Let’s say you want to stop someone from shooting you. You could A) lobby for more gun control, B) report the potential killer to the police, or C) arm yourself. Choose any two. Common sense suggests that B and C are the correct answer. Even if you think “stricter” gun laws could keep a gun out of the hands of your potential killer, you’d have to be crazy to consider it a short-term solution. When it’s your life on the line, short-term solutions are what you need. And any law that makes it harder for you, the innocent party, to get a gun to defend your life is a bad thing, not a good thing. So, did I miss something? If so, here’s a story from Houston that makes the point in a more emotionally engaging way . . .
A woman was killed on the job Wednesday at a Medical Center-area apartment complex where she worked. Her killer then turned the gun on himself, a man with whom she had a relationship. He survived and at the moment is in critical condition.
The shooting happened at the Greenbriar Apartments near Braeswood at Greenbriar. It’s home to medical residents and researchers.
“In Japan, we cant have a gun. We rarely see such kind of things,” said Akihiro Hayashi, a researcher from Japan who lives at the complex.
Sorry about that. I don’t know why Houston’s abc13.com felt obliged to insert some meaningless pro-gun control comment into this story; perhaps to deflect from the obvious missed opportunity for armed self-defense.
Houston police say several people saw the man come into the complex around 3:40pm. They called police. Not long after that, they heard two gunshots.
“There were some witnesses who ran for their lives,” said Officer Robert Klementich, a Houston Police Department homicide investigator.
EMS workers were directed to the clubhouse, where they found the woman’s body. She had been shot once. The man was unconscious. He was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital but isn’t expected to make it.
As chilling as the crime itself, was the security video that showed the man approaching the woman, firing his gun and turning the weapon on himself. Now we’ve learned the victim filed a harassment police report against the suspect just three hours before her death. Police say he called her about 140 times in one day.
So not only did the police fail to provide the unnamed woman with protection, they failed to come to her rescue when notified that her armed antagonist had hunted her down.
Which is not a failure, per se. Unless you’re a celebrity or politically connected, you can’t expect the police to shoulder the burden [sic] of providing a security detail to a woman involve in a “normal” domestic violence threat. They simply don’t have the resources for the job.
Here’s the funny thing about domestic violence and gun control. Even the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex admits that gun control doesn’t work. Here are the first two bullet points Everytown for Gun Safety’s Guns and Violence Against Women web page.
- Federal law does not keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers.
- Many state gun laws fail to protect domestic violence victims.
I know: Everytown’s presenting these facts as reasons to enact more gun control. But still, point taken – at least by anyone with even a lick of common sense. Or anyone facing the threat of a homicidal [one hopes former] partner.
A gun is their single best defense for those poor souls. And their children. Shame on those who would deny victims of domestic violence the chance to arm themselves against aggression in the name of protecting their lives. In fact, for all their talk of the NRA having “blood on its hands,” it’s the antis who routinely put innocent life at risk.
This is one point the antis have trouble understanding. It’s because they inherently believe guns are a guy’s hobby. They are ignorant (willfully or not) of the large number of women who enjoy guys for self defense and sport.
I just got back from the range where my wife was zeroing in her laser sight for her pistol. Her comment of the day: “Now I can just point and shoot.”
Yeah, unfortunately we only tend to have a passing interest.
I just added a SCAR 16S to my collection. Next to my Colt LE6920 and M+M M10 (AKM); DPMS LR308 (which I just put a Nikon Monarch scope on), Sig P320, P226Mk25 and my P238 for carry. Oh and my MKA 1919 too.
Someday I might be able to be a real gun nut like the boys! I’m a’tryin.
I mean, it’s horrific when another girl shows up to the range with the same gun as you 🙁
Nice! Sounds like a pretty good start to me. The females in my family have pretty much been around firearms their whole lives. I don’t find it very difficult, though, to get their friends to see the practicality and fun factor of firearms after only one time at the range. Once they go for the first time, the next question is “How can I get a pistol, and what would you recommend for me?”
The problem here is the implied assumption that females – all or the overwhelming majority – do not want to take up a gun for self-defense. Is this true? To what extent? And, to the extent that it is an intrinsic part of female psychological wiring, does it matter?
Suppose, arguendo, that one woman in America (in every generation) demands liberty to defend herself with a gun. Could she be denied? By whom? A simple majority of women? A simple majority of men and women? If so, do the Antis have the requisite votes? Or, would it take 3/4 vote of the States to deprive that single woman?
When each voter enters the voting booth he must answer these questions for him-/her-self. Does s/he thing s/he has the moral authority to disarm this single woman?
Each culture will take its own decision. If you don’t like the outcome, move to the gun-control country of your choice.
I don’t think it’s “wiring”. I CC, and have… a good number of guns. Some of my female friends (and actually formerly disinterested male friends, too) are expressing more of an interest since gun control movements have been heating up.
It definitely depends on culture. One has asked me to help her build an AR this summer. I really think the keyword here ends up being ‘mom’. I’m not one. However, I’m sure there are moms who carry too. One of my (female) roommate’s most prized possession is her Garand.
I think it’s culture.
I agree that it’s probably mostly culture. Conceivably, it’s entirely culture. I’m not sure and I doubt that we PotG will resolve the debate of nature vs. nurture. Therefore, I’m not inclined to waste energy talking about how many women are so inclined and how many would never take up a gun.
I think this debate will turn on sentiment. How does Ms A really feel about her decision to deny the liberty of choice by Ms B as to whether she will defend herself at all; and, if so, with what? Does Ms A really believe in Ms B’s right-to-choose abortion but rules-out her right to shoot her rapist? Or, perhaps, rules-out Ms B’s right to abort but acknowledges her right to shoot her rapist? Or, rules out / in both?
Pretty good! Freedom is the answer, control is the enemy. If you wish an abortion, that is not my business. If you carry a gun, that is not my business. If your actions adversely affect me and mine, I will engage you. Rules which say I cannot do so are invalid and unconstitutional. Really pretty simple!
Let’s say you want to stop someone from shooting you. You could A) lobby for more gun control, B) report the potential killer to the police, or C) arm yourself. Common sense suggests that B and C are the correct answer.
I would not bet too heavily on choice B either as the cops are more of a take down what passes for facts 30 minutes after the incident crew rather than a prevention crew.
Cops don’t prevent very much crime. Mostly they clean up after a crime was committed.
And that is their job. *Prevention* of a crime, against me, or mine, is MY job.
John Lott claims that the police are the most important factor. I haven’t formed an opinion on whether they are the most, 2’nd most, etc. In fact, I’m not clear on how to tease out all the inter-related factors to come to a conclusion. (I have had graduate econometrics so I’m aware of multiple regression.)
We do know that a small fraction of criminals are responsible for a highly disproportionate fraction of the crime. So, to the extent that the cops get these criminals into prison, they have a high impact on crime. Yet, this effect is diluted by the extent to which criminals are: caught by cops; prosecuted; plea-bargened; convicted; patrolled. Thus, we can applaud the cops for catching criminals while still complain that the LE system as a whole is ineffective.
The relevant questions, I think, are: Would criminal behavior would be far lower if citizens were far more active in self-defense? If home-owners armored-up would burglaries – both ‘cold’ and ‘hot’ – be much lower? Would fewer burglars graduate to armed robbery? Would criminals killed by victims reduce recidivism? Would criminals wounded by victims increase the number arrested and successfully prosecuted?
Complementary relationships can be extraordinarily complex. Increasing the number of cops by 1% will not increase the number of prosecutable arrests by 1% due to the phenomena of diminishing returns. Increasing the number of prosecutable arrests by 1% will not increase the number of prisoner-years of incarceration while there isn’t an empty prison cell. The only effect will be an increase in the velocity of revolving prison doors.
I think B should be included, nice to have the fact you were scared for your life on record. Obviously C also.
“I think B should be included, nice to have the fact you were scared for your life on
record.”
Good advice. While the police cynically refer to a Restraining Order as “Paper Kevlar”, it DOES establish a verifiable trail that the perp was stalking the victim – and will come in handy when the victim shoots the crap out of the perp when he came after them again.
Time after time you hear the meme “We can’t arrest him until he tries something”. And then, when “something” is tried, they cordon off the crime scene with yellow tape and draw a chalk outline around the victim. Who is within that outline is determined by whether or not the victim armed him/her self.
Nicely put.
Oh man what tripe. My wife used to teach self defense to silly white women at the YWCA. She told me most thought they shouldn’t resist or he might hurt them. And my crazy ex-wife carried a gun(illegally). Pulling a trigger (or even having the will to resist) is everything…
Pulling a trigger (or even having the will to resist) is everything
Exactly. Guns could be available for free — and come with matching shoes and a handbag — and a lot of women, maybe even most of them, would still chose to be defenseless.
Depends on the location a lot. I’ve trained several hundred women (and men) to shoot, and have not run across many who would hesitate to defend themselves. I’ve given away about 9,000 of my _free_ e-book called “I Am NOT A Victim.” http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846
Seems to me you underestimate the ladies… I suspect they simply need to be exposed to the truth, empowered to take control of their own lives, and have incentive to act on it. At least that’s been my experience.
That’s the struggle. Don’t presume that any women would rather be a victim.
No offense intended but I live in Illinois and Ralph is in Massachusetts. Wyoming is different(and better)…
So, Former Water Walker and Ralph, are you packed yet and how long will it take you to get here? 🙂
I don’t think the ladies of Illinois or Massachusett want to be victims, any more than the ladies of Wyoming or Texas. They may just not actually understand why they’ve been placed in that position.
But if they truly do want to be victims… I’m terribly sorry for them, and find that all the more reason to get the hell away from there.
“We rarely see such kind of things,” said Akihiro Hayashi, a researcher from Japan. . . .
Methinks Akihiro is a lying sack of たわごと. In Japan, domestic violence is regarded as a family matter and most incidents are not reported. Half of all murder victims in Japan are spouses or other domestic partners. And the murderers don’t need guns to do their killing.
I think he was referring to gun violence as related to domestic abuse, which, as compared to the U.S., is not a lie.
His country saw such kind of things rather clearly in 1941, when they attacked and murdered thousands of Americans in a cowardly and criminal assault on Pearl Harbor! I will not grant the lying pukes the high ground while they pretend pacifism, they are no better than we are, and their depredations may well have caused our determination to maintain an ability to defend ourselves. It was their admiral who refused to consider a landing on the west coast, saying there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. Now, this buttwipe asserts their superiority because we Americans FORCIBLY disarmed them? That is ridiculous.
I find it baffling that people don’t think that domestic abusers who do not have a firearm will not resort to using fists, or bricks, or a pipe, or a tire iron, or whatever else they can get their hands on, if they’ve decided to murder their partner. Gun control does absolutely nothing in those cases (if it did anything to begin with) … and cops are generally minutes away when you need ’em.
Of those three options presented, the ONLY option that can actually stop an immediate threat to a woman is obviously (C) – armed resistance.
Years ago, when I was a police officer, we got a call of robbery in progress. We knew it was real because the C store had installed Soundac security system that allowed us to hear the robbery in real time. We were less than s minute away but by the time we arrived on scene, the robbery was over with the bad guys nowhere to be found. Fortunately, no one was shot or injured but it could have been very different like the robbery of a Taco Bell in our town where the employees were marched into the walk in freezer and then executed.
There is a lot of gross misrepresentation of domestic violence. The most common form of domestic violence is that both partners are equally violent to each other. Responding police officers have to be careful about both partners turning on them. The media likes to present the fantasy that most domestic cases involves a totally innocent and helpless woman and the man being the sole perpetrator of violence . In realty that is a less common form of domestic violence in the US as much more often (64% of the time) both are very violent people, crazies are attracted to other crazies. Then there are domestic violence cases where the woman is the perpetrator but the media and lawmakers like to pretend those don’t happen and there is near zero aid for men in those cases. Male victims even fear the police since the police may arrest them due to gender bias.
I don’t think crazies are particularly attracted to other crazies, its just that no one sane will have them. I mean, reasonably attractive crazies may occasionally end up with seriously unattractive non-crazy partners for some period, but normally all crazies will end up together or alone.
For a moment, let’s suspend consideration for Constitutional rights, and see what we might do about domestic violence. Such incidents don’t suddenly occur; rather, they escalate over a series of incidents. They are not cheap for the CJSystem to resolve.
Suppose, after a couple of domestic violence calls, the police ordered the couple to install a domestic “nannie-cam” type of video recording system (at State expense, of course). Then, on the next call(s) there would be plenty of dispositive evidence for the court to evaluate. Before the violence approaches life-threatening, the court could order physical separation. Only supervised conjugal visits would be permitted (exclusively for procreation). Each member of the couple would be ankle-bracelet’ed with a GPS device to detect violations of the separation order.
In some cases, where the couple could afford it, a National Guardsman could be quartered with the couple to ensure security while the couple lived together.
Remember, we suspended Constitutional considerations for the moment. This possibility ought to be considered purely on its utilitarian merits. If it’s for the children, any intrusion on personal privacy is justified. If it’s for the efficiency of the CJS, any intrusion is justified. The privacy rights to be found in the penumbras, formed by emanations of the 3A and 4A mean nothing.
Think carefully about it; this line of reasoning is identical to a Progressive analysis of the 2A.
Now, you can restore the operation of the Constitution.
Wait a moment on that, I want to discuss those “conjugal visits for procreation” first. You should be required to apply for conjugal visits, to include proving you have a job, and enough assets to assure that any issue won’t be needing taxpayer support. OK, reengage constitution.
Unless you’re one of those who claim its “old” and not important anymore.
Larry, Larry, Larry. You don’t see the point. The male of the species serves exclusively for breeding purposes; to provide the genetic diversity needed to produce a state-controlled number of offspring to be instructed to advance social causes. It takes a village to raise children; dads are superfluous.
1) The Pew Research showing the most Americans think gun murder is up when it has plummeted has a stunning gender differential.
Women are generally not any less intelligent, informed or rational than men, but on the firearms issue they have a stunning flat earth inversion of the core metric. That is why the gun control groups target women and have some success with that demographic — it is grossly ignorant of the facts.
2. On domestic abuse the risk factor is prior criminal history of the souse/boyfriend etc. It is very similar to the issue of the bogus studies claiming gun owning homes are more dangerous to their occupants. They rely on not controlling the data for prior criminality. When you do the results invert.
3. I am GLAD that obtaining a protective or restraining order is EASY, even though articles in various sober and academic legal journals indicate up to 80% of them are BOGUS and tit-for tat filings in divorce and custody hearings. I am GLAD you targets don’t get protection of evidentiary exclusion, no cross examination, no right to counsel, admission of heresay etc. The result is virtually neutral to the target, just a non public order to stay away from contact with the plaintiff.
BUT if actual Consittionally explicit civil liberties/rights like firearms ownership are limited by protective orders, than the process of obtaining a protective MUST be done with full defendant rights, which in almost all states, is not the case
It seems to me that framing this as “A woman’s right to choose” might get some traction with people who are on the fence. If you tell people they ought to take responsibility for their safety, you get accused of victim blaming. If you take a stand against people telling women what they can and can’t do, the public perception of the argument might be a little different.
Wouldn’t work. The massively infuential movement of feminism is all about telling women they can’t do things, and look at how much support it has from ignorant people. Framing the debate in that way wouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Let’s suppose that’s true; feminism is all about telling women they can’t do things. Would that explain the slow decline in the popularity of feminism as a movement? I don’t know; I’m not in touch with feminism. Even so, it seems to me that women are just as busy as men in pursuing their perception of happiness.
If-and-to-the-extent that you are a busy woman working your way up the corporate ladder you have to make decisions as to where to allocate your limited time. Do you march in a feminist parade? Or, do you put in 4 hours of overtime on Saturday trying to make a good impression on your boss?
A woman’s view of feminism is apt to be nuanced in ways far beyond my male mind’s capacity to understand. An individual woman may espouse feminism in many aspects of what she believes that term to represent; nevertheless, she may not buy-into feminism’s undercurrents that she can’t or shouldn’t do some things when she regards them to be in her immediate interest.
It seems to be pretty hard to argue in favor of women serving as soldiers or police officers on the one hand but to deny another woman’s innate capacity to use a gun.
Yeah, female fighter pilots and helicopter gunship pilots tend to jerk me out of any concept of shy, retiring women who need to be protected from themselves.
how many gazillions of times have I made this exact point at #Gunsense & to the harpy #Feminists? good article. Exactly on point.
We POTG commonly accept that “suicide” is means independent, and, personally, I believe Domestic Violence is means independent, as well. We also know that a gun can be the most effective means of self-defense available to any Defender for deployment against any Attacker. The exception to those premises is the Defender must have the opportunity to deploy the firearm, so an ambush attack or surprise attack would/could nullify any defensive advantage provided to the defender by carrying a gun.
In many instances of Domestic Violence, physical assault is preceded by confrontation, which gives the Defender the opportunity to deploy the firearm, either as a deterrent or eminent defense, so, it seems to follow that any person fearing Domestic Violence is better-off armed with a firearm against all possible means of attack because the exceptions to its effectiveness are fewer than the advantages it provides.
I think there has been a cultural bias regarding women and firearms, and that it has swung back and forth, over decades and scores of years and contexts, but currently favors women owning/using firearms (and women learning/practicing many other forms of personal defense). This is a good thing because it is undeniable more women suffer Domestic Violence than men, and women, in general, are advancing the exercise of their right to self-determination and should be encouraged and supported in doing so in every possible way.
The fact is that the anti-gun faction’s ideas about women and Domestic Violence, self defense and gun ownership is retardedly “Traditional”, and only serves to discourage and deny women the evolution of the exercise of their natural right to self-determination and liberty. Worse yet, the anti’s position pretends to be in the interest of women, when it is deliberately and deceitfully wrong.
“deploy the firearm, either as a deterrent or eminent defense”
If someone deploys a firearm as a deterrent, that person is asking to be added to the rolls of “the assailant took the gun away and used it on the victim”. If I pull it out,the deterrent effect will be the period it takes me to get the green dot on the assailant’s chest. If he/she is not turned around and running away by that time, it is on. I would suggest that attitude is even more urgently needed in a domestic violence setting. Zero delay-swing at me and you’ll gain a new orifice.
I think you are generalizing unjustifiably. Using the Tueller drill as a vehicle, when the attacker is 7 yards from the defender then you are absolutely correct that the available time is barely sufficient to draw, present, aim and begin firing. Yet, when the suspect is at a greater distance, there IS time to draw and present leaving residual time to aim and fire if necessary.
Furthermore, the Tueller drill does not necessarily have to begin with the recognition of a proximate threat. Suppose a woman is about to traverse a large dark parking lot/ramp. Apprehending a dangerous environment, she might discretely draw and drape her gun in a scarf. As she notices what might be another person in the vicinity she might move her forearm from a side position to a cross-chest position. Now, she has cut 1/2 to 3/4 second off her total time to be on-target. Moreover, she is scanning and her chances of spotting a suspect at distance is greater.
Often, not always, the perp engages in an “interview” process to determine whether the prey is apt to resist or submit. As the interview begins the prey responds. She cries “Stop, don’t come any closer!” The perp advances the interview to see how she responds. If she presents, he turns and runs and there is no gunfire.
We need to be careful when describing self-defense to newbies. We shouldn’t give-off the idea that the “only way” to use a gun in self-defense is to be surprised, draw from an OWB holster, and empty the magazine. These situations arise; they are not un-common. Yet, to emphasize them to the exclusion of other scenarios is to discourage newbies from even considering the possibility of arming themselves. That’s counter-productive.
If we want to welcome newbies to self-defense it would be smarter of us to begin with self-defense in the home. A gun in a gun-safe is available if one is alerted by an alarm or breaking glass. Once you get used to the idea of keeping a gun in a gun-safe you can consider keeping a gun on a nightstand, depending upon the presence of children in the home. Then, consider carrying-in-the-home if only to build your comfort level in the presence of your gun. Answer the doorbell with your gun at the ready.
Step outside the home. Carry the gun in your glove compartment. When you know you will return to your car while the parking lot is deserted, carry your gun on your errand. Carry when you walk your dog. When you go to the grocery store. One step at a time.
I think B & C should be used if at all possible. B helps to establish the threat should it come down to a confrontation and the inevitable investigation after a rightful shooting. C trumps all when it comes to self defense. My lady had an abusive ex husband who had her terrified every time he called or showed up at her door. He also had a history of physical abuse, and unfortunately I was a few states away and couldn’t physically intervene.
She was raised around firearms but is medically disabled and didn’t have the wherewithal to purchase a firearm until I made it clear that the problem would only escalate until she had an effective defense. She ended up buying a single shot 20 gauge shotgun and began to mentally toughen up against this fella. My birthday present to her was a new 20 gauge pump shotgun and we go out periodically to practice. I also introduced her to pistols and the only problem now is that she is calling my Gold Cup Trophy Match 45 as “hers” lol. She has become pretty good with both pistols and shotguns and can keep all 7 shots on a chest sized target at 25 yards with just a little bit of coaching. Because I reload, I started her off with soft target loads and then began to run up the pressure until she is quite competent with full power loads. Now, its “can we go out shooting” when decent weather comes around. She has also taken to reloading pistol rounds and is both safe and comfortable with doing so.
Her ex has showed to the house exactly once-we had an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, and since he knows I am here, he hasn’t been back since. The “bully” in him disappeared as soon as I came to the door.
I do not like bullies.
Seems to me that bullies, especially those that prey on women, are really cowards in disguise. Once they find out that their victims can effectively turn on them their true nature surfaces and they are no longer a threat. I am sure there are exceptions to this but as a general rule of thumb I think it is true.
I certainly agree, Gatha58. I think bullies should be made to take a big long drink of what they dish out to persons weaker than them.
Lol that comment about Japan is so dumb. Like that guy couldn’t have easily killed her without a gun. And Japan has so little crime because of their culture and homogeneous population not because of any specific laws.
All their crime is well organized, if you get my drift. The mob does not allow individual effort.