Reply #67: OK, I'll play Let's Pretend for a moment [View All]

Let's assume that there was a restraining order in place. Exactly how would that have helped prevent the killing, absent a real way of identifying and confiscating the would-be killer's firearms??

A restraining order is a piece of paper with ink on it. All it provides is a quick and easy way to have the restrainee arrested if he or she violates it. Judges and lawyers and cops all acknowledge that it's a weak instrument, and too often becomes applicable only after something bad has happened.

I think you are making a huge leap of faith assuming that lack of a firearm would have prevented this particular crime. You haven't presented any evidence other than your own conjecture to support the - Wild-assed guess? - that he wouldn't have sought and promptly found some other way of killing her. People murdered each other in large numbers before firearms were invented. There is no logical reason to suggest that they'd stop if denied access to firearms. Just look at the homicide stats for Australia - With fewer guns in circulation people are murdered at the same rate they were before gun control laws were strengthened. Yes, fewer murders are done with guns, but MORE are now being done with knives and bare hands. Are you seriously suggesting the same thing would not happen in the USA?