What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Tanasi]

If a firearm in your house is readily accessible by children you are, by definition, an irresponsible gun owner.

That is your opinion and not a fact.

[mjr]

I didn't say it would prevent mass shootings and I didn't move the goal posts. I specifically responded to you saying, and I quote:

You didn't, that's true, but you strongly imply that if people would just lock up their guns, none of this would happen.

You moved the topic to responsible / irresponsible gun owners and proper storage laws are quite obviously a related topic to that. Don't get on my case because you can't keep your argument straight.

It's not a matter of keeping an argument straight. See if you can figure out WHY I brought up responsible gun owners.

As for your repeated attempts to turn gun storage laws into some sort of gotcha moment; I am referring to things such as gun safes, secured containers or trigger locks.

I'm not as stupid as you may think I am. I understand what you're talking about.

[Canarr]

That is your opinion and not a fact.

Are you actually arguing that leaving guns accessible to children in your house is *not* irresponsible?

[Gravekeeper]

That is your opinion and not a fact.

....you can't be serious. Even putting the empirical evidence aside you think it's responsible to leave a firearm around where children can get to it?

You didn't, that's true, but you strongly imply that if people would just lock up their guns, none of this would happen.

I made no such implication.

It's not a matter of keeping an argument straight. See if you can figure out WHY I brought up responsible gun owners.

I know exactly why you did. You brought it up in response to Greenday bringing up an incident of irresponsible handling of a firearm leading to an accidental death. Me bringing up the idea of safe handling and storage of firearms is completely within that topic and the ensuing conversation.

So again, keep your argument straight and don't blame me if you can't follow a topic you yourself began.

I'm not as stupid as you may think I am. I understand what you're talking about.

If you understood what I was talking about there was absolutely zero need for you to act like an asshole and repeatedly demand "proper according to who". Like you were fishing for some sort of gotcha answer.

If you want a discuss a topic, fine. But if you're just going to keep trying to start shit like this then leave me alone and go back to bothering Greenday.

I stand corrected.
We certainly do a better job offering women assistance in cases of DV than men.

While true, the sad fact of the matter is that's pretty much saying we suck at all these things but REALLY suck at this one thing in particular. I mean, I've been there in terms of being on the receiving end of DV and yeah, the dynamics and social exceptions around it suck ass. I didn't know what to do except just put up with it.

But I also know that when it comes to DV I'm the minority by a pretty huge margin.

Honestly, I would prefer looking at the broader sense of violence against people of any gender.

By all indications, DV is a cycle. Children who suffered from violence are more likely to turn around and commit violence in turn when they establish their own families. Men are more likely than women to kill their partner; women are more likely than men to kill their children. In many cases, there is a strong link to poverty, mental health issues, and substance abuse. That is where the problem lies, not in retroactive fingerpointing.

Honestly, I can't agree with you there because one side of the gender equation has disproportionately been on the receiving end of it since time immemorial. And its still not taken seriously enough in many places. Women make up the vast majority of DV victims and the severity of violence used against them is likewise greater than male DV victims. Like it or not there's an ingrained sense of culturally acceptance when it comes to violence against women that we're still moving past.

With some countries are moving quite a bit slower than others.

But saying that doesn't mean that it doesn't occur the other way or that male victims deserve any less support.


As for it being a cycle, that's true in a clinical sense. But honestly the biggest drivers are culturally / societal / religious in nature. Which in turn is helping create that cycle in the first place. I would say that substance abuse is just an aggravating factor and mental illness is a fairly rare factor. As violence and mental illness don't actually go together that often despite media stereotypes.

You might be right there; small towns are always a bit slower in changing than larger communities. Not to mention fewer options - can't just go to another precinct if there's only one police station in town.

My father had basically gone to high school with half the cops on the force at our local precinct. Larger towns you can get around this by going to the RCMP instead of the police ( RCMP officers are assigned to location according to need ). But back in those days not every small town had an RCMP detachment as well.

I don't remember him being completely removed from day to day life until the courts got involved and awarded my mom full custody. Fortunately, the judiciary was far far less impressed with my father's track record than the police were.

[mjr]

I made no such implication.

Oh, really?

zero need for you to act like an asshole

Oh, go look in a mirror. You know as well as I do that "proper" means different things to different people.

[Canarr]

Honestly, I can't agree with you there because one side of the gender equation has disproportionately been on the receiving end of it since time immemorial. And its still not taken seriously enough in many places. Women make up the vast majority of DV victims and the severity of violence used against them is likewise greater than male DV victims. Like it or not there's an ingrained sense of culturally acceptance when it comes to violence against women that we're still moving past.

With some countries are moving quite a bit slower than others.

But saying that doesn't mean that it doesn't occur the other way or that male victims deserve any less support.

The 18% I quoted from Germany is merely the percentage of charges filed by men, and that's still one in five. There have been studies done - here's an article about a study from the UK - that show far larger numbers of male victims:

Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.

But even beside that: to claim that there is any kind of "cultural acceptance" of violence against women is ridiculous. There are awareness days for violence against women, there are programs against it, there are shelters and support lines and trained therapists. Any depiction of violence by men against women in the media is scandalized, while vioence by women against men is depicted as funny.

Violence against women is fought on every conceivable level. Violence against men is accepted with a shrug at most. Even by you. "Yeah, sure, men are victims of DV, too. And we should definitely get around to doing something against that, sometime. But let's talk about women, because that's more important."

[s_stabeler]

That is your opinion and not a fact.

um, no, it IS a fact that leaving a firearm where a child can readily access it is irresponsible, and I speak as someone who had great fun shooting an air rifle when they were 15 or 16 (I can't remember my exact age then)- the relatives who owned the guns quite properly kept them where I couldn't find them, with the ammo kept separate.

Leaving a gun where a kid can easily find it is all but asking for the kid to accidentally shoot themself. It doesn't have to be impossible for the kid to get to- just difficult enough that the kid's not going to be playing with it.

[Gravekeeper]

You know as well as I do that "proper" means different things to different people.

I know that, but seeing as you straight up just said that you understood what I meant your point is irrelevant. You can't claim to understand what I meant and feign ignorance in the same breath. Either you knew what I meant and were intentionally being a dick about it or you did not know what I meant and made a false statement.

Pick one.

But even beside that: to claim that there is any kind of "cultural acceptance" of violence against women is ridiculous. There are awareness days for violence against women, there are programs against it, there are shelters and support lines and trained therapists. Any depiction of violence by men against women in the media is scandalized, while vioence by women against men is depicted as funny.

I think you're making the mistake of looking at just Germany(?) The countries with the worst levels of domestic violence against women are ones where its culturally and/or religiously acceptable. India being one of the prime examples. But similar trends pan out in conservative areas of even western nations.

My grandparents on my father's side were deeply conservative Catholics. They went to the grave wondering why my mom divorced my dad just because he beat the shit out of her. It wasn't a deal breaker to them and they were genuinely baffled why my mom would divorce him over it. They pestered her for years afterwards to give him another chance.

Violence against women is fought on every conceivable level. Violence against men is accepted with a shrug at most. Even by you. "Yeah, sure, men are victims of DV, too. And we should definitely get around to doing something against that, sometime. But let's talk about women, because that's more important."

That's an unfair characterization. I clearly stated in the post you quoted that my acknowledgement of the problem disproportionately affecting women did not mean that men did not likewise deserve support.

[Tanasi]

um, no, it IS a fact that leaving a firearm where a child can readily access it is irresponsible, and I speak as someone who had great fun shooting an air rifle when they were 15 or 16 (I can't remember my exact age then)- the relatives who owned the guns quite properly kept them where I couldn't find them, with the ammo kept separate.

Leaving a gun where a kid can easily find it is all but asking for the kid to accidentally shoot themself. It doesn't have to be impossible for the kid to get to- just difficult enough that the kid's not going to be playing with it.

It is not a fact, millions of kids grow up around loaded firearms that are readily available and do not touch them without permission. They are able to control and behave themselves. It's a shame they are the exception and not the rule. Why do you think you couldn't control yourself around what is basically a toy?

[Canarr]

I think you're making the mistake of looking at just Germany(?) The countries with the worst levels of domestic violence against women are ones where its culturally and/or religiously acceptable. India being one of the prime examples. But similar trends pan out in conservative areas of even western nations.

My grandparents on my father's side were deeply conservative Catholics. They went to the grave wondering why my mom divorced my dad just because he beat the shit out of her. It wasn't a deal breaker to them and they were genuinely baffled why my mom would divorce him over it. They pestered her for years afterwards to give him another chance.

I wasn't looking just at Germany; but neither was I including non-Western countries, admittedly. There's just too little common ground there to make any kind of informed statement that could cover them all. Also, the public reactions to violence that I listed - There are awareness days for violence against women, there are programs against it, there are shelters and support lines and trained therapists. Any depiction of violence by men against women in the media is scandalized, while vioence by women against men is depicted as funny. - are, of course, taken from Western countries. I don't know if India or Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries offer anything similar.

The fact that your Catholic grandparents - who, I'm guessing, were born sometime between WWI and WWII? - held different views on divorce is hardly surprising, if you consider that women's liberation was mostly a thing of the 60s and 70s and beyond. They grew up in different times.

But if you look at modern time? The last 20-30 years? Where do you see any other reaction but instant condemnation in public discourses on violence against women?

That's an unfair characterization. I clearly stated in the post you quoted that my acknowledgement of the problem disproportionately affecting women did not mean that men did not likewise deserve support.

No, I don't think it is. Because male victims are not getting support when they are DV victims - as I outlined using Germany as example. Is it any different in Canada? 21% of DV victims are male; is that anywhere near the percentage of support groups or shelters available for male victims?

You argue that since four out of five DV victims are women, measures for them take priority - at the same time entirely ignoring the fact that there are none of the protective options available for men that women can make use of in DV situations.

Yet with homicide victims, where only one in five are women, you still argue they need special protections because they are mostly killed by current or former partners rather than strangers.

You don't see how these positions are somewhat difficult to consolidate?

It is not a fact, millions of kids grow up around loaded firearms that are readily available and do not touch them without permission. They are able to control and behave themselves. It's a shame they are the exception and not the rule. Why do you think you couldn't control yourself around what is basically a toy?

Children are not able to "control and behave" themselves. Understanding of consequences and good judgement are things that don't develop until later childhood (and then actually worsen again once puberty's hormones kick in).

Check out this study here on the likelihood of boys picking up and playing with guns they find (spoiler: high). Or this study on how well children are able to put gun-safety lessons to use in real life (spoiler: not well).

[s_stabeler]

It is not a fact, millions of kids grow up around loaded firearms that are readily available and do not touch them without permission. They are able to control and behave themselves. It's a shame they are the exception and not the rule. Why do you think you couldn't control yourself around what is basically a toy?

1. something that could kill someone if they were shot with it isn't a toy. You're thinking of BB guns or paintball markers- and even BB guns can injure, and I think in extreme cases kill.
2. because while it's true that millions of kids don't touch firearms without permission, it's also not exactly difficult to ensure the gun is stored securely enough the kid can't get to it anyway.
3. the same precautions also help prevent the gun getting stolen.

And I, as it happens, could control myself. However, I was also responsible enough to know that it was a reasonable precaution.

[Gravekeeper]

It is not a fact, millions of kids grow up around loaded firearms that are readily available and do not touch them without permission. They are able to control and behave themselves. It's a shame they are the exception and not the rule. Why do you think you couldn't control yourself around what is basically a toy?

Well, first of all:

https://everytownresearch.org/notanaccident/

You're averaging one person shot by a toddler every week.

Second of all, you just said that children who don't touch firearms are the exception. Not the rule. Thereby contradicting your own argument. >.>

I wasn't looking just at Germany; but neither was I including non-Western countries, admittedly. There's just too little common ground there to make any kind of informed statement that could cover them all. Also, the public reactions to violence that I listed - There are awareness days for violence against women, there are programs against it, there are shelters and support lines and trained therapists. Any depiction of violence by men against women in the media is scandalized, while vioence by women against men is depicted as funny. - are, of course, taken from Western countries. I don't know if India or Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries offer anything similar.

You really, really need to look at non-western countries. India is a particularly bad example. They're still split on whether beating your wife is even considered a crime and they cover up the actual rates of DV they have when it comes to official numbers. It's pretty ugly in places like Russia too. Where there are similar attitudes of beating your wife being a private family matter. The view being that it's not considered a crime, it's basically just embarrassing.

The fact that your Catholic grandparents - who, I'm guessing, were born sometime between WWI and WWII? - held different views on divorce is hardly surprising, if you consider that women's liberation was mostly a thing of the 60s and 70s and beyond. They grew up in different times.

But if you look at modern time? The last 20-30 years? Where do you see any other reaction but instant condemnation in public discourses on violence against women?

While they weren't fans of divorce ( despite most of their kids having at least one ) that wasn't the root objection. They legitimately didn't see smacking our wife around every now and then as any kind of problem. Embarrassing to the family if it came up in conversation? Sure. But a crime? No. In their view it was essentially the man's right to smack his wife around now and then. It was an acceptable thing that men did in "private" to their wives and it wasn't anyone else's business.

It's a view that clings to any deeply patriarchal religion that has its roots in the woman being basically property of her husband. Christianity and Islam are two of the worst offenders when it comes to DV and yes it's still around in modern times. With more conservative churches going so far as to cover it up or urge women not to speak out about it. Which, for the record, is exactly what my grandparents church told my mom ( that it was a private family matter and she shouldn't go to the police ) and one of the biggest reasons she left their church and took me with her.

You argue that since four out of five DV victims are women, measures for them take priority - at the same time entirely ignoring the fact that there are none of the protective options available for men that women can make use of in DV situations.

There's nothing wrong with me pointing out that women do, by an overwhelming margin, suffering more from domestic violence. In terms of volume, severity and negative outcomes ( injury, PTSD, death, so on and so forth ). The problem for women is worse, by far. Which, as I said, does not mean male victims do not deserve support. But it pretty clearly demonstrates this is not an issue that has gender parity.

If anything I'm finding your rather rosy view of the situation to be kind of confusing.

Also yes, for the record both the US and Canada do have DV resources for men and DV hotlines in both countries cater to both genders. With more focused groups in some states and provinces. While its true there isn't as many resources as those available to women, it's likewise not as if there are zero resources.

If there's a target to work on for male DV victims its in overcoming the cultural hurdles of acknowledging you're experiencing DV and getting the proper assistance. Men aren't typically raised to recognize violence against themselves in a relationship as DV. Nor does anyone tell them along the way.

As I said before, I was a victim of domestic violence in a relationship in my 20s. I can tell you in complete honesty, looking back on it, that it never occurred to me at the time that I was experiencing domestic violence. I took the hits ( and even a chair once ) without ever mentally coming to the realization that it was DV. I did make the same rationalizations for my partner that a female victim would, but I was young and no one ever sat me down and told me that this was DV.

Much progress has been made in this area for male DV victims in recent years. But it was a bit too little too late for me. Though again, I had a better outcome than a female victim would have in the same scenario. I could at least restrain my partner via size/strength advantage.

You don't see how these positions are somewhat difficult to consolidate?

No, I do not. When you compare statistics like this you compare rate, not volume and having just over half of women murdered being the result of intimate partners is deeply troubling. That men get murdered more often doesn't change that and addressing the danger of being killed by an intimate partner is a vastly different problem than addressing the danger of simply being murdered.

When it comes to homicide via an intimate partner there's an entire history of numerous warning signs / red flags leading up to the homicide. Which we're clearly not very good at recognizing and intervening in given that a little over half of women killed are the result of that.

[s_stabeler]

Though again, I had a better outcome than a female victim would have in the same scenario. I could at least restrain my partner via size/strength advantage.

unfortunately, the fact that- on average- men tend to have a size/strength advantage (or at least perceived as having one) is one reason for the difference in how they're treated.It's too easy- even if it shouldn't be- for people to rationalise "if they didn't like it, they could prevent it" (In case it's not obvious, I don't endorse said position)

[Gravekeeper]

unfortunately, the fact that- on average- men tend to have a size/strength advantage (or at least perceived as having one) is one reason for the difference in how they're treated.It's too easy- even if it shouldn't be- for people to rationalise "if they didn't like it, they could prevent it" (In case it's not obvious, I don't endorse said position)

Indeed. Though by the same measure there's the opposite argument "If it was really that bad she'd just leave him". Both arguments are along the same track; That it's either not as serious as the victim makes it out to be and/or it's somehow the victim's fault for remaining in the situation. In my case I was financially trapped with my partner and she kept her most violent behaviour away from anyone else's eyes. Though she was not above mortifying public outbursts that made everyone in earshot uncomfortable and people usher their children away.

Both arguments typically come from the mouths of assholes though.

[Canarr]

You really, really need to look at non-western countries. India is a particularly bad example. They're still split on whether beating your wife is even considered a crime and they cover up the actual rates of DV they have when it comes to official numbers. It's pretty ugly in places like Russia too. Where there are similar attitudes of beating your wife being a private family matter. The view being that it's not considered a crime, it's basically just embarrassing.

Why? Why would I need to look at non-Western countries? They are in an entirely different place when it comes to equality rights than either Germany, Canada, or the US. We're talking about the issues that men and women have in Western countries, so how exactly is India relevant in that discussion?

While they weren't fans of divorce ( despite most of their kids having at least one ) that wasn't the root objection. They legitimately didn't see smacking our wife around every now and then as any kind of problem. Embarrassing to the family if it came up in conversation? Sure. But a crime? No. In their view it was essentially the man's right to smack his wife around now and then. It was an acceptable thing that men did in "private" to their wives and it wasn't anyone else's business.

It's a view that clings to any deeply patriarchal religion that has its roots in the woman being basically property of her husband. Christianity and Islam are two of the worst offenders when it comes to DV and yes it's still around in modern times. With more conservative churches going so far as to cover it up or urge women not to speak out about it. Which, for the record, is exactly what my grandparents church told my mom ( that it was a private family matter and she shouldn't go to the police ) and one of the biggest reasons she left their church and took me with her.

No argument there; neither Islam or Christianity are very good at going with the times. The stronger the church, the more difficult it is for modern ideas of gender equality to prevail.

There's nothing wrong with me pointing out that women do, by an overwhelming margin, suffering more from domestic violence. In terms of volume, severity and negative outcomes ( injury, PTSD, death, so on and so forth ). The problem for women is worse, by far. Which, as I said, does not mean male victims do not deserve support. But it pretty clearly demonstrates this is not an issue that has gender parity.

If anything I'm finding your rather rosy view of the situation to be kind of confusing.

Also yes, for the record both the US and Canada do have DV resources for men and DV hotlines in both countries cater to both genders. With more focused groups in some states and provinces. While its true there isn't as many resources as those available to women, it's likewise not as if there are zero resources.

If there's a target to work on for male DV victims its in overcoming the cultural hurdles of acknowledging you're experiencing DV and getting the proper assistance. Men aren't typically raised to recognize violence against themselves in a relationship as DV. Nor does anyone tell them along the way.

As I said before, I was a victim of domestic violence in a relationship in my 20s. I can tell you in complete honesty, looking back on it, that it never occurred to me at the time that I was experiencing domestic violence. I took the hits ( and even a chair once ) without ever mentally coming to the realization that it was DV. I did make the same rationalizations for my partner that a female victim would, but I was young and no one ever sat me down and told me that this was DV.

Much progress has been made in this area for male DV victims in recent years. But it was a bit too little too late for me. Though again, I had a better outcome than a female victim would have in the same scenario. I could at least restrain my partner via size/strength advantage.

Then Canada is a lot further than Germany is, I guess. We haven't really seen any significant progress in dealing with male victims of DV; men are still very much the perpetrators here, and women the victims.

No, I do not. When you compare statistics like this you compare rate, not volume and having just over half of women murdered being the result of intimate partners is deeply troubling. That men get murdered more often doesn't change that and addressing the danger of being killed by an intimate partner is a vastly different problem than addressing the danger of simply being murdered.

When it comes to homicide via an intimate partner there's an entire history of numerous warning signs / red flags leading up to the homicide. Which we're clearly not very good at recognizing and intervening in given that a little over half of women killed are the result of that.

I *am* looking at the rate in statistics; and the rate of homicide victims out of DV victims is minuscule - less than 1,500 out of 4.7 million. Sure, it's obvious in hindsight; but what kind of red flag would you suggest actually looking for in advance? How would you go about identifying the that fraction of murder victims before it happens?

Don't get me wrong - advising people (of both genders) to seek help when they're victims of DV is good in and of itself, whether or not you expect them to end up dead or "only" hospitalized. Which actually is one of the most important weapons in fighting DV: education. Offering hotlines, and commercials, and poster lines or flyers teaching young people that yes, what is happening to them is DV, and they don't have to accept that, and there is a way out. Whether they are a young wife in some rural backwater town who's only church has been preaching a husband's right to discipline his wife, or a young Canadian in their 20s getting beaten by his girlfriend.

If people know DV when they experience it, then they have a better chance at making the decision to leave; and if they see that there are options available to them, then maybe they won't stick around because they think there's no way for them to go.

Which, incidentally, is also why the complete lack of resources for male victims of DV in Germany pisses me off so much. Because there is no education, and there are no options available. There are helping hands for women; sure, there could probably be more. But there are currently none for men, so I'm thinking that should be remedied first, before we look at what more could be done for women. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

unfortunately, the fact that- on average- men tend to have a size/strength advantage (or at least perceived as having one) is one reason for the difference in how they're treated.It's too easy- even if it shouldn't be- for people to rationalise "if they didn't like it, they could prevent it" (In case it's not obvious, I don't endorse said position)

It's always easy to judge others' deeds when you've never been in the same situation yourself.

A couple of months ago, there was a case in Bonn here in Germany, where a man robbed a young couple out camping at knifepoint, then demanded the woman have sex with him, or he would hurt them both. She managed to get their attacker outside the tent, so her boyfriend could use his phone to call the cops, and submitted to the rape. Holy shit, the boyfriend got eviscerated in the comments section under every online article on the case - mostly by other men who of course detailed what they would've done to the attacker, but surprisingly often by women accusing him of not protecting "his girl".

Both arguments typically come from the mouths of assholes though.

Precisely.