Gun Training Class Offered to Abused Women

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

[Tuba-Dude]

In what appears to be a national first, a Portland gun group is offering free handgun training to any battered woman who wants it -- a defensive strike against homicidal men and what it sees as a growing push for gun control in Oregon.

Thomas "Lee" Anderson, a former community college philosophy professor who founded the Portland Firearms Training Team, says at least a half-dozen women have signed up for the daylong class, designed to teach even a tiny woman with shaking hands to take down her attacker at close range.

It's an idea that gets a big thumbs up from the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Sisters, a national organization formed in 1999 to promote gun self-defense for women.

"Like it or not, a firearm is the great equalizer," Anderson said. "A 90-pound woman can defend herself against a 300-pound (man)."

But critics, armed with an arsenal of research challenging Anderson's arsenal of research, call the offer everything from ill-considered to downright dangerous.

They also warn that a woman risks being prosecuted for murder if she kills her abuser without meeting the statutory requirements for justifiable homicide.

"From a public health perspective, that's certainly not the message I would want to send," said Nancy Glass, a professor in the School of Nursing at Oregon Health & Science University who has researched intimate partner homicide. "In my view, arming people is a very short-sighted response to a public health crisis."

The debate comes in response to an examination by The Oregonian exposing flaws in systems designed to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. The story revealed gaps in restraining order procedures, federal prosecutions and the gun background check process and showed confusion about if and when police can seize an abuser's gun.

The story also found that in the past decade, roughly 100 Oregon women were killed by current or former partners using guns, a tally roughly on par with gang-and drug-related gun homicides.

Although some public officials are taking steps to address the issues, Anderson and others reject the findings, viewing them as the work of the gun-control agenda. Instead, they assert that the real solution is to give abused women the hardware and training to protect themselves -- as Anderson puts it, to bring out the "woman warrior."

"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. "These choices have not worked. Violent crazed attackers do not obey laws, and it is nuts to think we need more gun control."

To counter what they consider a missing piece in the public discussion, Anderson's group plans to offer abused women a free four-hour beginner's pistol class, which ordinarily costs $35. It covers instruction on safe handling and storage of firearms, ethical and legal ramifications of gun use and an hour on the shooting range.

Students who pass get a certificate that can be used to satisfy educational requirements for a concealed handgun license, which Anderson strongly advises them to get.

Women also will be offered an NRA general self-defense class called "Refuse to Be a Victim," which is tailored to those who aren't ready to use a firearm or whose level of personal threat doesn't warrant firearms use. Together, the training will take eight to 10 hours.

We can teach a woman to be accurate at a defensive distance" -- within 7 yards or less, Anderson said. He advises women to keep the gun on them at all times, in a pocket or holster, so it's available but out of children's reach. Firing the gun will be presented as a last resort -- only if the woman's life or another person's is in immediate, unavoidable danger, he said.

There's little research about whether arming abused women increases safety. But there are voluminous studies about gun self-defense and the general population -- virtually all of it the subject of heated debate. Anderson and other gun advocates like the work of Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University. In one widely quoted report, he estimates that law-abiding Americans use guns in self-defense 2.5 million times a year.

"If you have a woman who is willing to point the weapon in a threatening manner, I'd say, yes, (training for battered women) is a good idea," Kleck said Wednesday. "It's something a woman can do as well as a man -- it doesn't take physical strength."

But advocates working to reduce firearms deaths at the Washington, D.C.,-based Violence Policy Center bristle at the suggestion that increased gun ownership is an appropriate response to violence. 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.

Other skeptics say it's impractical for a woman to keep a gun with her at all times, raising safety concerns for children. They also question whether a day's training is sufficient and worry that guns in the hands of women under severe stress can place innocent bystanders in jeopardy.

"In my reading of the literature, it's hard to use a gun appropriately at the right time and not at the wrong time," said gun-injury researcher David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. "Even police officers who have lots of training can use their guns at the wrong time."

"More guns in these types of situations is flat-out dangerous," said Stacy Heyworth, head of the Multnomah County district attorney's domestic violence unit, pointing out that women's guns can be used against them. "I'm saying that because of my concern for the man and the woman."

All the same, Lisanne Dickenson, 36, of Eugene -- who was in an abusive relationship for 21/2 years -- likes her gun, a .32 Kel-Tec so tiny it fits in her front pocket. She got it for protection once her abuser was no longer in the picture.

"Women are traditionally afraid of guns, and they are scary when you don't know about them," she said. "But abusers are scarier. You can learn to control a firearm, you can learn to be good with them, but an abuser isn't controllable."

Now happily married, Dickenson has spent countless hours practicing at firing ranges, is studying to become a trainer for the Portland Firearms Training Team and considers armed self-defense an important option for her sex. The oldest of her three daughters is already learning to shoot.

"There are some women I wouldn't trust with a gun," she said, conceding that she might not have trusted herself back in the days of her abuse. "If I'm giving a class, and I don't think she's ready, I'm not going to pass her -- that's my responsibility."

Chiquita Rollins, coordinator of domestic violence programs for Multnomah County, considers gun ownership a personal choice -- one that probably only makes sense for what she thinks is the small percentage of women who are emotionally prepared to kill.

"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."

For more information about the Portland Firearms Training Team, contact John McEnroe at 503-232-6918 or photo@hevanet.com.

Reporter Robin Franzen can be reached at 503-221-8133 or robinfranzen@news.oregonian.com.

[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!