrive wasn't going to be fast enough during an attack.  Dialing 911 and having a patrol car within a mile isn't fast enough during an attack. If the assailant and the woman each have a gun, they're more evenly matched than if neither of them do or just he does.

[Heartstrings]

18 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

There is a federal application that you have to fill out each time.  If by disclosures, you mean does it ask questions- yes, it does,  We did need reference checks for our Concealed weapons permit.  Bur not to buy a gun.  I think that the federal check is better 

 

I’m not sure about federal checks being better.  Federal checks do t pick up on someone being married to a violent felon for example.  Or someone being arrested for DV that morning.   A federal background check looking only for convictions and other court judgements misses a lot.  I think reference checks would be good things to add.  
 

I think a lot of people conflate requirements for concealed carry and just a purchase. Maybe that means concealed carry requirements ought to be expanded to all gun purchases. 

[bolt.]

1 hour ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Knowing 2 people who shot those who were trying to attack them, I'd need to see a link to well done studies to believe you. And the question wasn't about what happens when no one has a gun, it was about a cooling off period. Also, I know several women who were abused without guns and didn't have the physical muscle mass to stop their male assailants, so again, please post a link that takes those factors into account so I can read up on it.

This is one of many articles on how having a gun in the home decreases safety. I found dozens of news stories, but couldn't drill down to the actual studies that the news is reporting on.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-02/guns-home-safety-research

[bolt.]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

What if you already had a gun course before?   Like both dh had military training and I had law enforcement training.  And as I said, I had to teach my two older kids about gun safety because we lived in an area at that time with criminals running by and possibly disposing of guns they used.

I would think one gun course and one round of application/background/reference checking would be enough. Maybe just a week of "cooling off" if all of those criteria were met by a previous purchase?

[bolt.]

36 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Just checking, so you’re cooling off period also imagines regulations for applications, disclosures, and reference checks?  Because those are not needed at this time in many states.  Which I’m for, myself.   Just checking because you worded it as though those were already standard.  

I know they are not "standard" -- they are just what I'm in favour of. That's why I couldn't pick a concrete time frame from the list in the poll.

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

That doesn't address the stalker issue. 

The fact is still clear that statistically speaking, the woman or her children are much more likely to be shot by that gun than she is likely to be protected by it. Your story about your mom keeping a loaded shotgun on hand is actually an example of why that is true. Fortunately nothing bad happened, but that is why the gun is more likely to harm herself or children than to help protect her. Further, given the exceedingly low likelihood that the gun would end up protecting her and particularly that it would happen during what otherwise might have been the gun purchase cooling off period, I think it's worth considering if preventing an angry young man from buying a gun and heading to a school to shoot a class full of kids is worth the minute risk that a woman might have used the gun to protect herself during that time period. It's actually statistically likely that some deaths of stalked women's kids would end up being prevented over time as well by reducing kids' access to the gun.

[bolt.]

35 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

That doesn't address the stalker issue.  You can't get a police escort round the clock once you know you have a stalker. And imagine yourself telling a woman facing some sort of threat from a man that because more men get guns to threaten women than women get guns to protect themselves, that she shouldn't have immediate access to one.  You wouldn't really say that to her, right?

I would absolutely say that she shouldn't have immediate access to a gun.

I would also (if she asked my advice) advise her to not even try to get one, and to do her best to not stay in a home that has one.

Further, I'd advise her to stay with family (or with me), not disclose her location, lock her doors, get a dog, keep her cell phone always on her person, and begin taking a self-defense class. (And mind her digital footprint.) (And install cameras and motion detection lights.)

And I'd hope if her stalker caught up with her, she'd emerge injured rather than dead.

Edited June 3, 2022 by bolt.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 minutes ago, bolt. said:

This is one of many articles on how having a gun in the home decreases safety. I found dozens of news stories, but couldn't drill down to the actual studies that the news is reporting on.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-02/guns-home-safety-research

I don't think you read my above comment carefully.  Note the use of the word restraining order.  Restraining orders mean the abuser and the abused don't live together.  The article you linked talked about the abuser killing the abused that they lived with with a gun.  I'm talking about scenarios where the woman is not living with her abuser. 

[AnotherNewName]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Maybe part of the problem with gun legislation is that many ideas get lumped into one bill, then picked apart. I'm wondering if a better approach is to start with something simple, not expensive, and fairly easy to implement - a cooling off period before you can take a gun home. I'm thinking this might be something that people on both sides of the aisle could get behind, since we have waiting periods for many other rights in various states in america - from marriage licenses to actual voting. (in my state there is a time period  of 29 days between when you register to vote and when you can actually vote in an election). 

And since the poll is anonymous, maybe we will get a decent idea of people's true feelings on this?

What do you think?

I picked 72 hours but would be open to others.

I am in 100% agreement with the bolded.

[Heartstrings]

19 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

That doesn't address the stalker issue.  You can't get a police escort round the clock once you know you have a stalker. And imagine yourself telling a woman facing some sort of threat from a man that because more men get guns to threaten women than women get guns to protect themselves, that she shouldn't have immediate access to one.  You wouldn't really say that to her, right?

And it's not just getting out of town and relocating in your new life, abusive men track women down after they leave.  Again, she can't get round the clock police protection in that situation until he shows up later.  

Do other people not personally know abused women and have they not heard the details of their stories? I'm surprised by the comments here that seem to indicate that.

I grew up in a house headed by a single mother in a very rural area before 911.  She kept a loaded shotgun on hand and a wolf-German Shepherd hybrid because calling the police (dial 0 for the operator, have the operator link you to the police station 10+ miles from your home) and wait for them to arrive wasn't going to be fast enough during an attack.  Dialing 911 and having a patrol car within a mile isn't fast enough during an attack. If the assailant and the woman each have a gun, they're more evenly matched than if neither of them do or just he does.

This is a case of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.  A rule that potentially saves many suicides and many mass shootings but has a tiny impact on this one issue is a net gain.  Sure telling the stalked woman that is cold comfort, but so is explaining to a dead child’s mother why her child’s school shooter was able to buy a gun the day before was because a stalked woman might need immediate access.  
 

We could strengthen other ways to protect women, her having a weapon isn’t the only option.  Especially since stalked women seem to be at the top of agenda for everyone today.  

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, bolt. said:

This is one of many articles on how having a gun in the home decreases safety. I found dozens of news stories, but couldn't drill down to the actual studies that the news is reporting on.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-02/guns-home-safety-research

Here's the section of the Harvard Gun Study on self defense:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Quote

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use.  We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.  We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David.  Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.  1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David.  The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events.  Chance (American Statistical Association).  1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David.  The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.  1997; 16:463-469.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

The fact is still clear that statistically speaking, the woman or her children are much more likely to be shot by that gun than she is likely to be protected by it. Your story about your mom keeping a loaded shotgun on hand is actually an example of why that is true. Fortunately nothing bad happened, but that is why the gun is more likely to harm herself or children than to help protect her. Further, given the exceedingly low likelihood that the gun would end up protecting her and particularly that it would happen during what otherwise might have been the gun purchase cooling off period, I think it's worth considering if preventing an angry young man from buying a gun and heading to a school to shoot a class full of kids is worth the minute risk that a woman might have used the gun to protect herself during that time period. It's actually statistically likely that some deaths of stalked women's kids would end up being prevented over time as well by reducing kids' access to the gun.

Again, my experience with real world scenarios doesn't support your theory. Quite the opposite. The link posted by bolt above was a different scenarios than I was talking about-where the abused and abusers do NOT live together.

Are you aware of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US? If just having the gun on hand increases death to non-abusers , then the death rate would be sky high.

Now tell me what the woman with a stalker who has threatened to kill her or an abuser she left is supposed to do when the man shows up to do her harm. Please be specific and take into account the amount of time it takes to call 911 and have an officer on site.

Also, link any studies you have that abusers are less likely to abuse after a legally required cooling off period compared to no cooling off period.

[bolt.]

6 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I don't think you read my above comment carefully.  Note the use of the word restraining order.  Restraining orders mean the abuser and the abused don't live together.  The article you linked talked about the abuser killing the abused that they lived with with a gun.  I'm talking about scenarios where the woman is not living with her abuser. 

No, I was thinking of him as a home intruder, coming after her at home, where she would be the person that 'has a gun in their home'. I wasn't thinking of them living together -- even though the article did talk about that. It also talked about home intruders (though largely in the context of people fearing robbery, I thought fearing a stalker or an invader with some other motive was similar enough).

[KSera]

1 minute ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Are you aware of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US? If just having the gun on hand increases death to non-abusers , then the death rate would be sky high.

It is! Have you seen the gun death rate in the US? It's unparalleled in other similar countries who don't have nearly as many guns and/or have better gun regulations. Having a gun in the house significantly increases the risk of death. It's super, super clear. Whether that be by suicide, by accidental firing, by someone else gaining access to the gun and using it, it's just a well studied fact that it increases the risk.

[HS Mom in NC]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

This is a case of letting the perfect being the enemy of the good.  A rule that potentially saves many suicides and many mass shootings but has a tiny impact on this one issue is a net gain.  Sure telling the stalked woman that is cold comfort, but so is explaining to a dead child’s mother why her child’s school shooter was able to buy a gun the day before was because a stalked woman might need immediate access.  
 

We could strengthen other ways to protect women, her having a weapon isn’t the only option.  Especially since stalked women seem to be at the top of agenda for everyone today.  

 

Stalked women are much more common than mass shooters. Armed stalked women are better equipped to defend themselves than school children.  I don't think making women as vulnerable as school children by denying them the right to defend themselves has more moral merit. Yes, school shootings are a real problem, but making women more vulnerable as a response to it isn't a real solution.

The women I know who used a firearm to protect themselves had no other options that worked.  Men ignore restraining orders. Police can't intervene until a stalker breaks the law, and then someone has to call law enforcement after the law has been broken. That's too late.

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Now tell me what the woman with a stalker who has threatened to kill her or an abuser she left is supposed to do when the man shows up to do her harm. Please be specific and take into account the amount of time it takes to call 911 and have an officer on site.

Also, link any studies you have that abusers are less likely to abuse after a legally required cooling off period compared to no cooling off period.

A number of options have been given here so far, and I think above all, having better help than "buy a gun that is more likely to kill your children" is top priority. Women's shelters can be excellent places for an abused woman to start and provide protection during that immediate very dangerous period (during which she could be waiting for her gun if she so chooses). And I still fully agree with the poster above that, cold comfort though it might be to someone in this circumstance, if this very specific scenario being made a little more difficult prevents classrooms full of kids being shot up or cases like yesterdays medical office shooting where the shooter bought his AR-15 just hours before his rampage, how does one say that's not worth it? Let's protect the woman in other ways and keep the kids and people visiting the grocery store and the doctors office from being shot up while they're there

[bolt.]

3 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

Now tell me what the woman with a stalker who has threatened to kill her or an abuser she left is supposed to do when the man shows up to do her harm. Please be specific and take into account the amount of time it takes to call 911 and have an officer on site.

He's likely to harm her. Possibly badly. Most likely before anyone could possibly help.

He might kill her. Especially if he brought a gun.

If *she* brought a gun, he'd definitely be likely to kill her.

I think you're maybe thinking that having a gun on hand reduces the likelihood that he will injure her, and compassionately, you would rather that she be safe from injury.

I'm thinking that having a gun on hand increases the likelihood that she will die. Compassionately, I'd rather she go through the trauma of surviving those injuries than that she should simply be murdered.

Feeling safer is not the same thing as *being* safer. She may think she can warn him off (or shoot him dead) and nothing bad will happen. Statistics aren't saying that. Statistics are saying that keeping a gun in her home makes her less safe than being in a gun-free home. No matter what he does.

[Heartstrings]

Ok- I think I can fix this whole issue.  A waiting period of 3-14 days WITH a waiver for any person who can show a restraining order or order of protection OR that can show proof of an intimate partner having been arrested in the past 72 hours, it can be sort of a ticket an arresting officer gives at the time of the arrest.  Compromise.  

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

Ok- I think I can fix this whole issue.  A waiting period of 3-14 days WITH a waiver for any person who can show a restraining order or order of protection OR that can show proof of an intimate partner having been arrested in the past 72 hours, it can be sort of a ticket an arresting officer gives at the time of the arrest.  Compromise.  

I think this is a good line of thinking. Hopefully, this would go along with initiating support services for the victim so that they have real support and help and aren't just given a gun to tote around in hopes it keeps them safe and doesn't kill themself or their kids. Are these women going to be given immediate free training to learn to use this gun they just purchased?

[HS Mom in NC]

4 minutes ago, KSera said:

It is! Have you seen the gun death rate in the US? It's unparalleled in other similar countries who don't have nearly as many guns and/or have better gun regulations. Having a gun in the house significantly increases the risk of death. It's super, super clear. Whether that be by suicide, by accidental firing, by someone else gaining access to the gun and using it, it's just a well studied fact that it increases the risk.

But as pointed out upthread, it can't be studied how often guns deter crimes to begin with. People know they're risking getting shot breaking into a home in the US, so only the most crazily motivated people do it. They don't factor in gun training (I'm all for it) and gun storage (again, I'm all for it.)

Again, I'm going to double down-the people I know who used a gun during an attack were saved by it.  You probably don't live under the immediate threat of violence, but others do.  My husband had a female co-worker at the engineering company who had a condition of employment that  she was allowed to have a firearm on her person or at her desk at all times.  The abuse and threats from her abuser were real and the only chance she had in an altercation was that gun. Guns are an equalizer. 

[73349]

52 minutes ago, Katy said:

I’d be fine if there was universal gun safety classes required in schools,

It should be included in the health class curriculum, but no guns should be present; that would lead to accidents.

 

34 minutes ago, HS Mom in NC said:

I grew up in a house headed by a single mother in a very rural area before 911.  She kept a loaded shotgun on hand and a wolf-German Shepherd hybrid because calling the police (dial 0 for the operator, have the operator link you to the police station 10+ miles from your home) and wait for them to arrive wasn't going to be fast enough during an attack.  Dialing 911 and having a patrol car within a mile isn't fast enough during an attack. If the assailant and the woman each have a gun, they're more evenly matched than if neither of them do or just he does.

Not if he has the element of surprise--the dog is probably the key here. A loaded shotgun isn't really "on hand" unless it goes with you everywhere in the home (bathroom? Where does one set it while cooking?), and if it is, it increases the risk of accidents, especially if there are other residents in the home. The Twitter account @Well_Regulated_ is full of examples.