Dear VPC Supporter,
For women, gun violence is closely linked with domestic violence. Just look at the numbers: Ninety-four percent of women murdered by men were killed by someone they knew. At least 61 percent of the women who knew their killers were their intimate partners. And the most common weapon that men used to murder women was a gun . . .
These are some of the findings in our annual report, When Men Murder Women, released for Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October. We looked at the FBI statistics for 2011 — the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available — and found that 1,707 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents. At the state level, South Carolina had the highest per capita rate of women murdered by men. Some of the other states that ranked in the top 10 were Oklahoma, Arizona, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
Read and share our report on When Men Murder Women and help end our national epidemic of gun violence and domestic violence.
The NRA and its financial patrons in the gun industry aggressively encourage women to buy guns in order to protect themselves from strangers. But as our report shows, the reality is that women are nearly always killed by someone they know — and often by someone they love. Before any woman decides to buy a gun, she should consider the fact that owning a firearm actually increases one’s risk of lethal harm.
This past month, advocacy groups and public officials have used our report to aid their efforts to stop violence against women. Now, it’s time to push for new laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.
Thank you, as always, for your support as we work together to reduce gun death and injury.
Sincerely,
Josh Sugarmann
Executive Director
The Violence Policy Center is a leading resource for new information measuring the devastating effects of gun violence in our nation, from state-by-state studies on gun death and injury to groundbreaking research on America’s gun industry and gun lobby. At the same time, the VPC works in support of effective gun violence prevention policies on the local, state, and federal levels that save lives and help protect communities.
Soooo.. Just sit there and take the beating??? Don’t equip yourself with a great equalizer. The fact that these people claim to have the best intrest of women at heart and the fact that some women really believe that crap makes me violently ill.
Women should take their beatings just like they do in England. This whole defending ourselves business has run its course and we should defer to our cultural superiors on the island with the highest rate of violence in the European Union. I didn’t read the whole thing, did she mention pissing yourself and talking about menstrual blood to deter the attacker?
Any man who beats a woman is nothing more than a coward
So you wouldn’t drop someone that’s trying to kill you just because you know them? I would.
Just remember that many abused women have been in some fashion convinced that they are at least partly to blame for their abuse. Many refuse to press charges and take back the abuser into their lives over and over. I suspect a high percentage of these women could not bring themselves to pull that trigger.
If you’re not willing to pull the trigger in defense of yourself, that makes you more susceptable to having your firearm turned against you. “A man (or woman) ‘s gotta know his (her) limitations…” I would deny no one their RKBA, I just will say that anyone considering buying a gun should do that mental self-analysis.
But see, there you’re basing a decision on reason and thoughtful analysis. What Josh boy is saying is that, since more women are killed by people they know, NO woman should buy a gun for self defense. Which, as is plainly obvious, is not a recommendation based on even a single moment’s thought or reflection.
If you or I had the temerity to suggest that a woman shouldn’t defend herself and that she should just take her lumps, we’d be labeled a misogynist. But when it comes from a gun grabber it’s called a good public policy idea.
Spouse/significant-other abuse is a very tricky topic especially due to the psychological aspects involved. On this particular topic I, reluctantly, have to agree that having a firearm added to the situation stands a strong probability of making things worse especially if the attitude (which is common) is that somehow possessing a firearm is some sort of “magic shield” that will make an abuser think twice about assault, something along the lines of “If I show a firearm he’ll back down, I’ll never actually have to USE it”.
It is a sad fact that most of the abused (especially women) are so dominated (Battered Wife Syndrome) that if they do manage to work up the courage to pull a gun, they nearly always find it impossible to actually pull the trigger once the “magic shield” fantasy fails to work and then you have an abuser who adds “you DARED to pull a gun on ME” into their rage. Something crippling or even fatal frequently follows this and, to make matters even worse, now the abuser gets to claim self-defense.
A firearm for self protection might be perfectly valid even under these circumstances, but not without the other actions of getting out of the house/relationship/location so that you are away from the threat in the first place.
^ I agree with all of the above, I just think it’s 1) stupid to be that way, and 2) much more stupid to imply that everyone is or should be that way. Remember the article on here a while back that said guns are useless in defense of rape because XX% know their rapist? It was just assumed that it’s better to be raped than to defend yourself from someone you know. I don’t care if Jesus himself is trying to rape* or kill me, he’s getting some lead thrown at him.
*I’m a dude, but apparently it happens.
Morale of the story: wives keep their own biometrically locked pistol, and husbands do the same.
Sweetheart, I challenge you to a duel.
Good one..
If there is going to be a duel, then BOTH parties should have a gun.
Layne, you need to think a little more before you post.
Look at gals comment above, it was mentioned each have his and her pistols.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the definition of irony.
Joshy Joshy you have repeated your own bullshit for so long now you want women to take a beating or out right be defenseless……
Odds smoods they are near zero when she has no chance at all.
All women deserve a chance and if its with a gun so be it.
Its their choice not yours………………….
I know he will never see this.
But to leave ones self defenseless is nutz.
Might her own gun be used against her??
Maybe. That can happen to anyone.
But to not have a way out is foolish.
If American women learn to take care of themselves with a gun, parasites like Sugarman are out of a job. See how this works? Josh is acting in his own best interests, not any woman’s.
Bingo. Give this man a cigar.
+1
“The NRA and its financial patrons in the gun industry aggressively encourage women to buy guns in order to protect themselves from strangers.”
And here’s the follow-up, Mr. Burke – If the statement quoted above is true (and I doubt it is 100% accurate, considering the source), then THAT is the problem. As someone stated in response to my (humorous) inclusion of the term “gun-muggles” in a recent post, the gun is not magic and does not make you a wizard, or a witch. You (we/they) should not only “…aggressively encourage women to buy guns to protect themselves from strangers.” Just for starters it is pretty obvious women need to protect themselves from people they THINK they love who are beating the crap out of them! That’s the first hurdle. The second is that once someone figures out a way to convince these women that the person who is beating them needs to be confronted and stopped, THEN they need to be encouraged to buy a gun, because before that they most certainly WILL NOT take the shot. Thirdly they need to be trained in the situational awareness, operation of the weapon, and the legal ramifications of blowing the bastard away. Only then do they stand a chance of successfully defending themselves rather than wimping out and having the SOB take their pistol and shoot them with it.
Yes, women should also have guns to protect themselves from strangers, but that’s not really the topic of this article, is it?
And by the way, where is the study on “When Women Murder Men?” Just because they statistically (I’ve heard) prefer to murder other than with firearms does not mean the statistic is irrelevant.
Exactly right, WB!
Apparently, a woman beaten to death by her abusive spouse is morally superior to the woman having to explain to the police why she shot the bastard
Colorado State Senator Hudak thinks rape victims should sit back and relax during a sexual assault because they just might enjoy the ride. . . . . why is this different?
I sincerely doubt that any actual thought was involved.
Well…since that’s Senator Hudak’s best chance of getting sex. one might understand her saying that…
Part of the problem is that some see simply “buying” a gun as being synonymous with knowing how or use one, and being willing to do so when the occasion calls for it.
So, in a weird kind of way I agree with the statement that abused women should not (only) BUY a gun …
They should also get training, and determine to use it should the need arise.
More importantly, they should be buying their gun on their way out of town. You keep going to the same place with the same people, and it’s no surprise that the results are the same. CHANGE the situation. (yes I’ve heard all the excuses, no need for a refresher)
“More importantly, they should be buying their gun on their way out of town.”
^ This !!!!!!
See my post below.
This X 1000
Don’t know how many times I was dispatched to the same address multiple times before the violence finally boiled over. JUST LEAVE!
Back then it was really difficult to make an arrest without a victim willing to sign a complaint. And of course, she wouldn’t because, “But, I love him.” I do not understand the psychology of the victim in most of these cases, so my sympathy is limited. Why would you choose to stay with someone who regularly beats the crap out of you? But they do. On a discouragingly frequent basis.
Of course they should encouraged to defend themselves. But they have to tear whatever binds them to their assailant first. Or they will get the gun turned on them. In fact that may be the only nugget of truth in this bit of anti-gun propaganda.
Read up on the Stockholm syndrome. Sometimes you don’t need to understand why to empathize, you just need to know that it’s just the way it is.
Sorry, Zombie, I jumped in too quick above. Didn’t mean to step on your comment. You made the point first and you made it well.
Sounds like the problem here is all these women DIDN’T have guns. Where are the stats for wives that successfully fought back?
It’s akin to saying that you should make sure your next car doesn’t have airbags, because EVERY person killed in a 2010+ model year car had them…
Agreed, statics used the way they are by the VPC are worse than meaningless.
My wife and both my grown daughters all carry 9mm rape and attack prevention kits wherever they go and are quite confident in their abilities, as am I.
Go ahead and make their day…!
Point One:women who willingly date violent, criminal cretins should not be shocked when said violent criminal turns their attention to them.How many times have we observed on Cops a woman, bloody and hurt, beg the LEOs to leave Mr Violent Spouse alone.
Point two: The only practical recourse a woman has against a bigger, stronger attacker is a firearm.Running isn’t an option, and even martial arts isn’t an option.A five foot nothing Karate champ girl might delay the inevitable, but note that men have a habit of pushing themselves well past the limit to impress or outperform a girl at the same task.Julio from the block ain’t gonna let some girl stomp on him-he’d lose his street cred getting beat by a chick.She could make Mr Miyakgi proud, but it don’t mean squat when the assailant is bigger and motivated.
Point three:if a criminal assailant can withstand multiple pistol rounds and still fight whilst dying on his feet, I submit a firearm is the bare minimum a woman today needs for self defense.The next thing after that is precise ,gender specific training.Chris Costas a gun ninja of epic renown, but I doubt he’s ever drawn from concealment in female attire.A woman wouldn’t have much luck teaching us guys about aiming at the toilet ,and so it goes with male instructors teaching women about CCW .
WRT to your first point, may I suggest backing off? It is very easy for us to judge the women for placing themselves in such relationships.
But the complexity of domestic violence is staggering. Fear that resistance would be even worse. Or a belief that you can better him. Or “he isn’t always like this, and he is real good at other times” might be easy to refute on purely rational grounds, but that would be missing the point. Psychologically and even physiologically women get attached to their men. The very hormones released during intimacy help enforce a bond. Add to that that such men, cretins as they are, often, at least superficially, display attractive characteristics. Not to mention the very complexity of any person’s psychological and emotional make up in being attracted or getting attached, often before any violent behavior manifests itself.
Yes it is irrational. But the attachment is a nonrational one. And it is something very difficult to challenge, even when the woman knows in her reason that it is wrong. Frankly, while I disagree with the gun grabbers here, the most important help that can be given has nothing to do with guns (pro or con) but about helping them escape the circle of violence and detach.
As far as your other points. Hearty agreement
No, I’d suggest not backing off.
Anyone who has been around women for long enough can recount plenty of stories of women who date and then enter intimate relationships with abusive men, and were warned by their friends, family, gal-pals and male friends that the object of their lust was no good.
Then, when things start getting rough, they complain to one or more of the parties who warned them about what has now happened. And you want to know what those clear-headed friends and family tell these women? Of course you do: “Leave him. Now.”
Want to know what many of the woman in question doesn’t do? Leave him.
I’ve seen it many, many times.
The pattern is so well established that women have to answer for it. It is high time that women be treated as adults capable of making their own decisions… and be responsible for the outcome.
Women wanted the right to drink, drive, vote and smoke. Well, They got them. It is past time they put on their Big Girl Panties, own their failings and quit blaming society at large.
I agree. The problem cannot be solved by being considerate of the woman’s irrational feelings toward the perp. All that will accomplish is that she will continue to get beaten until he either kills her or she finally decides to get away. And then there’s the problem of men who just won’t let go and continue to stalk the woman and try to force her to come back (and take some more beatings).
So far as I know there is no efficient, practical psychological treatment extant that will save these women from themselves. The psychology and psychiatry professionals can come up with fancy names for disorders and experimental treatments, maybe even some really cool drugs (that’s what she needs!), but they can’t even cure hoarders, or people with mundane phobias, how are they going to deal with women who obsessively believe the man who beats them every day still really loves them? And as mentioned above, and often in the media and in literature, these women very often actively RESIST this sort of solution. The psychological aspect of the problem is MUCH more critical than whether or not she has or knows how to use a pistol because until that is addressed she very likely will not use the pistol.
Here is in reality our only responsibility (and I feel vey bad for these women, my ex-wife’s first husband was an abusive drunk): We must encourage them to get the psychological help they need. We must encourage them to disconnect from the violent bastard and assist them the best we can to make that disconnect stick. We must provide them with the opportunity to get a weapon for self protection and the training in how and when to use it.
In most places (unfortunately not all) in America the tools for one’s own self defense are readily available. Given access to the tool, and the training to use the tool, if a woman does not or cannot protect herself then I do not see what else we can do for her. It’s very unfortunate.
One option that MIGHT help, there needs to be a line added, IN BOLD LETTERS, at the top and bottom of every Restraining Order or TRO: “Any violation of the Protection Zone herein defined in relation to the person to whom this order is granted may legally be countered by the use of lethal force!”
Still, it’s only a piece of paper.
Obviously there are emotions involved; but ultimately that’s all just excuse making for someone who refuses to take responsibility for their own safety. Casting women as silly, frilly little things who go ga-ga over a jack wagon and just can’t help but take him back even after the umpteenth beat down, is no better than framing men as beholden to base instincts and incapable of behaving above the caveman mentality.
It’s true that some members of the sexes do carry on like this, but that’s the result of their poor decisions, not because of hormonal compulsions. After all, the murderous rampage doesn’t commence on the first date. There’s a build up over time and severity with these things; which the woman can decide whether to accept or reject at each and every escalation, long before she’s irretrievably intertwined with this guy. Good grief. Doesn’t anybody in this country cop to anything anymore?
“…if a criminal assailant can withstand multiple pistol rounds and still fight whilst dying on his feet,…”
There are now real world vids showing that the perp doesn’t just go plop & die like in the flicks when shot.
Choose an adequate caliber handgun, & practice, practice, practice. .45 ACP = wise choice. Can a perp’s adrenalin rush prevent smashed bones & shock action?
So if the situation resulting in the woman’s death exists, i.e. the man is going to kill the woman for whatever reason, the absence of the gun will change the outcome? In these violent domestic situations a man could not or would not use another weapon or just his bare hands? So the assailant says to himself, “Well, no gun so I guess all my irrational anger just goes away and I’m not mad anymore.” Is this really what the assailant would say? This argument the libs make is simply ridiculous. They assert the presence of the gun creates the violent situation. In another post, where children were the subject, the author asserted the availability of the firearm or rather the accessibility was responsible for several school shooting deaths. I agree with the idea that as gun owners we should be responsible with securing our arms, after all they are our responsibility but the availability does not equate to the violence. People don’t drink and drive because alcohol is available, they do it because they made a bad, irresponsible choice. People don’t become murderers because a gun or other weapon is present just the same as people don’t get fat because they have a drawer full of silverware.
Wheelgun
These same statistics always state that the “danger period” is just after a a physical separation.
I would agree with their assessment of not buying a gun when you are still living with the abuser.
I agree, don’t provide your abuser with a weapon!
Is it not a form of insanity to live with someone that you might need a gun to protect yourself against.
In that case there is no door to separate you and the abuser, there is no perimeter to protect, the enemy is inside where he has a right to be.
Don’t let it be domestic! LEAVE! GET OUT! Do so with a strategy, not during and argument nor confrontaion. Obtain your own defensible space, then BUY a GUN. He has to break down a door and now he is an intruder, giving you time to prepare to defend yourself both at that moment and later in court.
KCK,
Kudos, best advise to give. a woman who is ready to leave an abusive relationship. Sadly I’ve known of women who were never ready to leave.
I grew up with two brothers only a little older than myself. As kids we would wrestle and rough house, if parents weren’t at home. I learned self confidence from that physical contact. As an adult I have never had a man lay a hand on me in anger. I don’t give out “prey” vibes. I enjoy shooting handguns, Go at least once month to an outdoor gun range and shoot on family owned rural property. I’m pretty accurate with both pistols and revolvers. Will soon put in for Texas CHL and will encourage other women to do so as well. I refuse to be a victim. .
Bravo. Give this woman a cigar too.
Outstanding KAT.
Please do your best to encourage and point other women in the same direction.
uncommon_sense,
Taking delivery today of Smith & Wesson Model 63 3 ” barrel .22LR 8 round revolver to economically practice my shooting skills. But also to have in my range bag to loan out to new shooters at gun range.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a guy trying to teach a woman how to shoot with his gun, usually high caliber, high recoil. loud (painful) weapon. I could see on the woman’s face, that look “this is NOT fun”. I know that look, had it myself first time I shot a gun at a range trip with a boyfriend when in my 20’s. Did not pick up a gun again until my 50’s
I want other women to get the same enjoyment I get from shooting by getting off to a good start
Hooah give this girl a bottle of bourbon and a box of ammo.
What I was trying to say earlier. Exactly right.
The problem is that it is all too easy for those of us who are (relatively) psychological stable to see and advise that the solution is to Get Out of Dodge! For whatever reason, and the solution is neither obvious nor are the guesses reliable at this time, very many of these women resist what most people would consider rational and obvious advice. Even given all kinds of help and support too many of them wind up going right back into the same abusive situation. Makes you yearn for the good old days when the father or brothers or an uncle could look the guy up and give him a good beat-down, then ride him out of town on a rail.
Since these women are frequently, for whatever reasons, psychologically incapable of saving themselves we must consider that until the legal system comes up with an EFFECTIVE way of deterring this sort of behavior these women will remain at risk. Even if they get a gun.
Ahhh Sugarman. He’s like an old football knee injury- you forget about it most the time, then a cold breeze starts up and you remember how much you want to go back in time and beat somebody’s ass.
Don’t buy a gun. Okay Sugarmann. How about buy a gun and get some training?
Why are we trying to reduce gun death but not any other kind of death. Why the focus on “gun” death? Is death by gun worse than other kinds of death? Furthermore, how do we know that the victim would be spared in the absence of a gun? The perpetrator could use weapons that are not guns to kill a victim. The situation seems a bit more complex than the Violence Policy Center is making it out to be especially given their simplistic solution based on simplistic statistics used to describe a complex and dynamic problem.
Because Gun Violence is “in” right now. Maybe in 2016 Juvenile Violence will be “in” and Gun Violence will be “out.” Who knows?
Gun violence is seen as worse than other forms of violence. If people were killed by other means like hands and fists it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. This is the same mentality where around 100k syrians have been killed in the fighting. Around 1000 people die by chemical weapons and all of the sudden people go ape. What about the other 100k that died from guns, knives, mortars, artillery etc. The weapon makes the crime somehow worse. At the end of the day, dead is dead. It doesn’t matter if it was slow agonizing and painful from being bludgeoned to death or a quick shot to the head, the result is the same. Dead.
hey – Colorado State Senator Hudak thinks rape is cool and “in” – don’t agree with her, but . . . . apparently Josh supports her argument and think women should just accept a daily ass whuppin’ as a cost of being a woman. Apparently, Shannon Watts(TM) believes the same thing, at least until her sugar daddy John decides to dump her for a newer model like he did his prior wife . . . .
And we all know Dirk will be right there waiting to pick up the pieces when lil Shan shan breaks down after her hubby gets caught with the babysitter.
They focus on gun violence because it involves guns. Not coincidentally, guns also enable us to resist gangsters and governments. Not that we can easily tell one from the other.
The tool you use is the tool that is at hand when you need it that will get the job done.
I remember reading (many) years ago, before AT&T was broken up and when EVERY telephone was leased from TPC, that in the City of Chicago one of the most common weapons used in domestic violence homicides of women was the heavy bakelite handset from the household telephone.
A violent a**hole who can’t control himself will much more likely use his fists or some other object to beat you to death during an out-of-control episode than he will come after you with a gun planning to kill you intentionally. If you have your won gun and are not prepared to use it I suspect you will have added to your problems by throwing fuel on his fire and providing a better tool.
Well, Josh baby has been at this half-truth bloody flag waving since 1988, according to his profile at Linkedin:
Executive Director
Violence Policy Center
January 1988 – Present (25 years 10 months)
Founder and executive director of national non-profit educational organization working to stop gun death and injury.
Boston University
MS, Journalism
1978 – 1982
And from Wikipedia:
Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.
So this guy has been a professional shill and rabble-rouser for most of his professional life.
He also wrote a couple of books (from Amazon):
National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear by Josh Sugarman (May 1992)
Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns by Josh Sugarmann (Mar 1, 2001)
There ya go…
Yes, he’s a well-compensated social parasite.
Sugarman is the evil twin of RF at this point. I’d like to think the BU versus Tufts debate is leaning toward Tufts by now. It’s a no-holds-barred cage match. I see no reason to believe that a parallel foundation working for the same goals as this website would not be a good idea. Synergy.
Yes the VPC would rather women to continue to be abused then have then protect themselves with a firearm.
As I read this article I can’t help but think of this comedy bit…
“So, you just rub one out, like a man… It’s the champagne of victory.”
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AlvvCYUDHrQ
Yes indeed! Any fan of Bill Burr is good people in my book.
Man, there is so much BS in that letter I cant see straight.
It implies that women should not by guns because they stand a high probability of being killed by a partner with said gun. The problem is that most women who are abused by a partner are not killed by them – so you are already talking about a fraction of a demographic. Further more there is complete avoidance of all the rapes, robberies, abductions, etc. that a gun might help a woman avoid, including violence by a partner in general by the larger percentage of women who aren’t killed by them.
…also this fractured logic seems to ignore the much more likely scenario that the male partner owns or buys a gun.
There are many strange details buried in the “woman who won’t leave the bastard” reality. Many of the same women, in my anecdotal experience, love it when their man cranks up a bar fight. They are flattered to be the one person the bastard occasionally treats with gentleness. The number of cops injured when the domestic dispute intervention ends up uniting the couple against the intervening LEO is large. I agree with Dyspeptic, above, that it is time to put the M.O. in front of the woman and say, “this is what you do. It’s on you. Stop being a facilitator.” The usual answer is, “but I’m changing him, and besides, I don’t have the money to leave.” Cut your losses, darling girls. You’re only getting older. And it’s costing us money in ER visits and LEO overtime.
The trouble is Joshy Boy, the laws vary from state to state and simple misdemeanor things that may not be a big deal equate to a felony at the Federal level due to the LautenBooger Amendment. The young lady arrested in Florida for assaulting her boyfriend with a water-gun and pillow will now be treated as s prohibited person on the Form 4473 all because of the punk pussed out and called the police.
As someone who’s known several abused women, I agree that guns aren’t the answer. Lots of people won’t like what I say, but it’s true. There are plenty of women who actively seek out abusive men. Repeatedly. And keep going back to the same bastards that continue to abuse them. In some cases it is mutually abusive – him to her and her back to him. Her abuse might not be physical, but it’s abuse just the same. Note that the above does not in any circumstance excuse the man’s actions.
In most cases where the woman is killed, it’s after a long freaking history of violence. The police know the address well. She’s left several times and then went back. Over and over. That is not the actions of someone who can or will use a gun correctly in self-defense.
If a woman leaves an abusive man, then a week later gets back together with him, what the hell is buying a gun going prove? She has already proven that she doesn’t have the mindset or force of will for adequate self-defense. In the early days of this site there was discussion that self-defense was more than just a gun. There was mindset, conditioning, proper locks and alarms on the house, exterior lights, avoiding stupid people doing stupid things, etc. The gun was the “after all else fails” option. The battered women I’ve known accelerate toward the “after all else fails” point at breakneck speed. Every one has had multiple opportunities to leave and didn’t stay away.
No, in this scenario a gun is very rarely an improvement.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but what does any of this have to do with dissuading women in general from owning a firearm for protection? Its as if the message is, “if you’re a woman, chances are you are abused and battered, so don’t get a gun, cause the bastard will just kill you with it”. As if that applied to the majority of women in this country. Its irresponsible to brow-beat women out of getting a firearm, because some small fraction of women in the general population are killed…by their partner….with a gun….specifically.
Good point. 67% of murders are committed with firearms. Joshy overlooked the fact that the remainder are still murdered. For example, how did Scott Pederson kill his wife? Do they even know? Then there is O.J.’s ex wife . . .
Stalkers, stranger violence and other problems are all very good reasons to own a firearm. I see lots of female cash in transit guards up here, all armed. In Canada. though., even pepper spray is a Prohibited Weapon, IF USED AGAINST A PERSON (on bears, etc., it is legal). The best fix for an abusive relationship is still to leave, or have the person removed from the home. But, for whatever bizarre reason, women tend to stay with their abusive partners, even if they eventually kill them or their children.
Here, in Canada, one actually has to list past, or current domestic partners as references on a PAL application:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592-eng.pdf
In the Province I live in, the leader of the New Democratic Party (a social democratic party, with a very feminist orientation), some years ago, was a woman. As Party Leader and elected official, she pulled in a six-figure salary. And she had a ne’er do-well live-in boyfriend, whom she financially supported…and tuned her up regularly, Yet she never gave him the boot. Women in this century, in the developed world, have access to jobs, their own homes, and emergency welfare, shelters and other social safety nets. And this lays bare the fiction that women in abusive domestic relationships (including lesbian relationships, which have an even higher rate of domestic violence–an un-PC statistic for you) are helpless victims. Police also hate domestic battery incidents, because THEY are not treated like knights in shining armour, but as unwelcome meddlers, and police have been the targets of violence from the VICTIMS of domestic violence. Usually, female victims of domestic violence do not want to leave, and no amount of do-gooder initiatives by third parties, including a paternalistic state, will fix this.
As follow-up, I do think that women should buy and carry guns, and that they are just as capable of defending themselves from violence as men. Women have more to fear from strangers and random violence. The above post was just for long-standing abusive relationships.
For these types of women, Lil’ Joshie is also wasting his breath. You can’t help someone who doesn’t want help.
For those who do want to break the cycle, lethal force is the last option, but it should always be on the table.
So, I guess nobody ever told these people that correlation doesn’t prove causation?
Does pimp/ho count as an intimate relationship?
People who have made the decision to try and *kill* someone are not going to stop because they can’t find a handy firearm. They’ll use whatever’s handy like…OTHER WEAPONS.
“So you gotta look at OJ’s situation. He’s paying $25,000 a month in alimony, got another man driving around in his car and fucking his wife in a house he’s still paying the mortgage on. Now I’m not saying he should have killed her… but I understand.”
– Chris Rock
I swear to God I still don’t understand why “gun violence” and “violence” (“other violence”?) are separate categories for some reason.
It’s to demonize the guns so that “they” can disarm “us.”
What Ralph says is correct. One other thing that seems to have been glossed over here is that in most of these domestic violence relationships the man is most definitely NOT out to kill the partner. His goal is dominance, not murder. He wants to control her and OWN her in every respect. Killing her, when it happens, is very likely accidental when his obviously uncontrolled insanity gets too far out of hand or some action on her part, such as presenting a firearm she is not actually prepared to use, escalates the situation out of control. There is more than one person in these relationships with psychological or pathological problems. Since the woman is more often than not the passive victim it would seem that the proper solution is to target the aggressor. One cannot expect that a woman who is by her nature passive will suddenly change that outlook just by having access to a gun.
Try to get her to come and stay with you. Leak to the ex where he might find her. Shoot the SOB when he comes knocking. YMMV.
Classic. “Fix the problem, not the blame.” No wrestling around with the excuses. There are many roads out of an abusive relationship, but she (sometimes ‘he’) has got to want one.
How subtly misogynistic of him.
Sounds like he and Evie Hudak drink the same kool-aid.
“Before any woman decides to buy a gun, she should consider the fact that owning a firearm actually increases one’s risk of lethal harm.”
Not at all. If a women lives in the same home and sleeps with a boyfriend/husband that decides to kill her, the boyfriend/spouse definitely does NOT need a firearm to succeed. A simple hammer to the head when the woman is sleeping is very easy and incredibly effective. Likewise, a boyfriend/husband could slice the girlfriend/wife’s neck while sleeping … causing the woman to bleed out in less than two minutes. Then there is depressants or poison that the boyfriend/husband could add to the woman’s food or drink. Shall I continue?
I have said it before and I will say it again. If a boyfriend/husband starts domestic violence, the woman MUST LEAVE IMMEDIATELY AND NEVER LOOK BACK. Move as far away as possible — across the country. I know it is incredibly disruptive, difficult, expensive, and unfair for the woman to do that but it sure beats being dead. And while I strongly encourage all women to arm themselves, they better make sure that their domestic violence partner cannot access their firearm.
If a woman has taken the leap of kicking her abuser to the curb, which is often the hardest part, I’m totally in favor of her arming herself in case he decides to come back to get revenge.
However I have to say if I found out that a woman I knew was being abused, but I couldn’t convince her to leave him, I would NOT advise she bring a gun into the house if there wasn’t already one there.
The policy of countries like my original one. Third world socialist countries have the same doctrine. Is morally acceptable to be a victim than to be the survivor. Hence why I am scrapping whatever I can whenever I can to save up for a g17.
So don’t buy a gun because he may take it to shoot you?
Then by that logic don’t buy kitchen knifes, pot, pans, a bat, tire iron, or just about anything else.
We need frying pan regulation!
Yes. Basically, women would rather die than defend themselves from somebody they “love”. Darwin at its finest.
Sweet. Another completely disingenuously named organization.
If women stopped abusers effectively with guns, then there would be less abuse. And Oh NO! VPC would need a more relevant sounding name and research goal, like the “we hate your right to bear arms center”.
These Idiots are completely screwed up,Convoluted facts,Ignoramuses about guns,complete no nothing’s . This group actually enhances gun violence against women,Here is a tip ladies; DO BUY A GUN and take classes on how to use it and practice. practice,practice.This stupid organization needs to do the same as they know not what they talk( give advice) about.
Look at the top states, I wonder what they all have in common.
This claim is based on a correlation between owning a gun and a higher risk of death. The correlation is real, but the direction of causation is entirely Sugarmann’s own invention. Using the same logic as Sugarmann, you could claim that getting a restraining order dramatically increases a woman’s chance of being murdered by a domestic partner. Or, for that matter, that wearing a heavy coat makes it snow.
Exactly. Nowhere does he offer any proof that the gun said woman may own is the gun that kills her – it’s a false correlation. Buying a car makes you more likely to die in a traffic accident. Therefore none of us should have cars.
I’ll tell you this – my baby girl will be taught how to handle firearms as soon as she’s old enough, and as she gets older I will teach her to defend herself physically – up to and including putting a couple of hollowpoints into someone who is out to hurt her. I will also teach her to know what level of violence to respond with and how to know when the time has come to draw a weapon. And to hell with what these so-called advocates say in their efforts to prevent women from defending themselves.
That is exactly the point I wanted to make. They manipulate the statistics. The only actual stat they SHOULD be using if they have any interest in being impartial, is how often the woman’s own firearm is the one used to harm or kill her.
On par for what I would expect from gun-grabbers…. twist and distort, twist and distort.
The fact is that abusive partners are a stain on humanity, and very difficult to obliterate. In my job I met two women who subsequently turned out to have murdered their abusive partners after leaving them, then being further abused for leaving. They enlisted family and friends to end the threat, but their mistake was to secretly bury the miscreants in their back yards. When the partners’ families got the Police involved, it took years to finally sort out. I found these two women to be small, pathetic creatures, who did what they thought best for their children. If they had been given the confidence to own and train with weapons, they would not have had to resort to the covert methods they used, which solved their immediate problems, but landed them in jail in the end. (But they would have been unlikely to pass the background checks necessary to obtain a firearms licence, due to their domestic situation).
I also met many other women who, after being battered and going to a shelter, returned to their owners (the Bible often refers to husbands as owners) in a few days, in a consistent pattern. It is very hard for women, and our laws do not adequately protect them.
Comments are closed.