• BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    If ONLY she had Killed him FIRST this WOULDNT have happened And that’s LITERALLY the Only Way to have Prevented that!

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      24 hours ago

      it mentions that there was a history of abuse that went unreported to the police. I suspect changing that could have prevented this, too.

    • Sagan_Wept@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      If he had a history of domestic violence it would literally take only one of those to be reported and have him charged with. All his guns would be taken from him

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        The logic of that has never made sense to me. If you’re taking his guns away it’s acknowledging that he is a significant enough danger to others that he can’t have access to weapons. If it’s already gone that far why not lock him up to keep him away from the people he is a danger to? It’s not like he couldn’t go on to harm them with some other weapon in the future.

        • bthest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Because there is a greater threshold of due process needed to imprison someone (like a conviction in court of law) rather than disarming them.

          • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            But why is that acceptable? They’re either dangerous or they’re not. Removing their guns doesn’t remove their ability to do harm. It only removes one specific method. How are we arriving at the point of taking their guns if not via a conviction in a court of law?

            • Leg@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.

        • bthest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Ah, so guaranteeing the patriarch has access to firearms is really an act of mercy for his victims.

          But why guns? What about syringes of phenol? Make sure each man has one for each family member so he can perform painless honor killings. This seems like something a healthy society would do.

        • tetris11@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Guns are either kept in a locked box/rack, or on you/close at hand.

          Knives are found in the kitchen. Ive never seen anyone put down a gun in the kitchen and just walk away from it for half a day

        • zqps@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          24 hours ago

          People are much less likely to actually use knives than guns. And if they do, their target has a greater chance to get away.