Iowa: Give self defense/gun training to domestic violence victims, legislator says

[RamboLiberal]

Domestic abuse victims in Iowa would be offered free self-defense and firearm training by sheriffs under a legislative bill being considered in the House.

Advocates said the issue is about empowering victims.

But several advocates for domestic abuse victims predicted to lawmakers Monday that such a policy would bring about a long host of unintended consequences that include an increase in domestic violence-related deaths.

“In theory this bill sounds like it may help domestic abuse victims defend themselves but in reality we’ve seen something very different,” Amber Markham, the direct of public police for the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence told lawmakers. “Firearms in the home increase the chance of homicide in the home fivefold. Oftentimes the abuser uses the firearm against her.”

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/02/21/give-self-defensegun-training-to-domestic-violence-victims-legislator-says/

As someone who has practiced martial arts & have seen some self-defense program, some good, some not so good, I have mixed feelings on this.

The training is good but can give a false sense of confidence. And potentially it could invite a more severe beating. It takes a long time to be proficient in unarmed defense. And even then a stronger attacker will probably prevail. Non-lethal options aren't always effective either.

I of course have no problem with a victim arming her/himself. However you have to be prepared mentally to kill if you choose to carry a gun. And you have to realize if you do there is a possibility you could be found guilty of a crime.

Of course victims also cannot count on the law to protect. But IMHO I wonder if money wouldn't be better spent to prosecuting, counseling & monitoring abusers.

[spin]

1. Before advising a person to own a firearm for self defense ...

it's necessary to ask one very important question.

"Would you be able to shoot a person who was attacking you with the intention of severely hurting or killing you or someone you care for?"

Not everybody can can answer in the affirmative. That in no way can be considered a fault but it would be foolish for such a person to own a firearm for self defense as the attacker might simply take it away and use it against her/him.

There are some simple but very effective marital arts tactics that people can learn that can help to save their life. I do agree that it takes more than just a few classes to become proficient. You have to train to the point that you are not thinking about how to perform the tactic but just doing it. If the attacker is a much larger man, the realistic object for a woman is to stop his attack long enough for her to run.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. I teach both and this bothers me as well

There is a mindset you need to have to strike back. Not everyone has it. Not sure its trainable either. Not particularly gender related either.

[Hoyt]

3. Another bright idea by the gun party. Although, I'm not opposed to pistol-whipping convicted abuser.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Hey, chalk up another civil right certain anti-gun folks don't respect.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Color me surprised.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. I would think it's better than a piece of paper.

Then again, one of my co-workers was shot in the head from behind by her shithead husband, while leaving for work from her friend's apartment where she had been staying, hiding from him.

Restraining order and all. Gun would have done her no good. Then again, having a gun would not have hurt her either.

But in order to use it sucessfully in self defense, you have to be willing to use it, and frankly, a lot of people are not.