The NRA Rides To The Rescue Of Men Who Beat Up Their Dates In Louisiana

[flamin lib]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/19/3660370/nra-rides-rescue-men-beat-dates-louisiana/

If a man in New Orleans drives over to his girlfriend’s home and beats her senseless, the National Rifle Association has his back.

Under existing Louisiana law, a person convicted of using “force or violence” against another member of their “household” loses their right to possess a firearm. If someone abuses a romantic partner that they do not live with, however, they are still allowed to carry a gun.

State Rep. Helena Moreno (D) hoped to close this loophole with legislation that expanded the state’s definition of domestic abuse battery to include violence against a “household member, family member or dating partner.” Thus, a man who beats his girlfriend would not be able to remain armed simply because the two of them live apart. The bill, however, was watered down considerably — among other things, it no longer includes violence against a “dating partner” in the definition of domestic abuse battery — thanks to objections from the NRA.

The watered down bill also includes several other changes that were made after the NRA objected to the original bill. It no longer expands the state’s definition of “serious bodily injury” to include strangulation. It no longer creates a felony-level crime of stalking. And it no longer provides that a person convicted of stalking cannot possess a firearm.

The NRA blocked expanding the law to "dating partners" because, and the spokesperson really said this, "it could apply after only one date." So it's OK to beat someone on the first date? Really? That's all ya got?

The NRA also objected to categorizing strangulation as an act of violence. So go ahead, choke her into unconsciousness but don't hit her unless it's on the first date, then have at it.

[samsingh]

1. the NRA hates spouses

[niyad]

2. well, after all, guns are far more imporant than women.

[erronis]

5. A 22 bore should be adequate for their fantasies.

[AuntPatsy]

3. .

[lark]

4. Of course the NRA would support that.

More guns = more murders = more guns bought for protections = more murders. That's the only thing they care about, more guns.

[-none]

6. Just like the war on terror, huh?

The more terrorist we kill, the more terrorist there are, so we can kill them in turn, creating even more terrorists in turn. A never ending escalation for the profits of a few.

[beerdragon]

7. checking some facts to support you

I was curious so I looked up the CDC report on homicides, percentage of homicides by firearms, also by population. To my surprise, we were 28th position in the world yet we have 50% of the world's civilian gun ownership within only 5% of the world's population. Also,of our numbers of firearm deaths 60% of those were suicide. I also checked out in the US, which town/cities had the highest firearm per capita, they also had the lowest violent crime rate. So it actually made me think that maybe it did do something for safety. Sorta like Robert Heinlein's quote in the book Starship Troopers. "An armed society is a polite society". I think I will find out what item IS responsible for the most homicides in the US. Gee thanks, now you've started me down a rabbit hole

[aquart]

9. Welcome to DU.

[beerdragon]

14. Thank you very much aquart

Already finding loads of fantastic threads! I appreciate it so. Looking forward to a great new group!

[jimmy the one]

10. possible intruder alert

beer dragon, 2 posts: I was curious so I looked up the CDC report on homicides, percentage of homicides by firearms, also by population. To my surprise, we were 28th position in the world yet we have 50% of the world's civilian gun ownership within only 5% of the world's population.

USA was '28th' in the world in firearm homicides, & you are what? pleasantly surprised? your entire post is ambiguous & I get mixed signals. If the USA is 28th in the world, out of approx. 180 countries in the world, including 3rd worlders, 28th is in the top 15% about.

beer dragon: I also checked out in the US, which town/cities had the highest firearm per capita, they also had the lowest violent crime rate.

.. that's a misleading lie. You can't compare rural states & cities with urban areas. There are essentially NO rural areas with low population density in America, with stricter gun control. So post your link, your source to what you contend so we can view it in context, not as propaGUNda.

Observe beer dragon, the states with the highest violent crime rates:
Highest Crime Per Capita, 2012 http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/09/10-states-with-the-highest-rates-of-violent-crime.html

1.Wash D.C.: 1,243.7 violent crimes/100k (discard since DC is a city)
2.Tennessee: 643.6 PRO GUN
3.Nevada: 607.6 PRO GUN
4.Alaska: 603.2 VERY PRO GUN
5.New Mexico: 559.1 Leans GUN
6.South Carolina: 558.8 very PRO GUN
7.Delaware: 547.4 neutralish
8.Louisiana: 496.9 PRO GUN
9.Florida: 487.1 Leans Gun
10.Maryland: 476.8 Gun control
11. California GC (423.1), Texas PRO GUN (408.6), New York GC (406.8)

Lowest Crime Per Capita 1.Maine: 122.7 2.Vermont: 142.6 3.New Hampshire: 187.9 4.Virginia: 190.1 5.Wyoming: 201.4 6.Utah: 205.8 7.Idaho: 207.9 8.Kentucky: 222.6
9.Minnesota: 230.9 (neutralish?) 10.Hawaii (Gun control): 239.2 Mostly rural pro gun states with low populations, except va & ky & mn.

beer dragon: So it actually made me think that maybe it did do something for safety. Sorta like Robert Heinlein's quote in the book Starship Troopers. "An armed society is a polite society".....

If that were so we'd be the safest country in the world, safer than Japan, but we're not.

beer dragon: Gee thanks, now you've started me down a rabbit hole

You're not fooling too many people here, 2 post beer dragon. Sound like a reincarnation of a GN to me -- suddenly picking out GCRA to start your DU voyage? Riiiiiiight.

[beerdragon]

11. wow, thanks for the welcome.

Nope, just found this site and signed up, I find myself not leaning towards any party affiliation, though thoroughly interested in always learning more. So thanks for the additional stats, maybe where I checked as I stated I didn't , save link sorry, was inaccurate. Just started Googling and ended up at CDC report from 2010. I concur that may have been outdated. But, given the amount of reported gun sales I would hypothesize these numbers would be no less than 2010. I also suspect these numbers on both our post may be subject to source. I have stated my source as well, so that was for others to see it too. Here's the deal my countryman, I carry daily. It's not a hot button item for me, but I also don't wanna see us not have these abilities. I do find certain points valid from anyone regardless of, "your side". I refuse to settle for divided we fall. I posted my 2nd post last night on Co - ops which you must not have read, because had you, I feel you wouldn't be so quick to shove out someone here to learn. If this is the what you get for asking questions or finding something questionable, maybe this is not the crowd I wish to associate with. I am no gun nut. I have two, one is my only sentimental possession if my late grandpa. The other I keep as I am disabled and can no longer adequately defend my family. Does this make me a gun nut? I hope not. So I suppose, I will do some additional looking on this discussion. But if this is to be the treatment I am to receive from this site, please let me know, I will go elsewhere for you.

[uppityperson]

13. Welcome to DU. There is an element that signs up, repeatedly, trying to disrupt and gunzers are

one of those groups. Hence the poor welcome. Hang out a bit, read and comment, as we are a big group though not tolerant of disruptors and sometimes too quick to call that. Expect to be challenged on statements and statistics, expect to be asked to provide them to back up what you say, especially about emotional topics.

At the top of each forum's main page is a button with a big blue I "about this forum" which gives information about the forum, statement of purpose. Each forum and group is different, some more open than others, some safe havens and more closed.

Welcome, and tell us more about you and your politics. You don't lean towards any party affiliation, who are you leaning towards supporting for various races?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. It's the mixture of guns and fear that is the problem.

[MrModerate]

20. Unfortunately, someone's been feeding you hooey . . .

A distinctly untasty dish.

Try this link (and the links within it) for a more realistic view of the "more guns, less crime" fallacy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/29/more-guns-less-crime-not-exactly/

[beerdragon]

23. Thank you

I will check this out, appreciate it!

[alfredo]

21. They do get a kickback from the industry.

[n2doc]

8. "Celebration of American Values"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. Public support of the NRA is exagerated....

Being a gun nut should make politicians toxic in the voting booth.

[4lbs]

15. Hmm.... Maybe the executives of the NRA should be strangled in Louisiana. It won't be considered

an act of violence, so, umm... no legal or criminal repercussions right?


EDIT:

I'm not actually advocating that. I'm just pointing out how the NRA's stance can be used against it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. How about arming the women?

[4lbs]

18. I'm all for that. When the women shoot their attackers I want to hear what the NRA thinks of it.

Queue up the quandary for the NRA.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Not really, they think of women like this...

[alfredo]

22. I guess I shouldn't have eaten that peyote this morning.