[Tuba-Dude]

Sweet mother of all that is sacred...A PRO-2nd AMENDMENT GROUP IN OREGON! Man, I feel a bit dizzy...my left arm is starting to tingle, too. It's a good thing to see some folks with common sense up here--and we need more gun owners, too. People up here are such wusses when it comes to firearms...

[spqrzilla9]

I thought that Oregon was 'shall issue'.

Note that all the gun control advocates comments are full of lies.

[Shooter 2.5]

But advocates working to reduce firearms deaths at the Washington, D.C.,-based Violence Policy Center bristle at the suggestion that increased gun ownership is an appropriate response to violence. They contend that for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense in 1998, another 83 women were killed by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun.

That's because the VPC has successfully disarmed the abused women. I don't understand why the VPC doesn't issued a statement that they really believe in, that women are too stupid to use a gun.

[Tuba-Dude]

Shameless self-bump.

[xm177e2]

"From a public health perspective, that's certainly not the message I would want to send," said Nancy Glass, a professor in the School of Nursing at Oregon Health & Science University who has researched intimate partner homicide. "In my view, arming people is a very short-sighted response to a public health crisis."

Leftists consider spouse abuse to be "a public health crisis!" It's always a public crisis, because that justifies government involvement. And it's a "health crisis," not a crime, so the solution is a holistic effort on the part of the government, not a crackdown.

To the leftists, everything is a damned "public health crisis." They probably consider suicide bombings in Israel to be "a public health crisis."

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Re: "From a public health perspective, that's certainly not the message I would want to send," said Nancy Glass, a professor in the School of Nursing at Oregon Health & Science University who has researched intimate partner homicide. "In my view, arming people is a very short-sighted response to a public health crisis."

EXCUSE ME! But a woman getting raped is NOT part of a public health crises. She is a victim of VIOLENT CRIME. Call it a HATE CRIME, idiot liberal nursing professor. Sheesh, I am ANGRY!

[Standing Wolf]

I've taught several women to shoot, including my ex-wife, who was a ban the guns leftist when we met. When we went our separate ways, she was packing her own .357 magnum with a concealed firearms permit. Some of the others were curious girl friends; others were friends of friends, and one was a woman whose ex-husband had put her in the hospital

People who don't own firearms are like
people who don't have fire extinguishers and first aid kits: unprepared!

[FITZ]

They also warn that a woman risks being prosecuted for murder if she kills her abuser without meeting the statutory requirements for justifiable homicide.

The laws need to be changed. The abuser isn't trying to meet the statutory requirements.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

"Like it or not, a firearm is the great equalizer," Anderson said. "A 90-pound woman can defend herself against a 300-pound (man)."

EXACTLY with proper training a little lady could be weilding a 44 mag in no time in self defence!!!

[basil]

Having worked with Lisanne in Second Amendment Sisters, I am happy to see her quoted here. She is very careful to state that when she is training a woman, she wants to make sure that SHE thinks the woman is capable of owning and using a gun if the need should arise--otherwise, she will not pass the woman.

As an older, small woman, I carry my weapon at all times. It's like my fire insurance--something I have that I hope I never need!

Bump for women everywhere being able to defend themselves!!!

[Wonder Warthog]

"In my reading of the literature, it's hard to use a gun appropriately at the right time and not at the wrong time," said gun-injury researcher David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. "Even police officers who have lots of training can use their guns at the wrong time."

Perhaps, Mr. Hemenway, if you read some "literature" other than Violence Policy Center press releases, you might actually find some verified research FACTS, like the one that shows that citizen gun owners actually do a FAR better job than police of actually identifying and HITTING the bad guy when using a firearm defensively.

[technochick99]

Lisanne is the Oregon coordinator for SAS!

[shekkian]

How about we get Nancy Glass a date with a violent, abusive ex-con and see if she figures it out.

[Jason Gade]

Sweet mother of all that is sacred...A PRO-2nd AMENDMENT GROUP IN OREGON! Man, I feel a bit dizzy...my left arm is starting to tingle, too. It's a good thing to see some folks with common sense up here--and we need more gun owners, too. People up here are such wusses when it comes to firearms...

---

Actually, it is only surprising to find a pro-gun group in the People's Republic of Multnomah County (Portland) that gets into the newspaper. Most of the area of the state is rural and conservative. Even the suburban areas like Washington and Clackamas counties have a large conservative population (I'm from rural Oregon living in a Washington County suburb).

I'm glad to read this story. I was going to post it myself... Even the TV stations covered it but without any independent analysis. The TV coverage was very biased against. I don't have a problem with the gun-banners stating their side of the issue, it is just that the arguments of the pro-gun people are glossed over or ignored.

A week or two ago the Oregonian covered the story about women being killed because the federal law making it illegal to own a firearm when you have a restraining order against you was not being well enforced. One reason was because a person who is the subject of a restraining order does not need to be present at the restraining order hearing. The reason for this is to get a restraining order quickly in place. What the paper did not cover was that if the accused was not at a hearing, then firearms could not be seized by the government because due process did not occur. I thought that that was a major omission in the article. You would think that reporters would understand the 5th ammendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The other thing that bothered me was the often used gun banner argument about firearms being useless against attacks or being more of a danger to their owners. In this case, the article states that "for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defnse in 1998, another 83 women were killed by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun." This statement just begs to be ripped apart.

• Using a gun to prevent violence does not always kill the person you are using the gun against. They could be scared away by the threat of the gun or even just wounded.
• How many of the 83 women who were killed had the means to defend themselves available?
• How many women weren't killed by intimate acquaintances but were seriously injured because they didn't have the means to defend themselves?

[lowbridge]

Belles bump

[goldstategop]

Josh Sugarman and the rest of the gun banner set would rather see battered women be victims than heaven forbid --- allow them to use a gun to save their lives. Which speaks volumes about their claim they're merely trying to prevent more violence in this country.

[gwynapnudd]

I dated a lovely gal who runs the local battered women's shelter here. Taught her how to shoot. She really got into it. Said it was "EMPOWERING". I even let her shoot the AK and the Car-15.

Unfortunately, she ended marryin a lawyer, so that trainin will probably come in handy for her some day.

[supercat]

"Most women don't want to kill their abuser -- they want him to go away," she said. "Arming every battered woman isn't going to solve the problem."

Yes, and for a battered woman to point a loaded firearm at her abuser is a good way for her to make the abuser go away and stay away.

"For years, our public officials have counseled women to obtain restraining orders and dial 9-1-1 in an emergency," Anderson, an NRA-certified instructor, said in a statement.

Actually, restraining orders do and should serve a useful purpose (though the Lautenberg Act severely and adversely messed them up). A restraining order not only lets the recipient know that he may be prosecuted if he intrudes upon the petitioner's property, but more significantly puts him on notice that if he is on the petitioner's property, he will be presumed to intend harm. If a woman has to shoot an estranged husband/boyfriend in her home, a restraining order will greatly bolster a self-defense case.

Unfortunately, the Lautenberg Act, by infringing upon the rights of restraining-order recipients, increases the level of evidence required to legitimately issue them. The old rules were much better: if a person had no particular right to visit the petitioner's property, a restraining order forbidding him from doing so would not infringe upon any liberties; the petitioner could thus seek one on the basis that she didn't want that person on her property, without having to prove or even allege criminal activity. Unfortunately, things can no longer work that way.

[Vigilant1]

Oregon is a shall-issue state, and Mr. Anderson is a member of TRT-Oregon. I've marched with him for gun rights in Portland. Rural Oregon is pretty conservative, it's the Portland metro area, the northern Willamette Valley (Salem, Corvalis, Eugene) and Ashland that are lefty-liberal. The voters here even passed ballot initiatives against police asset forfeiture and requiring government compensation for land values reduced by government regs (like enviromental restrictions).

[SSN558]

It is one thing for a person that has owned guns and has the nightmare of having to use it for self defense come true.

This is something else entirely. I don't agree with the NRA endorsement and this is why. Picture this.

You are going through a nasty divorce. The lawyers have turned what is normally and unpleasant situtation into a down right ugly one. Things being what they are some name calling has occurred. This would be called motive. Then someone shows up at someone elses front door at a strange hour. Who knows they might have had a change of heart and decided to try apoligizing and reach into the coat for a card or flowers. Of course you have bought a gun the week before and taken some gun training after the lawyers filled your head with paranoid thoughts. You brandish the gun and it is not self defense, bummer go to jail. Or even worse, someone gets shot. Now there is a good case for premeditation. You are screwed.

Owning and using guns is like driving a car. It may not be illegal but it is just not a good idea when you are emotionally distraught. One has to ask themself, "do I have the self control and maturity to make deadly force decisions during a period of emotional turmoil."

I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves, but encouraging people to become first time gun owners during a time of crisis is just plain bad judgement.

NRA member since 1968.

[pro2A Mom]

I was interviewed by the reporter also. She merely wanted some background info from me.
It amazes me that they are still trotting out that BS "study" about "for every woman who uses a gun to kill her attacker another 83 women are killed by guns."
First, that's another 83 women who should have been armed! Secondly, shooting at and actually killing an attacker is a VERY rare event. And the 83 women who got killed were not killed by having their guns turned against them! This is an apples to oranges comparison!