I have every sympathy for victims of domestic violence. It is not their fault. No one in that situation deserves to be abused, threatened, injured or killed. If the victim of domestic abuse chooses not to arm themselves in self-defense — for whatever reason — that is their right and I respect it. Yes, victims are ultimately responsible for their own safety, and the safety of their children. But first and foremost the abuser is responsible for his or her behavior. All that said, neither victim nor abuser has the right to disarm anyone. So when Ruth Glenn [above] tells The Trace . . .
There are a handful who do believe that victims should arm themselves. The vast majority feel like I do: that the safety of victims and survivors of domestic violence isn’t being considered. And it’s disappointing.
There you go again: another gun control advocate who believes that Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is subject to the democratic process. It isn’t. As the Heller decision affirmed, gun rights are an individual right.
If just ONE person wants to arm herself against domestic abuse (or for any other reason), that is their right. As per the Second Amendment, their right to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement. No matter how “disappointed” gun control advocates feel.
About that “disappointment” . . .
Ms. Glenn’s word choice suggests that she believes her victimhood elevates her views on gun ownership above those who haven’t been victimized. The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex (e.g., The Trace) promotes this perspective to emotionally blackmail firearms freedom fence straddlers into supporting the anti-gun rights cause. That ain’t right, on all sorts of levels.
What would you say to a domestic violence victim who wants a gun for protection?
The argument is just fascinating to me, because most frequently victims and survivors are the ones who say, “I don’t want a gun, I feel like it will put me at more risk, and I can’t shoot or hurt the person I love.” Usually those who want to arm victims have not been involved in a domestic violence situation. Unless you know the dynamics of domestic violence, I think it’s really bad advice to say that a victim should have a gun.
One time, after I gave a presentation, a young person said, “Why didn’t you just steal the gun from him?” Well, I could have, but how much danger would I put myself in? Because now he doesn’t have the gun and maybe he’ll beat the crap out of me until he gets it back.
Again, Ms. Glenn indicates that her support for gun control is informed by an imperfect understanding of risk analysis, filtered entirely through her own personal experience and anecdotal evidence. How many women weren’t abused because they were armed? How many women might be spared if they were armed? I don’t know and neither does Ms. Glenn.
Ms. Glenn’s “fascination” with the pro-gun rights position is another sign that she’s emotionally and intellectually detached from the pro-gun position. She can’t get her head around the idea of bearing arms for self-protection, so no one should be able to do it.
Did you ever think about using a gun against your former husband?
I cannot tell you about how many times I thought about hurting him, but it was never with a gun. I always thought, “I’ll wait until he’s asleep and stab him.” I was petrified of guns. They were something he used against me.
When my husband was in hiding after he shot me, people were trying to convince me to get a gun and protect myself. I said, “I just can’t. I don’t feel comfortable with them. I’m afraid I’ll shoot myself — and I don’t want to shoot him.” Because you still care about that person.
I find it odd that Ms. Glenn wasn’t averse to homicidal proactive self-defense against her abusive husband with an edged weapon, but crusades against using a firearm for self-defense against domestic abuse.
Ms. Glenn reckons her experience of domestic violence is the experience, which makes her opinion about armed self-defense against abusers the opinion. Seriously contemplating an alternative view would force her to seriously question past decisions related to the abuse. Which I seriously doubt she wants to do.
I’m not here to judge Ms. Glenn’s psychology, just illuminate it. In closing, I want to shine a light on one strange corner of her anti-gun animus.
We can’t understand why women are allowing themselves to be subjected to such abuse. But it becomes their norm for a long time. If you’re taking back someone who’s abused you, chances are you’re not going to kill them, even in self-defense.
And trust me, if you do have a gun and you decide you need to do something to stop the abuse, and that perpetrator is coming toward you, you’d better kill them. Because if you don’t, the consequences could be even greater.
Point taken: only arm yourself against domestic abuse if you’re prepared to use your firearm to stop the threat. It’s too bad Ms. Glenn didn’t explore that concept before deciding that armed self-defense for victims of domestic violence is something which should not be encouraged or, indeed, allowed. Shame.