Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Should US Citizens Accused of Domestic Abuse Lose the Right to Bear Arms?

0
Posted

Should US Citizens Accused of Domestic Abuse Lose the Right to Bear Arms?

0

school or daycare. They are both the same type of crime; abusing somebody. Therefore, adequate future protection should be set in place for both crimes, not just one. Both crimes are harming another life. One is sexual. The other is domestic. But they are both abuse. The reason the sexual predator has a set jurisdiction stating where or where not it can live is because there is a high risk of the sexual predator repeating this crime, maybe even to a more dangerous extent, a deadly extent. By having the child close by, as thought of by some, is like dangling candy in front of a little kids face. By simply removing the children from the equation, which by the predator having to abide by certain jurisdictions, this ensures that future occurrences are minimized and hopefully ceased. We know this does not hold true one-hundred percent of the time, but what we do know is that it minimizes the chances of the predator re-offending. On the same note, a domestic abuser’s likely hood of re-offend

0

after convicted, can not live within a certain amount of feet of a school or daycare. They are both the same type of crime; abusing somebody. Therefore, adequate future protection should be set in place for both crimes, not just one. Both crimes are harming another life. One is sexual. The other is domestic. But they are both abuse. The reason the sexual predator has a set jurisdiction stating where or where not it can live is because there is a high risk of the sexual predator repeating this crime, maybe even to a more dangerous extent, a deadly extent. By having the child close by, as thought of by some, is like dangling candy in front of a little kids face. By simply removing the children from the equation, which by the predator having to abide by certain jurisdictions, this ensures that future occurrences are minimized and hopefully ceased. We know this does not hold true one-hundred percent of the time, but what we do know is that it minimizes the chances of the predator re-offend

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123