In a word? Bias. At least the author admits that “Orders of Protection” are not in and of themselves protection. Do Orders of Protection Actually Shield Domestic Violence Victims? | The Crime Report
There is a long litany of cases where an order of protection is violated. And also why you should get one anyway, and what you should do once you have one.
There is even mention of not relying on the system to protect you. That a court order is only one piece of the puzzle.
But I guess it would strain the Left to breaking to even CONSIDER the option of armed self-defense.
And it should be stressed that the time when someone is trying to get away from their abuser – moving out, getting orders of protection, etc. – is a very dangerous time.
Lastly, getting a protective order can sometimes make a bad situation worse by actually triggering a violent reaction by the abuser, especially if he’s surprised by the request.
Of course armed self-defense runs up against the limits the Left has succeeded on putting on that defense. (The only mention of firearms is to discuss what might happen if the abuser has one.) The time someone with a violent stalker is most at risk is when they are on a known schedule at known locations: Going to and from work. Picking up and dropping off kids at daycare and/or school. Attending religious services. But those are all the places the Left doesn’t want you to be armed for your own self-defense. (It’s for your own good!) Still, without some means of defense, the small can be at a disadvantage against a large and violent stalker/abuser.)
If you need an order of protection, then you also need a plan for your personal safety. I think one of the best ways to ensure your safety is to be armed, but it isn’t for everyone. But to not even mention the possibility is bias, pure and simple.