Domestic violence victims, sad thing that is.

when the gun could just as easily be taken from them and used against them. It would also be a temption when suicidal urges take over in an emotionallhy fraught situation. The there's the possibility of collateral damage. Or the abuser, knowing that the victim is armed, arrives on scene with greater firepower. Or just ambushes the victim.

Did the bill require firearms training for these domestic abuse victims?

according to verifiable research, it would dramatically improve her odds. The suicide temptation would be nonsense, unless she is suicidal to begin with. There is a slimmer chance of collateral damage citizens than police. The average twelve year old that passed a hunter safety course is as well trained as NYPD.
Ambush is always possible, but self defense is a fundamental natural right, that includes the best means doing so. In fact, I would argue it is protected by the ninth amendment, just like abortion. Speaking of choice, it is her life and her or his choice. Some politician or pundit who has no clue about firearms, self defense training, criminology, or anything else on the issue has no business telling them what they should do. Some of them are not only ignorant, they are sexist.

It doesn't take much training to hit someone at close range who is trying to kill you. Training is always good, but spending hundreds to thousands of dollars in Gunsite isn't required.

You're a trained psychiatrist as well? Do you know how suicidal thoughts take over in highly stressful situations? You just make these major pronouncement in an authoritative (some might say domineering) tone and expect that everyone should take your word as if it came from on high.

A more humane, effective and sensible response would be to provide victims of domestic abuse with programs that get them out of that situation physically, psychologically and economically. Just handing them a gun is a piss poor solution.

A two-year study conducted on 278 women from a midwest
shelter program helping victims access community resources
and support, create safety plans, and locate advocacy services
found that women experienced decreased physical violence and
depression, increased quality of life, and higher social support.

http://www.rootcause.org/docs/Resources/Research/Empowering-Victims-of-Domestic-Violence/Empowering%20Victims%20of%20Domestic%20Violence-%20Social%20Issue%20Report.pdf

forty years. Psychiatry is a soft science, not a hard science. Much of it is subjective. I did not say arming herself should be the only course of action, let alone the first or the best. I said the decision should be up to her, not some State functionary who doesn't have to live with the consequences.

Wow! That's hard science?

Again with the unsubtantiated stentorian pronouncements.

he is an economist, like Hemenway.

I just had to make an assumption as you dance around.

Would you recommend to domestic violence victim at risk of further abuse?

All of the world's militarys, virtually all of the world's police, and most certainly all of Bloomberg's security guards assume their outcomes will be better if they carry guns.

Generally, most male domestic abusers are already arriving on the scene with greater 'firepower' (size, anger, weapon, etc.) hence the need for a victim to up-arm.

Good points on training and if the State really cared they'd provide the training. Much cheaper to train the victim than have them blast their own foot or two innocent bystanders and pay for all that damage.

Who would of thought?

I said for the most likely scenario, you don't need that much beyond police academy, It isn't a hard skill to learn. Also, women are generally naturally better with firearms than men. That is why many of the shooting sports are dominated by women. I know several women who do very well at the range the first time they use a gun. Dr. Ruth, yes that doctor Ruth, was selected for sniper training because she hit a target at one hundred yards the first time she picked up a rifle.

Like Lyudmila Pavlichenko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko (Lady Death)

That's been my experience as well.

In my CCW, Basic Pistol and rifle classes the women all tend to be able to concentrate better, take direction well and follow through on instructions on things like breath control, sight alignment and such.

Maybe they just haven't watched as many Bruce Willis movies?

as I asked in post 5? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172189869#post5

Not surprising, people who are anti-self defense usually are worried about how an armed victim will 'escalate' their assault, rape, murder. Yet there is never any suggestion as to what a victim should do to protect her/himself. Apparently a victim should just be an easy victim.

Otherwise just CC anyway, NO ONE should be forced to walk around an easy target because someone else thinks they'd pad the stats if attacked.

Assuring someone is an easy victim isn't progressive.

whether concealed or open. I think an exception can be made for domestic abuse victims, with a proviso that training be completed in a reasonable time. This kind of exception is recognized in several states where prospective hunters are issued licenses, even though they have not completed hunter ed courses.

To prevent domestic violence victims from protecting themselves