YOU ARE HERE: HeraldMail HomeCollectionsGun

Herald-Mail Forums

March 09, 2009

Last week's question:

What's an appropriate way to protect a woman who has been threatened by her husband, ex-husband or boyfriend?

o Take his guns away until the trial so he can't shoot her. - 7 votes (8 percent)

o Put a GPS bracelet on his ankle so police can tell if he's stalking her. - 29 votes (35 percent)

o Take him to a state prison to meet a convict who did kill his spouse so the angry man can see what the consequences of doing so are. - 12 votes (14 percent)

o Give the woman a gun and shooting lessons so she can protect herself if he approaches her. - 35 votes (42 percent)



o Posted by heyceeo on March 2

The bracelet idea is a good one but at what cost to the taxpayer. The problem is that these women picked these losers in the first place. Most have had a baby or three. These peace/protective orders are usually just a weapon to anger/incite/get custody of kids, etc. It's just a piece of paper. If the police are to respond every time these star-crossed lovers get close to each other you may as well forget about any real police work getting done. There should be fees attached to every filing that gets done. Let's see how many people get these "orders" before we go putting bracelets on everybody.

o Posted by notlaffen on March 2

The first choice presumes that there will be a trial. The second and third choices are probably unconstitutional. The fourth choice is expensive and assumes that the woman can protect herself.

o Posted by blessedbe on March 2

First option is very narrow-scoped. It doesn't stop someone from using someone else's weapon, a knife, fire, chemicals or his bare hands to harm another person. I think GPS is certainly a step in the right direction, but it doesn't take into account other ways he can harass his target (contacting other family members, abducting children, letters, snooping in the mail, etc).

Arming a woman might be all well and good, but what happens when our lovely system wants to try her for trying to protect herself? Or her children? Until the system can stand up and protect families, the option of a woman protecting herself is just not viable.

o Posted by sparkism on March 2

Even a protective order doesn't protect the woman, so some proactive option must be employed that is the most passive one. The GPS option may need to be mandated by the judge who issues the protective order.

o Posted by independent on March 2

The only one that makes sense is GPS.The gun thing won't work because he hasn't broken the law and can get a gun if he really wants one. Besides, he really doesn't need a gun. There are many other ways to kill and the woman-with-the-gun idea could backfire.The prison idea won't work; if he's angry enough he won't care. That's why people keep committing the same crimes over and over. Let him pay for the bracelet to help with expenses.

o Posted by SoaringEagle on March 2

I suggest they put a shocking collar on that wife abuser. If he comes into her yard, he gets zapped. My dad was mean to my mother all her life, even tried to strangle her. He beat us kids often, I don't know what would work. Maybe put him in a heated phone booth, in the town square with a sign saying, " I threatened my wife, pray for me." Maybe a little humiliation would work, or community service work.

o Posted by tfirey on March 4

Wait, if the spouse has yet to be convicted of breaking the law (see option 1, which indicates there hasn't yet been a trial), how can the state impose any penalty on a merely alleged stalker? Surely the 5th Amendment has some force in this day and age.

This week's question:

Once again, funding for the University System of Maryand-Hagerstown was threatened last week. How does Washington County get this to stop?

o Hold a massive rally each year in Annapolis when the budget is considered.

o Run a letter-writing and e-mail campaign in support of USM-H.

o Send contributions to key budget committee lawmakers.

o Threaten to call USM-H opponents anti-education, anti-student elitist city slickers.

The Herald-Mail Articles