jefnvk
Member
That is why I support the notification, and not just handing them out to anyone that comes in with a claim.
Should domestic violence victims be given emergency carry permits (NC says yes, but..
- Thread starter Frandy
- Start date
- Status
That is why I support the notification, and not just handing them out to anyone that comes in with a claim.
vasilia zheitseva
Member
howdy.
In theory, this sounds like a great idea. But then, when looking at the mental state of the abused, I doubt there will be much response. Take a look at this blog site & read under 'why the victim stays' & 'betrayal trauma'. There are a lot reasons why victims stay - fear, shame, hope, dependence, children, love, family pressure, religion, & isolation are some reasons given. Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrome?
http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/
The firearm was a remarkable tool in enpowering myself, and getting me out of the 'victim mode'. However, while still involved a mentally & emotionally abusive relationship, using a gun was the last thing I would have thought of - and if anyone had mentioned it, I'd have refused. It was'nt until afterwards I realized I needed more defences than what I had.
I'd suggest a fireams training course as a method of therapy any day. But issuing emergency permits may not be the answer to protecting all abused people; you have to see that not all victims are in a stable emotional state. They have to indicate they want that level of defence for themselves. Also, I think they need to be mentally competent enough to handle the reality that they may kill the abuser if a gun is used; that the abuser may kill them; that the abuser will not change. It is the abused whom has to change.
For those that are fairly stable & wish to carry, by all means, Yes! Do! Issue them a permit at the point of filing a complaint; just insure proper use with a short (1 day or less) training class &/or show competency with a standard marksmanship test.
At this date, Missouri does not have a provision for emergency permit issue. Try this site for details on state laws concerning carrying firams & CCW.
http://www.packing.org/state/missouri/
Interesting thread. May I ask what brought it to your mind?
In theory, this sounds like a great idea. But then, when looking at the mental state of the abused, I doubt there will be much response. Take a look at this blog site & read under 'why the victim stays' & 'betrayal trauma'. There are a lot reasons why victims stay - fear, shame, hope, dependence, children, love, family pressure, religion, & isolation are some reasons given. Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrome?
http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.com/
The firearm was a remarkable tool in enpowering myself, and getting me out of the 'victim mode'. However, while still involved a mentally & emotionally abusive relationship, using a gun was the last thing I would have thought of - and if anyone had mentioned it, I'd have refused. It was'nt until afterwards I realized I needed more defences than what I had.
I'd suggest a fireams training course as a method of therapy any day. But issuing emergency permits may not be the answer to protecting all abused people; you have to see that not all victims are in a stable emotional state. They have to indicate they want that level of defence for themselves. Also, I think they need to be mentally competent enough to handle the reality that they may kill the abuser if a gun is used; that the abuser may kill them; that the abuser will not change. It is the abused whom has to change.
For those that are fairly stable & wish to carry, by all means, Yes! Do! Issue them a permit at the point of filing a complaint; just insure proper use with a short (1 day or less) training class &/or show competency with a standard marksmanship test.
At this date, Missouri does not have a provision for emergency permit issue. Try this site for details on state laws concerning carrying firams & CCW.
http://www.packing.org/state/missouri/
Interesting thread. May I ask what brought it to your mind?
i really like that post on the solution should address the problem. What is the problem? dirty guns? people missing felons?
I know a lot of people argue about CCW needing training. However, this training shouldn't be about how fast you can tactically reload your gun or how fast you can strip it, or even how well you can shoot.
First off, many shooting courses have little to do with real world applicaiton of firearms, especially a bulls eye at 10 yards. (even though any shooting is good shooting, it just isn't a reliable measure of how well someone will actually do)
Who makes the decision on what score is acceptable? Amy got a 76/100, just barely passing the shooting course, so she gets the permit, while Ann got a 74/100, no permit for you! Now you both get to go back to your apartments and bolt the door and hope your abusive husband doesn't show up in the parking lot tomorrow morning.
Further, we all know that an armed citizen is very unlikely to kill an attacker, either out and about, or in their own home. We also know that the attackers just knowing that a person might be armed is going to make them think twice. We also know that while not very many murderers are shot dead in homes by armed citizens, brandished firearms have run off a lot of troublemakers. (what's that survey that HCI reported all of except tried to deny the results that showed handguns were used in some way -not necessarily fired- 2 million times in a year in the USA to deal with trouble)
So if simply brandishing a firearm has a strong potential of dealing with the threat, again, why should it matter that a person scored a 76 rather than a 74 on a shooting test.
Yes, i think CCW should only be given to people who pass training classes. These classes should cover safe firearm handling, firearm retention, exposure to how truely devistating firearm deaths can be, legal information on the use of deadly force, and firearm + children issues.
Taking the class to a range once or multiple times is good, however, i don't think there should be any test of firearm skill.
Another think i like to throw in this argument is the fact that there are a lot of nut balls out there who can shoot accurately. Should we say 'hey look! you scored 98! CCW for you!'. Of course not. Clearly, then, the problem isn't the accuracy of CCW holders, but imparting the knowledge on WHEN it is appropraite to shoot.
I know a lot of people argue about CCW needing training. However, this training shouldn't be about how fast you can tactically reload your gun or how fast you can strip it, or even how well you can shoot.
First off, many shooting courses have little to do with real world applicaiton of firearms, especially a bulls eye at 10 yards. (even though any shooting is good shooting, it just isn't a reliable measure of how well someone will actually do)
Who makes the decision on what score is acceptable? Amy got a 76/100, just barely passing the shooting course, so she gets the permit, while Ann got a 74/100, no permit for you! Now you both get to go back to your apartments and bolt the door and hope your abusive husband doesn't show up in the parking lot tomorrow morning.
Further, we all know that an armed citizen is very unlikely to kill an attacker, either out and about, or in their own home. We also know that the attackers just knowing that a person might be armed is going to make them think twice. We also know that while not very many murderers are shot dead in homes by armed citizens, brandished firearms have run off a lot of troublemakers. (what's that survey that HCI reported all of except tried to deny the results that showed handguns were used in some way -not necessarily fired- 2 million times in a year in the USA to deal with trouble)
So if simply brandishing a firearm has a strong potential of dealing with the threat, again, why should it matter that a person scored a 76 rather than a 74 on a shooting test.
Yes, i think CCW should only be given to people who pass training classes. These classes should cover safe firearm handling, firearm retention, exposure to how truely devistating firearm deaths can be, legal information on the use of deadly force, and firearm + children issues.
Taking the class to a range once or multiple times is good, however, i don't think there should be any test of firearm skill.
Another think i like to throw in this argument is the fact that there are a lot of nut balls out there who can shoot accurately. Should we say 'hey look! you scored 98! CCW for you!'. Of course not. Clearly, then, the problem isn't the accuracy of CCW holders, but imparting the knowledge on WHEN it is appropraite to shoot.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked