Langenator
Member
It's not really pro- or anti-gun. It says that guns are responsible for the plurality of domestic violence homicides. But it also acknowledges the usefulness of guns for self defense. Complicated, but IMO intellectually honest.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/165192_gunsed.html
-----------
Foiling gun crimes starts with sensible steps
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
When domestic violence escalates to homicide, a gun is the weapon of choice. So it's logical to attempt to literally disarm a potentially dangerous situation.
Of the domestic violence related killings in Washington in 2002, about 40 percent were committed with a firearm. Over five years, firearms were used in 60 percent of domestic violence killings.
Possession of a firearm is illegal under state law for someone convicted of certain domestic violence crimes -- including violation of a no-contact order -- and under federal law for someone under a no-contact order. But a story by Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Hector Castro shows that such laws often go unenforced.
We commend the King County's Sheriff's Office and district court judges for cooperating on a system to remove the firearms catalyst from explosive domestic situations.
Something as basic as requiring that a deputy responding to a domestic violence call check for firearms and any existing no-contact orders is essential. Essential too is a system for collecting, cataloging and -- when appropriate -- returning the firearms to their owners.
There is no single solution to domestic violence. Roughly half of these killings in Washington were committed with weapons other than firearms, and victims of abuse may be less safe without access to a firearm for protection against an abuser.
Nonetheless, firearms laws should be rigorously enforced, especially in situations where the potential for homicidal violence is so pronounced.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/165192_gunsed.html
-----------
Foiling gun crimes starts with sensible steps
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
When domestic violence escalates to homicide, a gun is the weapon of choice. So it's logical to attempt to literally disarm a potentially dangerous situation.
Of the domestic violence related killings in Washington in 2002, about 40 percent were committed with a firearm. Over five years, firearms were used in 60 percent of domestic violence killings.
Possession of a firearm is illegal under state law for someone convicted of certain domestic violence crimes -- including violation of a no-contact order -- and under federal law for someone under a no-contact order. But a story by Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Hector Castro shows that such laws often go unenforced.
We commend the King County's Sheriff's Office and district court judges for cooperating on a system to remove the firearms catalyst from explosive domestic situations.
Something as basic as requiring that a deputy responding to a domestic violence call check for firearms and any existing no-contact orders is essential. Essential too is a system for collecting, cataloging and -- when appropriate -- returning the firearms to their owners.
There is no single solution to domestic violence. Roughly half of these killings in Washington were committed with weapons other than firearms, and victims of abuse may be less safe without access to a firearm for protection against an abuser.
Nonetheless, firearms laws should be rigorously enforced, especially in situations where the potential for homicidal violence is so pronounced.
