David Johnson Sr. (courtesy nola.com)

“Commenting on a gruesome case of domestic homicide that occurred in Geismar, Louisiana on August 9, 2015, Ascension Parish Sheriff Jeff Wiley advised women to do the following,” the anti-gunners at csgv.org report, accurately enough. “Get your concealed weapons permit. Ladies, learn how to safely handle a weapon, learn how to safely store a weapon, and when you’re in a situation like this shoot him in your back yard before he gets in your house. Drop him. I mean, I’m serious. Take the extremes necessary to live a life where you don’t have to worry about your kids and your life.” And that’s where the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence’s rhetoric goes south, so to speak . .

Sheriff Wiley’s remarks put the blame on abused mother Monica Butler Johnson for her own murder at the hands of her ex-husband. Sheriff Wiley also seems to be indicating that he believes our criminal justice system is useless, or ineffectual. If that is the case in Ascension Parish, then the responsibility is his.

There is no credible domestic violence prevention group in the United States urging abused women to obtain firearms. As National Domestic Violence Hotline CEO Katie Ray-Jones noted, “It is always highly concerning when a person introduces a weapon into a violent situation. While someone may be trained to use and carry a firearm, there is always a possibility that the weapon could be used against them by their abusive partners.”

The CSGV cites a study “proving” that it’s better – safer – for victims of domestic violence to be disarmed. Citation: Fact Sheet, “Intimate Partner Violence and Firearms,” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthThat would be the same Michael Bloomberg whose money funds Everytown for Gun Safety, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and The Trace.

It’s an inherently flawed study that makes no distinction between armed victims and armed abusers. (It’s just “guns in the home.”) If you think about it, by not making that distinction, the study puts the blame on victims of domestic abuse for living in a house where their abuser is armed. Oh wait. It’s society that’s to blame for allowing anyone to be armed.

If followed to its logical conclusion, the antis’ final solution to domestic violence would mean that everyone would be disarmed: abuser and victim. Would that stop domestic violence? It’s a rhetorical question, obviously. Unless you happen to be a defenseless victim of domestic violence, in which case you could be beaten to death with a baseball bat, as Ms. Johnson was in Ascension Parish. Or stabbed. Or strangled. Or pushed down a flight of stairs. Etcetera.

The Trace is all over this story, too (Advocates Warn of New Dangers as Sheriff Urges Domestic Violence Victims to Arm Themselves). They have to be. The idea that women in danger from domestic violence should arm themselves for self-protection, and the protection of their children, is simple common sense. The idea that they shouldn’t be armed is extremely difficult to make. And if the antis can’t justify disarming society’s most vulnerable members, their cause is surely lost.

To defend their anti-gun jihad against the obvious emotional power of Sheriff Jeff Wiley’s advice, The Trace adds this to the CSGV’s argument against armed self-defense:

Christy Salters Martin is one of the more high-profile examples of what can go wrong: The professional boxer and licensed concealed carrier armed herself against her husband during a violent 2010 altercation at their home in Florida. Martin’s husband, also a concealed carrier, grabbed Martin’s pink Glock and shot her with it. Overall, the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide five-fold, according to a 2003 study. An analysis of 2010 homicide data by the Violence Policy Center found that women in relationships are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined.

Another survey, which gathered responses from more than 400 women in California battered women’s shelters in 2004, found that only 1.4 percent of domestic abuse victims had used a long gun in self defense against their abuser, and only 3.1 percent had used a handgun in self defense.

Meeks also warns that when women do use firearms to successfully defend themselves in domestic incidents, there can be unforeseen consequences. It’s what she calls the “Marissa Alexander situation.” Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing what she argued was a warning shot to scare her abusive husband at their Florida home in 2012. She was released on house arrest after overturning the conviction on appeal, but had already served three years behind bars.

That same year, Tammy Romero was charged with second-degree murder after fatally shooting her live-in boyfriend after years of dysfunction and abuse. The Louisiana woman pled guilty to negligent homicide and filed a federal lawsuit against local police, arguing that officers actually caused Wirtz’s death because they did not do enough to protect her from him.

So women exposed to domestic violence shouldn’t arm themselves against their abusers because they can be shot with their own gun, they can be murdered by their abuser’s gun, California women in domestic violence shelters haven’t armed themselves with guns, and if an armed woman uses her gun against her abuser she could be jailed.

Convinced? Neither is anyone with an open mind and a sympathetic heart who read about Monica Johnson’s murder, and the Sheriff’s response.

Which is why gun control advocates are so adamant that victims of domestic violence remain unarmed. And if society listens to this nonsense and enacts laws that infringe on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which they do in New Jersey, New York City, parts of California and elsewhere, are they not at least partially to blame when abused women – or men – are murdered? Just wondering . . .

40 Responses to CSGV: Urging Armed Self-Defense = Blaming the Victim

  1. Do you really think any of those organizations care about the people? They just want Bloomberg’s money. It’s just like the fact that a female friend and I are about to bring up a super feminist blog for a month as a college experiment for her, to see exactly how influential (and lucrative ) an extremist position is.

    • DUPLICITOUS LIARS: CSGV, Bloomberg, Trace et al.

      http://concealednation.org/2015/08/elderly-woman-prevents-home-intruders-from-raping-her-by-using-her-gun/

      BIG SUR, CALIFORNIA — When two home intruders came barging in early one evening, one elderly woman was able to make it to her bedroom and grab her firearm to protect herself. According to authorities, the two suspects – 5’2″ and 5’4″ respectively – had clear intention of raping her and burglarizing her home.

      Thankfully, she was prepared. Bay City News Service reports the intruders were armed with knives and in their mid-20s. Sheriff’s deputies confirmed that the intruders gained access to her bedroom before she was able to draw her firearm.

    • It’s funny. So much of women’s liberation and first wave feminism has been co-opted and bastardized that one would think the entire purpose of modern feminism was to create a subservient class of hyper-sexualized young women who won’t become pregnant. Not that I’m complaining. Just an observation.

      • I think you’re on to something there; the various policy positions taken by the so-called “feminists” seem to concentrate on exactly two thing: keeping the “casual” in “casual sex” and keeping women dependent on government largesse.

  2. Just read one of the comments in the original news article:
    “Worked with him a few years ago. He was a very nice person. You just never know what a person is capable of doing.Praying for both families especially their kids. May God give their families the strength to get through this difficult time in their lives. RIP Mrs. Monica”

    You never know….all the more reason to be armed!

  3. People should come to understand that not providing for their own defense when possible is indeed negligence. It is not a crime in the way the attackers actions are but it is still negligence.

    • “It is not a crime in the way the attackers actions are but it is still negligence”

      To a Christian it is one in the same, because it is a crime to be negligent in protecting the gift of Life.

  4. “Another survey, which gathered responses from more than 400 women in California battered women’s shelters in 2004, found that only 1.4 percent of domestic abuse victims had used a long gun in self defense against their abuser, and only 3.1 percent had used a handgun in self defense.”

    So armed women only end up in a shelter 1.4 to 3.1 percent of the time?

    • “Another survey, which gathered responses from more than 400 women in California battered women’s shelters in 2004, found that only 1.4 percent of domestic abuse victims had used a long gun in self defense against their abuser, and only 3.1 percent had used a handgun in self defense.”

      Perhaps they wouldn’t have reside in battered women’s shelters if they had used a gun in self defense.

  5. The boxer was stabbed first and left for dead. The husband only shot her when he came back later and found her alive. One could argue that if he had decided to finish her off by slitting her throat (or bashing her head in, or strangling her, etc) instead of putting a bullet in her she wouldn’t be alive today.

    But that still doesn’t do the story full justice, since the husband had threatened to kill her if she ever left him. He had made the threat multiple times over the years (according to the boxer). And yet she served him papers in a private setting, and turned her back on him (which was when he stabbed her). There is no way she should have been in the same house with him at that point. And if she had to be, she should 1) have had the gun on her instead of locked up in a separate room, and 2) never have turned her back on him.

    Basically, the fact that she had a gun and a permit had virtually nothing to do with the attack. It was all a done deal before the gun ever came out. So, once again, if you drill down on any of their stories, it all falls apart. Smoke and mirrors, it’s all they have.

    • “So, once again, if you drill down on any of their stories, it all falls apart. Smoke and mirrors, it’s all they have.”

      These are just fables that they keep telling each other . . . over and over again. But truth can sometimes be found in subtexts. Although seldom stated outright, one conflict gun-controllers have is a built-in ambivalence about violent crime itself. Liberal dogma insists that violent criminals are products of bad environments which “force” them to do bad things. Victims, especially is there is a class difference, are expected to share the blame for criminality because they help maintain the oppressive society that “produces” crime. For libtards, shooting someone—as the sheriff suggests—for committing a crime for which they are not entirely responsible is just wrong.

      • Put that way, it makes sense. The assumptions and priorities are wrong, but their position is logical according to its premises…as far as those go.

        • The fallacy in the argument, however, is in their misunderstanding of human volition. Society, the collective . . . whatever, doesn’t make people commit violent crimes or do bad things. People decide to do those things all on their own. They do them because they want to and for no other reason than that.

      • Yes, very well stated. It’s amazing how many of the useful idiots truly believe this, all the while George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and even some of their favored minions like Shannon Watts are surrounded by armed guards.

  6. CSGV forgot to say that the good sheriff was promoting “rape culture”–ahhh, make that “abuse culture”–by urging women to be armed against attack. They must have missed the memo from their “feminist” fellow-travelers.

  7. The antis must be utterly shocked and astounded that a sheriff of all people advises being competent in one’s ability to use a tool such as a firearm to defend one’s self against a physical threat. The restraining order should have been far more than enough to keep him from doing anything, afterall it was illegal right?

  8. By their logic, getting child safety seats in cars is blaming the victim, fences around swimming pools, speed limit signs, smoke detectors, seat belts, first aid kits, safety glasses, hard hats, and indeed, anything else that is meant to prevent unexpected injury.

    • It would in any other world except for the liberal/progressive/statist.

      For a liberal/progressive/statist; being prepared for injury or death due to accident or carelessness is mature and responsible.

      But to be prepared for the malevolent actions of a human predator by carrying the best tool available, ( a gun) is paranoid and fearful.

      Yeah, I know; the psychological disconnect is so extreme it seems like it should cause a brain bleed, at least, if not cause ones head to explode.

  9. this seems like yet another of those “… And a NEW study shows …” When it’s no such thing at all but yet another attempt to do yet another end run by yet more or the same National Socialists who think that there way is the only way.
    Why are we giving them free press time?
    Eventually this issue and it’s connected issues will distill into an “either/or” confrontation and then it will be to later to find the common ground which we as a nation and a culture were once so good at doing.

  10. There is no credible domestic violence prevention group in the United States urging abused women to obtain firearms.

    This is because there is no credible domestic violence prevention group in the United States.

    • +1

      Any support group for battered women that fails to teach legally articulated deadly force against their known threat is morally bankrupt.

      Restraining order
      Group Support
      FIrearm, Holster Decision, and CHL application
      Safety/Training/Ability to legally articulate deadly force
      Affirmative Defense Attorney selection
      More Group Support, especially on being willing to use legally articulated deadly force on your attacker

  11. “There is no credible domestic violence prevention group in the United States.”

    Much more succinct and accurate than all the drivel following that statement in the original article.

  12. Well, after we are all forced convert to Islam and join ISIS, we can do to women whatever we want. Good job CSGV! We should officially make women certified animal victims.

  13. He’ll take yer gun away from you! And shoot ya’! Good on this sheriff…certainly NOT what I hear from my sheriff in Cook co,IL-Tom ‘dipshite’ Dart…

  14. Taking reasonable steps to safeguard yourself and your loved ones is not “victim blaming”. It’s another fact free attempt to stoke the fires of outrage

  15. Hmmm. I seem to recall reading elsewhere lots of stories about armed “victims” of abuse turning the tables on their abusers. If I had a research staff I would catalog that stuff, print it, and shove it up Nanny Bloomberg’s nose.

  16. Marissa Alexander went to jail because A) Warning shots are illegal and B) Going out to your car and getting your gun to go back into the house to shoot at someone when you could have just gotten in your car and left isn’t self defense, it’s attempted homicide at best.

  17. First police are not there to protect you and even if they were, there isnt enough cops to protect everyone.

    Next if you arent willing to use a gun to protect yourself or your children then don’t get one.

    I also have to ask just why are women so attracted to violent bad boys and refuse to leave them no matter how badly they are beaten? Women play a very big role in their own abuse. 50 years ago there wasnt the support groups and programs there are now so there is no excuse. I know several woman who bounce between one violent boyfriend to another and then whine about it when they get beat up. Yes sometimes the blame is on the so called victim.

    Lastly if you are going to buy a gun to protect yourself then don’t worry about whether your going to go to jail for protecting yourself from a violent spouse/partner.

  18. “There is no credible domestic violence prevention group in the United States urging abused women to obtain firearms.”

    Well, then, wouldn’t one think that it’s about time they changed their position?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *