Gun License for Domestic Violence Victims 'Dangerous,' Group Says

[SJG26]

The victim-mentality is simply mind boggling at times.................if anyone ever needed protection----it's women in this situation:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200610/NAT20061006a.html

"Legislation pending in Pennsylvania seeks to provide victims of domestic violence with a temporary emergency license to carry a firearm "to make sure that they're able to defend themselves," according to State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, sponsor of the bill."
Go for it Daryl............good work

Here's the kicker...........

"Judy Yupcavage of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) disagreed, saying research does not support Metcalfe's position.

"All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

"To even attempt to expedite the process to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon is foolhardy," added Yupcavage. "Particularly victims of domestic violence -- we just don't support it. It's dangerous, absolutely dangerous."
Some people are just too stupid to exist:banghead:

 

[DirksterG30]

It seems to me that groups like PCADV have a vested interest in encouraging and promoting the victim mentality among women. :banghead:

"All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

"To even attempt to expedite the process to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon is foolhardy," added Yupcavage. "Particularly victims of domestic violence -- we just don't support it. It's dangerous, absolutely dangerous."

Apparently, Judy Yupcavage must be limiting her research to Brady bunch press releases.

 

[Green Lantern]

Well...I don't think they should just hand CCW permits out like candy to EVERYone who reports domestic violence to the cops.

However, if the victim asks for one and is able to show that she knows how to handle a weapon, then yes - she should get one that instant!

('Course I'm in the country where you don't need to depend on a firing range being open to be able to show a cop that you know how to handle a gun... :/ )

 

[MikeB]

"To even attempt to expedite the process to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon is foolhardy, ..."

LOL, In my area of PA it's about a 5 day if that turn around to get your LTCF. I understand some are instant. Now of course in Philly and I think Montgomery count it is much longer, that being said, I'm not sure how expediting something that takes almost no time anyways is "foolhardy".

 

[neoncowboy]

"All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

"To even attempt to expedite the process to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon is foolhardy," added Yupcavage. "Particularly victims of domestic violence -- we just don't support it. It's dangerous, absolutely dangerous."

Really? She needs to read John Lott.

As far as I know, John Lott's studies are the most comprehensive that have been done on the subject of the effect of concealed carry as a deterrent to violent crime.

If I recall correctly, women are 2x more likely than men to benefit from carrying a firearm for personal protection.

 

[Rev. DeadCorpse]

"All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

Mind boggling stupidity on display. Are their only resources Michael Bellesiles and the Josh Sugarbrtiches VPC lies?

 

[Abby]

Yes, it's "highly dangerous." To scumbags who beat up their family members.

 

[TallPine]

Well...I don't think they should just hand CCW permits out like candy to EVERYone who reports domestic violence to the cops.

I agree - everyone should be able to carry without a permit

 

[Zundfolge]

"All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

Well when all the "national research" you look at is Brady tracts and VPC newsletters what do you expect?

I agree - everyone should be able to carry without a permit

+100

 

[geekWithA.45]

"All of the national research we've seen* and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense," said Yupcavage, director of communications at PCADV. "

For which we'd like to thank Kellerman, the Violence Policy Center, and the Brady Campaign....

 

[LAR-15]

North Carolina already passed a temporary license for domestic violence victims.

The sheriffs really opposed it but most violence prevention groups didn't care once the permit was watered down to may issue.

 

[carnaby]

John Lott is questionable. I'd go and find the study by Gary Kleck that definitively showed that armed resistance to violent crime had the best outcome.

The primary difference between the Kleck study and previous inconclusive or negative studies was that Kleck looked at the chronological order of the self protection measures compared to injuries sustained. He found that most people sustaining injuries due to violent crime in which they resisted in fact resisted AFTER the injury occured, and were not injured as a result of resisting. Further, he showed that being passive after being injured resulted in worse injuries. From one of Kleck's grad students on the same subject material:

It is in this light that I offer tentative advice to prospective victims. While there are exceptional situations, victim resistance is usually either successful or inconsequential, and on the rare occasions that it is harmful, it is rarely seriously harmful. Therefore, unless there are circumstances that clearly indicate resistance will lead to significant harm, the evidence reported in this dissertation indicates that some form of resistance should be the path enerally taken. This does not mean resistance always works, or that it can, by itself, can make victims completely safe, since violent crime is dangerous for reasons having nothing to do with victim actions. Rather, it means that, on net, resistance will generally either make things better for the victim (e.g., less chance of rape completion or property loss) than they would have been without resistance, or do no harm.

And this one also

Also, resistance with a gun appears to be more effective in preventing serious injury than any other victim actions, though this finding is not statistically significant due to the small number of reported gun uses. On the other hand, the most of the SP tactics that appear to have higher risks than calling the police are nonforceful tactics: stalling, arguing, and screaming from pain or fear (though the later finding may reflect an effect of injury rather than a cause). A conservative interpretation would be that armed and other forceful resistance does not appear to increase the victim’s risk of injury over that prevailing among nonresisting victims. Yet, considering that guns tend to be used in the most adverse circumstances, and that they were significantly more effective when compared to nonresistance, a less conservative interpretation would be that armed resistance generally does not increase the risks that were already dangerous, but that it probably substantially reduced the risk.

Kleck kicks butt.

 

[Vairochana]

I agree that the option should be availabe for anyone who feels they need to be armed for self protection (with the usual caveats).
However I work in a field where I see a lot of DV, many women find it difficult to leave these relationsips let alone act in a protective manner.
This is due to the fear, feelings of helplessness etc generated by the relationship itself.
In a situation like this I can see the weapon being used against her.
In other stuations, where the victim as more control, it would be a benefit and deterent.

 

[Soybomb]

Really? She needs to read John Lott.

As far as I know, John Lott's studies are the most comprehensive that have been done on the subject of the effect of concealed carry as a deterrent to violent crime.

I'm with carnaby, telling her to read john lott is like her telling you to read kellerman. Lott has some very sketchy activities in the past regarding his academic credibility and I'm not convinced his research is scientifically sound. Correlation is not causation and all that. In short I think he's telling you what you want to hear without proving it. Certainly it supports our cause but not in the way I would want to.

Kleck's work seems to be of a higher academic quality and is what I would cite.

All that said its surprising how many people feel the raped or dead woman is preferable to the armed woman. I can't believe that any rational person could ever let "All of the national research we've seen and all of the data points to the fact that it is not safer to be armed for self-defense" slip from their mouth.

 

[Zundfolge]

Kleck's work seems to be of a higher academic quality and is what I would cite.

Lott's work is of the same high academic quality as Kleck (although I agree some of his activities outside of his work have been stupid and have hurt his credibility).

 

[Soybomb]

Lott's work is of the same high academic quality as Kleck (although I agree some of his activities outside of his work have been stupid and have hurt his credibility).

I don't see the tie between concealed carry and crime rates that Lott tries to make. There are a ton of possible factors that could influence each. He proves correlation but certainly not causation. I'm not sure that you could even prove it in any way. Either way if you can't show direct evidence it doesn't seem very scientific to me.

As you'll se enot everyone agrees that Lott's numbers are of good statistical quality either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L...on_of_the_relationship_between_guns_and_crime

 

[PennsyPlinker]

LOL, In my area of PA it's about a 5 day if that turn around to get your LTCF.

In Lehigh Co. the permit application says up to 40 days, and they take as much of that as possible to turn the paperwork around. I forget how long it used to take in Northampton Co., but I don't think it was quite as long as Lehigh.

 

[Kim]

I had a stalker about 10 yeears ago. Went on for a year. Finally caught the guy. He was living right next door in an apartment from where I work. Small town about 5,000. Say him Masturbating standing at his window one day. We had our phones tapped and got him but it took a year. I did not have a permit at the time. I told the police the first day I was going to carry without a permit during the time it took me to get one. The said O:K and said they would do the same thing. I still have a hard time getting my mind set changed. It is hard when it was just a few years ago that a permit was not even needed. I see not use for permits. They do nothing to stop crime. They do nothing to keep a criminal or a mental patient from carrying a firearm. They are just useless. Change is a funny thing.

 

[Dmack_901]

I have mixed feeling about this. I have just noticed though my own experience (only with 2 beaten wives/gfs) that the women being beaten are usually mentally unstable. This all might just be my exposure to it, but they also seem to place blame illogically.

Whether this is or is not what he was intending to say is still irrelevant. Since we do have a right to bear arms, but since they would need to "prove" they are being stalked/beaten maybe they should also get some counsoling and a phyc exam. And if they are unstable, or temporairly mentally defecient then they are decalared so temporairly.

 

[Mainsail]

It should be noted that women are not always the victims of DV.

 

[Deanimator]

All that said its surprising how many people feel the raped or dead woman is preferable to the armed woman.

I believe there's a word for that: M I S O G Y N Y.

I've been dealing with that sort of person and that sort of attitude in usenet for the better part of twenty years. They're all for any means of defense for a woman... as long it is ineffective, presents minimal danger to a violent attacker, and presents an increased danger of serious injury or death to the intended victim. They often seem to view a savage beating as a form of foreplay. I'm especially tickled by the paradox represented by those who say both:

1. Women don't need guns because they can defend themselves with the martial arts.

2. Women shouldn't be allowed to carry [or own] guns because an assailant will disarm them.

My standard response is, "'Xena, Warrior Princess' is NOT a documentary.", followed by, "Why don't they just use the martial arts to take back [or keep] their firearms?"

Too, I'm also amused by those who offer delusional "solutions" such as "Instead of arming women, men must be taught not to use violence against women." I usually ask what the time table is for this massive reeducation program. I usually then ask whether woman have a duty to be beaten, raped, and murdered until it takes effect. Finally, I ask how it will be possible to teach rapists to be non-violent when society's ability to teach young men to read seems so dubious today. At that point, they usually screech some sort of racial slur and disappear...

 

[mete]

Though definitely not PC ,there is a study of women in a shelter for abused women ,that showed that 60% of the women were as violent as their abusers !!..Giving a permit without any conditions [training, emotional stability etc] is very foolish.

 

[ArmedBear]

It seems to me that groups like PCADV have a vested interest in encouraging and promoting the victim mentality among women.

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!!

 

[LAR-15]

It's been law in NC for two years now (may issue though) and no problems.

Other states need to copy it unless they already have it on the books or require no permits (ala Montana and Vermont)

 

[ArmedBear]

The arguments against it sound like the idiocy I hear in California: "If people can carry guns, there'll be shootouts in the streets!"

So I ask them why this isn't a problem in all the other states that have shall-issue.

So far, they just repeat, "If people can carry guns, there'll be shootouts in the streets!" You can't argue with an idiot.