Gun Training Class Offered to Abused Women

The Oregonian ^ | Apr. 12, 2002 | Robin Franzen

[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

[Shooter 2.5]

There was a murder in this very liberal town that I used to live in. The lib newwpaper tried to say that the victim assumed a yoga position that meant forgiveness to the killer, as though getting beaten to death with a crowbar somehow was perfectly peachy to the victim. One of the writers that covered another victim, wrote that she was so horrified that the female jogger had her throat cut from ear to ear, spent the entire night cowering in a corner of her apartment.

That was my education into the mind of the lib female reporter.

[sarasmom]

You have my permission. ;^)

At one point in my life, I arrived on foreign soil with 15 guns(gasp) on USAF military orders.Customs had a real tough time dealing with it, but they got over it.).

I still await a midnight knock on the door from misguided FEDs almost 20 years later.

Although I am only a bonified sniper against tin cans with a 22 long, I am still the anti-gun people's worst nightmare.A woman, with gun profiency!(I can do a nice spread, but dont rate myself a marksman)

How will the nanny state version of government succeed if I don't need their protection?

[Squantos]

Please pardon the invasive question but I'd like to know what women consider the "best" firearm . I ask already armed with the answer the one you have when you need it thus seeking a brand, type, caliber. My Girl Friday's really like the SIG 239 , 642 S&W & the Seecamp .32 based on different manner of clothing worn at the time or carried.

Does SAS have a survey of such data ?

Stay Safe and sorry to bother, keep up the great work !!

[Squantos]

Same question as above for Liberty Belles if ya'll have time.........

Stay Safe !!

[Angelique]

I can't think of anything more empowering, other than, of course, to get the heck out.

[Euro-American Scum]

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

No they won't. It's only Jews getting murdered, after all. And that never bothered a leftist.

[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.

[riverrunner]

Right on my 16 year old daughter shot my 44 the other day put 4 rounds in one hole the other two about a in away. She said of the recoil not bad DAD. This was with full house loads. But then she can hit 6 out of six pop cans with her very own 38 ,double action at 25 yards. No you do not want her shooting at you.

[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.

[Shooter 2.5]

I can't believe I'm using the ant's statistics to make a point, but here goes: "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."

It's correct that divorces are emotional times but the abused women aren't the problem. It's the men. Giving an abused woman a chance in case someone decides to show up at her door at an unusual hour keeps her alive. It will have to be the men that finally get the idea that they shouldn't continue to use the woman as a punching bag.

[supercat]

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.

This is part of what restraining orders would be for if Lautenberg hadn't [bleep]ed them up. If the woman has a restraining order against the husband, she's 99.44% in the clear since her husband will have had no business visiting her in such manner and would have known it.

[dbwz]

Please pardon the invasive question but I'd like to know what women consider the "best" firearm . I ask already armed with the answer the one you have when you need it thus seeking a brand, type, caliber.

What's the "best" firearm for a man? There's no one answer to the question. All of us are going to have a personal preference. As long as the gun fits your hand properly, and you practice with it, caliber shouldn't matter.

I'll tell you what really burns my butt, though - titanium pushers. In .22 caliber they're fine, but .357 magnum? Come on! Even big guys have bought these things thinking it's going to be a lot better for carry because it's lighter, but when they actually get a chance to try them for the first time, they're sorry they made the purchase. You don't want your life to depend on a gun that you're going to be afraid of!

I'm not in a carry state, but I've been learning holster draw with a Ruger SP-101 using .38 caliber ammo. I need to slim down the grips a little more and it'll be perfect. I'm starting to look at semi-autos, and there are a few nice .32's that I've seen - not too big or bulky, and the recoil is manageable.

My fellow females - I strongly advise you to try as many calibers and firearm styles as possible. Revolvers are by far the simplest. A small .38 will give you five shots; smaller calibers will allow for more, up to ten for a .22. Reloading takes some practice. Semiautos have greater cartridge capacity, but you need to consider the locations of safeties and magazine releases -are they convenient to reach? Some European models also require you to grab the magazine and strip it out - they don't drop free of the frame when you push the release button. God willing, you won't find yourself in a situation where you'll need to load another magazine and time is of the essence, but it's something to think about.

Above all, ladies, don't get sucked in to the "bigger is better" mentality. Stopping power is being able to hit what you're shooting at.

[blackie]

Bump !@!

[Squantos]

Thanks for telling me what you like and don't. Please don't try and make more of it than a simple question on my part.......

As a retired serviceman and former deputy sherrif, currently packing via unconstitutional CHL laws ,I know what works and doesn't "for me" .............I'm just asking if a survey has ever been conducted regarding such trends........

My 296 Ti-Lite 44 was indeed a lesson in recoil with corbon loads but was rather a nice "possible" carry package when loaded with 200 grain silvertips which provided the best (for me again) in accuracy , controlable recoil and ease of carry. Do I carry it for CHL duties ? No ! It's a gun safe queen weight per se and see's some range time now and then. My everyday, 24/7 pistola , again for me, is a 1911A1 as that is what I have carried , trained and competed with most of my career and is memory-matic for the expected stress of self defense mode.

Again , I just ask a question....... I expect many answers and just wanted to see if a trend was present. Sorry if I offended with the best for a woman question.......

Stay Safe~

[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!