Thank the NRA/ALEC for the boyfriend loophole, among their many other accomplishments.

Why dont you talk about women who kill? See the story below where a woman killed a man and received 13 months in jail. Where is the NY Times outrage? https://nypost.com/2017/12/20/kayak-killer-freed-from-prison-in-time-for...

How about disarming the police? How many of them are either homicidal or suicidal or hyper-reactive? How about re-establishng a draft for the military? Ditto - the second question above?? Ho about letting Steve Harvey setup national dating rules and egs?? Why constantly glamorize love and families and make it a necessity? Why not teach independence and respect? Why not make everyone dating "seriously" or marrying under go lessons in matrimony such as those required in the Catholic church? People need all sorts of support and obviously many of these people on both sides probably should not have been involved in relationships with other consenting adults until they had "worked"on themselves. PS people do the killing and you do not need a gun. How many women are killed in other ways by people with whom they are intimate annually?? What are these other ways? statistics?? (incomeple artile and we need much broader thinking --)

Domestic violence takes one to a level of rage that goes beyond reason. Often it means that neither law enforcement, family or friends are safe. How many police officers were killed last year in an attempt to calm a domestic dispute? How many shoot themselves after killing their victims? Guns do not belong in the hands of anyone at that level of rage. It's not about politics or freedom, it's about the useless loss of lives for no reason.

I think that if you examine federal law, this guy was not able to legally own a firearm. Misdemeanor assault against a partner is grounds for refusal. The problem is, as we see daily in Chicago, that law enforcement does not take firearms laws seriously.

A gun owner can only be deprived of his right to carry in accordance with the law. Federal law requires a domestic conviction before barring gun ownership. In the case of Mr. Wechsler, almost all the evidence of danger did not lead to prosecution, and so was of little assistance under the federal law. The one conviction referenced is a misdemeanor resulting from Mr. Wechsler's stalking a previous girlfriend. Stalking may well not be domestic violence. So even if Mr. Wechsler were stalking an ex-spouse, he probably would have been able to keep his guns. Bottom line, federal law should be broadened to cover boy friends and ex-boy friends. But equally important, the requirement of a prior domestic violence conviction should also be broadened so as to include any verifiable prior indication of being a danger in a previous romantic relationship.

Until I read this article, I was not aware of any of this. When armed with a firearm, anybody inclined toward violence is likely to kill, no matter the relationship that person has with his/her intended victim. The data in the article is proof positive that this law needs to be changed across the country so that no firearm is allowed for anybody convicted of a violent crime -- even a violent misdemeanor -- no matter the relationship -- spouse, domestic partner, former spouse, estranged spouse, lover, relative, friend, acquaintance, neighbor, community member or church member, colleague, boss, underling, stranger.

Thank You NYTimes for covering a topic that has been haunting women and children for far too long. I have a friend who's father threatened to shoot her mother in front of her because the mother left her father. She had to leave because his abuse was becoming more toxic and dangerous on every level. The more you cover this topic- awareness continues and we can then hope for greater legislative protections for women and children in these horrific scenarios.

Guns, in the hands of abusive partners, are just too easily available, so that any silly excuse may lead to murder if a boyfriend feels slighted (however one may think it comes from the outside, it is really a problem from within, insecurity and immaturity of ourselves, and a false sense of entitlement or a feeling of superiority). Republicans and the R.N.A./Gun Lobby will continue to have blood on their hands for as long as they remain irresponsible, pushing for the unrestricted availability of weapons, all to satisfy their love for money (greed). And boyfriends are as culpable as spouses in domestic violence, it's carnage causing deep suffering in society. The common denominator for this abuse, too many guns.

Let's save some time and eliminate parts 3-9. ANYONE with a felony-level record of physical abuse should not be able to legally buy a firearm. Now, that would require a lot of federal and state money to upgrade systems, databases and procedures to assure reliable and timely capture and sharing of all such information, but that's the price of any of this.

"a former corrections officer" I'm laughing at the folk who are always calling for firearms to be only in the hands of trained professionals. Where are you this time, do-gooders?

This is one of many instances where a good person with a gun couldn't have stopped that bad person with a gun. Reading these stories, and there are way too many of them out there, is depressing and maddening. I strongly doubt that our Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be an excuse to prohibit reasonable gun safety laws including those stopping people from owning firearms that are designed to shred human flesh or keeping any firearms out of the hands of people who should not own firearms at all. Just because it's a right to own a gun doesn't mean every person needs to or should own one. But the NRA and the GOP don't understand that. Most people have no problem with hunters owning guns or law enforcement having guns. But when it comes to concealed carry or open carry there are problems. One of them is that the police have to treat every person as if he/she is carrying a gun. And it complicates things for the police if that good person carrying a gun decides to shoot the bad person. What if the former misses and kills someone else or inflames the situation to the point where hostages are killed?

The incredibly sexist title of this article, as well as the contents of its opinion belie the fact that men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence and fatal acts in general, than women. What a strange time to live in, when these casual acts of sexism in utter defiance of reality are endorsed and peddled by a national newspaper.

Most abusive people, even those who own guns ,do not go on to murder current or previous romantic partners. The proposed steps are really just anti-gun people trying to get their nose under the tent in order to get a few steps closer to a general ban on gun possession. It's really no different from the anti-abortion folks in certain states who never come out to ban abortion but attempt to ban it in all but name. If someone isn't married, living with or have children with someone it's difficult to see the logic for the state attempting to take guns, absent felony convictions. Just doing this based on restraining orders without convictions seems unfair and very prone to abuse.

I'd just like to point out that men are far more likely to be killed by people--male or female--than women are.

On a personal note, I know the sorrow of losing a loved one to domestic violence. My son’s fiance was murdered by her estranged husband in 2002 because he didn’t want to give back to her custody of their two girls, then aged 4 and 2. So, he killer her one night as she sat in her car looking at birthday photos of one of the girls to prevent a custody fight that he knew he would lose, given that she was their mother, had just signed a lease for an apartment to give them a home and was promoted to a management position at her job. She turned her life and circumstances around and was simply murdered because her estranged husband didn’t want to lose control of their daughters, or her. It’s been 15 years since we lost Michele and we still haven’t gotten over her death. This story by the Editorial Board is a painful reminder about the dangers of domestic violence and the easy access to guns but the story reveals just how close relationships can explode and destroy families forever. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2004/03/06/man-gets-38-year...

I was a prosecutor for 35 years in Oregon. Because I have seen up front the damage theses weapons can do to communities, I believe all handguns should be banned, except in the hands of public security officers. I appreciate, however, that this is unfortunately impossible because it is contrary to the Second Amendment. However, I also believe that if we are to allow firearm possession in this nation, before someone's rights to do so are revoked, a court must decide to do so based on sufficient evidence. I certainly agree that anyone with a violent criminal conviction, felony or misdemeanor, should be banned from possessing a firearm, and this is perfectly feasible under the Constitution. However, the Lautenberg Amendment goes far beyond that, and allows government action in non-conviction situations such as certain restraining orders where nothing has been proven in court against alleged violator, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. In some states, restraining orders must be granted by the court simply upon application by an alleged victim, and then the burden is shifted to an alleged offender to prove that the allegations of the purported victim are NOT true. If facts can be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, or even to a preponderance of the evidence, that a person is a threat, then he should not be allowed to possess firearms. Without that proof, it is a perversion of our justice system, and an open invitation to abuse, to do so.

I'm not sure I get why an entire story was wasted, to 'inform' us that 'boyfriends can also kill'. In fact, anyone can kill, regardless of their relation to others, if they have access to a gun. That includes children being able to kill, women being able to kill, etc. So let's stop this silly 'categorizing' of killers. The real issue is stopping the far too easy access to guns, the rampant loopholes, the lack of background checks for those who buy gun-making parts online to 'build a gun' at their home, laws that allow for private citizens to purchase unlimited amounts of weaponry and ammo with NO database record to enable an algorhythm to analyze and then flag disturbing buying patterns, etc. We are a truly sick country when it comes to our 'love' for guns, and violence as 'entertainment'.

The problem here is that 'spouse' and 'parent' are legally defined relationships, which can be objectively ascertained. 'Boyfriend' and 'partner' aren't. -- What's a boyfriend, as opposed to, say, someone you dated a few times? What if you dated but never had physical contact? The only solution is to bar anyone from owning a gun who has a history of violence or abuse against anyone else -- 'boyfriend' is irrelevant -- though it will probably have to include a conviction for that sort of crime to be workable.

My dear friend Elizabeth Lee Herman was shot and killed by her stalker ex-boyfriend on November 1st, 2017 in NYC. Our elected officials need to STOP siding with the NRA because of campaign contributions and put common sense gun laws into action or they need to be voted OUT.

Any experienced law enforcement officer will tell you that responding to "Domestic" calls is their least favorite and the most dangerous.