While we often see racial disparities in a lot of crime statistics, I refuse to accept anyone’s claim that the problem is because of race. The DNA of a white person, a black person, an Asian, a Hispanic person, or any other ethnic group is so close to identical as is possible for different people to be that it cannot be simply because of the amount of melanin in someone’s skin.
But, with that said, there are racial disparities in a lot of crime statistics, and that includes victim statistics.
Recently, an op-ed made the rounds discussing some issues with intimate partner violence, which I think we all agree is a bad thing. The problem, though, is what we do about it.
Let’s start with the old tactic of framing a piece with an anecdote.
In April 2026, Dr. Cerina Wanzer Fairfax was shot and killed by her husband while their divorce was pending.
She had done what she was supposed to do. She had initiated the legal process to leave Justin Fairfax, the former lieutenant governor of Virginia. It didn’t save her.
What happened to Wanzer Fairfax has a name: femicide.
Femicide is the intentional killing of women on the basis of gender. Women are most often killed by their partner, former partners or another person who believes they have a claim on their life. It happens in living rooms and driveways and parking lots. It happens during marriage, divorces, separations and in the weeks after a woman finally walks out the door.
As a scholar focused on the intersection of firearm violence and intimate partner homicide, I examine the policy and structural conditions that determine who is at risk and where prevention efforts are falling short.
So the author, Sativa Banks, focuses on “firearm violence” as it intersects “intimate partner homicide,” but what about all the other ways intimate partners murder their significant others? It seems a little like she’s narrowing the focus on one instrument used in murder rather than the underlying actions, doesn’t it? But no, researchers never try to stack the deck or anything, now do they?
I’m also going to take issue with the claim that intimate partner homicides are “the intentional killing of women on the basis of gender.” Yes, these are women, and they are murdered, but violent boyfriends aren’t killing their partners because they’re women. They’re killing their partners because they’ve lost control of their victims. The motivation is different. It’s not any more excusable than if it truly were because they were women and nothing else, but it doesn’t muddy the waters the same way.
But then Banks gets to the gun control aspect of her screed.
If the gun is what escalates the risk, it is also where policy has its best chance to intervene.
State law can explicitly restrict perpetrators of domestic violence from purchasing or possessing firearms through two types of civil protection orders: final domestic violence restraining orders and temporary restraining orders. Research demonstrates that states with strong gun restrictions along these lines have meaningfully lower rates of intimate partner homicide.
Generally speaking, though, these laws are not working as designed.
In most states, for example, only certain kinds of relationships qualify for protective orders to be issued against an abusive partner. The most common qualifying relationship is romantic partner or former partner. This characterization poses a problem called “the partner loophole.”
Strangely, she uses a framing story of a woman murdered by her husband to set the stage for complaints about the “boyfriend loophole.” Strange, don’t you think?
Wait, though…wasn’t that part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act?
It was, and Banks does acknowledge this.
In 2022, the bipartisan Safer Communities Act extended the gun prohibition to abusive dating partners. While the law now covers more kinds of relationships, it does not yet offer equal protection to Black women in those kinds of relationships.
Research using the National Violent Death Reporting System found that state-level enforcement of the policy was associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide among unmarried white victims, but not among victims of color.
Why?
Damned if we know at this point. Banks doesn’t explain why that is, or even speculates as to why that might be. This is important because she’s trying to raise awareness of a problem, but she doesn’t get into what mechanisms have created this problem in the first place.
I mean, following the whole George Floyd thing, it became apparent that the black community lacked trust in law enforcement. Could that lead to many black female victims refusing to reach out to the authorities? Yeah, actually, but that doesn’t come until a bit later.
Banks does explain that the real problem is that the government isn’t taking enough guns away.
The evidence is clear: When gun prohibition and relinquishment laws are fully enforced in abusive relationships, they can save lives.
Yet most states have gaps that limit how effective these policies are in practice. And that failure falls hardest on Black women.
Research shows that state firearm restriction laws with relinquishment provisions were associated with a 16% reduction in firearm intimate partner homicide for white victims. For Black victims, the reduction was not statistically significant.
This is especially concerning given that Black women experience the highest incidence of injury and death from intimate partner violence in the country.
The problem here, especially with the ways of addressing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” is that it opens the door up for literally any woman who went out on a date with a guy one time to suddenly declare he’s an abusive partner, even if there was never any relationship. While I was raised that you never lay hands on a woman in a nonconsensual way, a guy who goes out with a girl once or hooks up with her after a night out, then later grabs her wrist as she storms off, isn’t remotely the same as a guy who beats his wife. Hell, he’s not even in the same category as Graham Platner.
I’m not saying it’s right. I’m just saying no one should lose their gun rights because of it.
However, she does bring up a few points that we might find some common ground. After all, self-defense is a human right, and it seems Banks has found some problematic disparities we should most definitely take issue with.
The problem isn’t the laws themselves. It’s that the mechanisms of the law depend on a delivery system – courts, law enforcement, protective orders – that doesn’t work well for Black women.
After reporting domestic abuse, Black women are more likely to be incarcerated for defending themselves against their abuser, and they lose custody of their children more often once CPS becomes involved. A study examining preferences of intimate-partner violence survivors found that Black women report fear and distrust of police as a barrier to engaging with the legal system.
Now, if these cases meet the legal standard for self-defense, this is a massive freaking problem. Without specifics, it’s hard to say if these acts of self-defense cross some line that many people might be unaware of, legally speaking, but I’m going to extend the benefit of the doubt and say that they didn’t.
If these women are being punished by the system for protecting themselves, that’s something we can most definitely stand beside and fight. Everyone has a right to protect themselves and their family from harm.
And yes, we also see the fears of the legal system and police distrust finally come up. Then again, if they’re the ones charged when defending themselves, I understand the distrust completely. There’s a reason many people talk about 3S: shoot, shovel, and shut up. I’m not condoning it, mind you, only saying I get it.
However, considering Banks and her track record in this piece so far, I do have to acknowledge that I’m probably being overly generous when I accept that these cases were in line with applicable self-defense laws. I’m sure some might have been, but others may have been way out of proportion to the threat at the moment, and others may have actually fallen into the realm of other crimes. Shooting at someone pulling into your driveway, for example, is still aggravated assault, even if he’s assaulted you in the past. Yes, even if you’re afraid he’s going to do it again.
I’m not saying there aren’t problems. There clearly are, and the disparity here tells us that it’s something that demands attention. I just don’t see how that’s remotely possible when the focus is on race and guns, rather than culture, crime, and distrust of authorities.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
