More women who are threatened with domestic violence need firearms and training.....

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,970
52,237
2,290
This is something American women have over their counterparts around the world.......if they are threatened by a male domestic partner, husband or boyfriend, they have the option to get a gun, get training, and defend themselves. They do not have to be a victim of violence and murder.......

If you know a woman who is in danger from a violent monster....encourage her to gun up and get training.....orders of protection usually are the trigger for murder.....they do nothing to actually stop the violent abuser....

On Monday, July 17th, Lance Logan brutally murdered 64-year-old Carolyn Williams in her Hartford, Connecticut, home while she was on the telephone with a 9-1-1 operator. He also beat her 30-year-old son.

“He hit me again . . . . Stop it, stop, it, he has a weapon,” she told the 9-1-1 operator immediately before being murdered. Logan had prior convictions for domestic violence and a number of other felonies. Among his previous convictions was a 2016 domestic assault for which he faced a 5-year suspended sentence and 3-years probation, so he served no prison time.

Logan now faces charges of murder, assault in the second degree, and violation of a protective order. It was illegal for him to own guns, but he still obtained two firearms – a sawed-off shotgun and a pistol.

The case clearly illustrates the limits of protective orders when someone is intent on murdering the victim. If the murderer is willing to risk a life sentence for murder, an additional five years in prison and a $5,000 fine won’t deter him.

It is an important problem. Reportedly, 76% of women murdered by someone who had been an intimate partner were stalked.

Violence prevention advocates recommend a long list of safety precautions. These changes require women to uproot their lives.

Among the advice: women should change jobs, travel routes, the time of day they leave home or work, move in with a friend or family, change the locks on their home, or do their shopping and other chores with friends or relatives.

A few recommend that women practice martial arts such as judo, jiu-jitsu, karate, or boxing.


But the most obvious answer is missing from these lists: women should get a concealed handgun permit and a firearm.
----

As a victim of domestic violence who has suffered some broken teeth, fractured bones, and other permanent physical injuries, I am acutely aware of how important it is to protect victims.


Men are typically much stronger than women, particularly in upper body strength. Unfortunately, real life isn’t like the movies, where one woman can knock out and overpower several well-trained men. Even well-trained women often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men. Men also tend to be faster runners.


A firearm represents a much bigger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself. Men can readily hurt women without a gun, and if a woman is already in physical contact with the attacker so that he can take away their gun, they are already in trouble.


The peer-reviewed research shows that murder rates decline when people carry concealed handguns, whether men or women. But a woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than a man doing the same.

 
True, but only to an extent.........abusers don't go after strong women that can stand up for themselves. They may try but the relationship doesn't last. They do go after women that are or can be easily intimidated into submission. Usually a character trait. It is a psychological 'bond' of complex factors.

If she's not willing to stand up to him or leave the situation, a gun isn't going to help if she can't or won't pull the trigger.


and that ^^^ goes for men victims/women abusers as well
 
Moron.....it wasn't the gun.....it was the criminal in the home, and/or the alcoholic or drug addict.......
I'll give it to you that the criminal in the home was a good guy gunowner before he shot someone else or him/herself in his/her home.

But I can't accept that gunowners shot in the home are alcoholics or drug addicts! Even you wouldn't suggest that.

Or would you?
 
While I see the logic in this and I encourage my wife to familiarize herself with my guns in case of a home invasion, there is another side to this.

If you say "domestic" violence, that kind of implies the perpetrator lives with the woman.
A gun in the house could also be used against her.
I'm sure this has happened many times.

I'm not saying with conviction that either perspective is right all the time.
There's just two sides to it, that's all.

In my case, I have never been physically violent toward any woman I have ever been with.
But not all guys are that way!
I personally want my wife to be able to defend herself with dealy force in case of a break-in.
My guns are available to her anytime she might need one.
 
Last edited:
I'll give it to you that the criminal in the home was a good guy gunowner before he shot someone else or him/herself in his/her home.

But I can't accept that gunowners shot in the home are alcoholics or drug addicts! Even you wouldn't suggest that.

Or would you?


No...the criminal wasn't........

Who's at higher risk for homicide?

(The percentages in this paragraph are based on an examination of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset.)
As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded. (That's 3.5% of all matched cases. Likewise, the previously mentioned 4½ percent figure of all homicides involving a victim killed by a gun in the home falls to 2.1%.)
These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides.
As a Dr. Pat Baranello writes in a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor (source)." Kellermann's response (contained in the same source) although a true statement, sidesteps the letter writer's point. Kellerman's response was, "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide."
Households with persons having a criminal history or violence prone personality are at an increased risk for homicide, and a gun in the hands of these kinds of persons also most likely independently increases homicide risk more so than it does for law-abiding gun owning households.
Mathematically speaking, logistic regression calculates only one co-efficient per risk factor (which can be converted into an odds-ratio). If a gun in the hands of persons with criminal records or a history of violence are much more prone to commit homicide than unarmed persons without those risk factors, and the large majority of cases in a regression model had a history of violence and arrests, the odds-ratio is going to reflect the increased risk of a gun in the hands of a volatile group, rather than representing a risk factor for the general population. It's also possible that the risk of homicide by law-abiding persons could be extremely small, yet those same people with guns have a much higher risk of homicide, resulting in an odds ratio higher than what Kellermann's final model showed. Kellermann's study simply can't tell us which is the case (or neither).
Kellermann's defenders may try to claim that a link was found between guns and homicide for all 14 subgroups he studied (p. 1089), however each one of those subgroups still contained a majority of high-risk cases. (For an example to the contrary, even though living alone was found to be riskier than owning a gun, examining the ICPSR dataset shows there were 46 matched-pair cases who lived alone and had no history of arrest or violent activity. 15 cases were gun owning households versus 19 of the controls, giving a crude odds-ratio of 0.688. In this group, gunowners had a 31.2% lower risk of being murdered. But these numbers aren't conclusive of gun ownership being protective due to the lack of controls for any other factors that influence homicide victimization. It's simply an example of what might be a low-risk subgroup. Further study would be necessary.)


Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
====
====
Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5


Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.


In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
======

=
 
While I fully support women owning guns, it would probably be more effective if they stopped dating shitty guys. Too often women just ignore the obvious red flags. It's not like the guy was Prince Charming and then turned into Stalin the day they moved in together.
 
Caution is required.


The jury is still out on the question of having guns in the home!

If someone is stupid enough to leave a loaded gun lying around for kids to find, it is their ignorance not the gun, that causes the problems.

No, the jury is not still out.
 
If someone is stupid enough to leave a loaded gun lying around for kids to find, it is their ignorance not the gun, that causes the problems.
That's pretty well the reason why I say the jury is still out.
No, the jury is not still out.
I don't blame the guns but over half of Americans do. The jury is still out and will likely remain out. It can never be agreed that the culture of violence, killing, and continuous wars is to blame.

There's no jury being out on the statistics of having guns in the home. More people die than in homes without!
 

Forum List

Back
Top