The Matter of Firearms: Domestic Abuse & Self-Defense, Part 3

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is Part 3 of a four-part series on domestic abuse and self-defense. This article discusses the varying opinions of domestic violence organizations, scholars, politicians, lawyers and firearms instructors when it comes to the role firearms play in protecting domestic abuse victims.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Sabrina Hendley had just been forced to shoot her husband, who staggered backward into the bathroom and collapsed. She temporarily froze as Mark crawled back into the bedroom but quickly came to her senses and frantically did her best to staunch the bleeding and perform first aid. Hendley’s father, Mike Irwin, came into the room, and together they elevated Mark’s feet.

Hendley said she talked to her husband and tried to calm him down, telling him that everything would be OK. He looked back at her and simply said, “You shot me.”

At some point, deputies from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office arrived at the Hendleys’ home on Anglecrest Drive. They told Hendley to back away from her husband, which she was reluctant to do because paramedics had not yet arrived. One deputy asked her why she had shot him. Not in her right mind, Hendley answered something to the effect of “because he’s an a******.”

Hendley said her husband was aggressive with the paramedics when they arrived on the scene, which puzzled her because he hadn’t been that way with her when she was administering aid.

The deputies placed Hendley in handcuffs and put her in the back of a cruiser. Still in shock, she mused aloud to a female deputy, “I don’t understand why he wouldn’t apologize.”

The deputies delivered Hendley to the sheriff’s office in her bikini, though she was given paper clothing for the interview that lasted into the early hours of the next morning. It wasn’t until after the interview that she was told her husband had passed away at a local hospital.

Sabrina Hendley was now facing a charge of first-degree murder.

An Academic’s Perspective

Domestic violence organizations and shelters mean well and do incredible work, but almost all of them recommend that women in abusive relationships not turn to guns for self-defense. During the year I reported this series, I wasn’t able to find a shelter operator willing to go on the record with Concealed Carry Magazine to explain the reasoning behind this. Academic Susan B. Sorenson, however, was happy to share her views.

“If you want to look at it from a science perspective, there’s no evidence that bringing a firearm into a volatile situation will improve things,” said the University of Pennsylvania professor.

Sorenson has an interdisciplinary background in epidemiology, sociology and psychology and teaches a graduate course in family and sexual violence. She stated that one reason firearms aren’t effective in domestic situations is that an abused woman is unlikely to pull the trigger on someone she knows.

“Most people would have a hard time shooting another human being,” she said, especially when it comes to a loved one.

“[M]ost people who have been abused do deeply care about the person who abuses them,” she continued. “They want the abuse to stop.”

 

“The observational studies that comprise the majority of the research in domestic violence and firearms are ‘case-control’ studies, where the case-study group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest.”

 

Instead of reaching for a firearm, Sorenson reasoned, women should pay close attention to situations that make them feel unsafe, follow their instincts and potentially avoid such end-of-the-line options in the first place.

“We train our girls to be polite,” she declared, “[and] to try not to hurt somebody else’s feelings.”

And this includes overriding their own sense of when they’re not safe.

“[M]ost of us have been raised with a fairly good gut sense to tell us when we’re at risk,” she explained. “And it’s when we override that that we risk our own safety.”

Sorenson indicated that women are more than twice as likely to be murdered by a male intimate with a gun than they are to be shot, stabbed, strangled, bludgeoned to death or killed in any other way by a stranger.

“And so that’s very powerful information,” she stated. “So, it’s an issue of keeping guns out of the hands of abusers.”

A gun in the home also makes suicide more likely, she said, when a victim of domestic violence sees no other way out.

In an email sent after our interview, Dr. Sorenson summed up her thoughts thusly: “I’m not pro-gun or anti-gun. I’m in favor of women being safe, and, as a researcher, I go where the data leads me. If we had good studies that show that a firearm makes women safer, I’d recommend that we increase firearms access. But that’s not what the science shows. In fact, we have decades of research that shows that it is associated with increased risk of homicide and suicide for women.”

Are the Gun Stats Valid?

Sorenson’s thoughts on the matter are largely echoed by domestic violence organizations and shelters. Both tend to push ominous-sounding statistics in interviews with the press and in their online resources. For example, here’s an excerpt from one highly regarded source:

Here at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, we know that the presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. It’s important to note that this risk doesn’t only apply to women; anyone can be in serious danger if their abusive partner has a gun. Additionally, research shows that previous abuse in a relationship is the greatest determining factor in murder/suicides. These increased risks are some of the reasons we do not advocate for survivors of domestic violence to purchase a gun.¹

This statistic — women are 500 percent more at risk of homicide if there is a gun in the home — is presented as unassailable. But is it? This stat and others like it come from observational studies conducted by researchers in the social sciences.²

In a typical drug study, by way of comparison, researchers will start with a population, designate a control group and give the medication in question to a study group. More likely than not, the study will be double-blind, meaning that neither the participants nor the researchers know which treatment or intervention participants are receiving until the clinical trial is over. This makes the results of the study less likely to be biased and ensures that the results are less likely to be affected by factors that are not related to the treatment or intervention being tested. However, the observational studies that comprise the majority of the research in domestic violence and firearms are “case-control” studies, where the case-study group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest.

This may seem like nit-picking, but it’s an important distinction since it opens up the door for all manner of confounding variables. Bearing that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the study behind the National Domestic Violence Hotline’s statistic, taken from a 2003 article published in the American Journal of Public Health.³

The findings included a fivefold increase in intimate-partner-femicide risk associated with abusers’ access to firearms. The study also found that significant incident factors included the victim having left for another partner and that a victim’s risk of being killed by her intimate partner was lower when she lived apart from her abuser and had sole access to a firearm.

A perusal of the study raised many issues, mainly with the control group. For instance, in the study:

• The women in the control group were picked based on self-reported criteria of abuse. (Self-reported studies may have validity problems.)
• The definition of abuse was particularly broad. A woman was considered “abused” if she had been physically assaulted or threatened with a weapon by a current or former intimate partner during the previous two years. (Like anything else, physical assault falls on a spectrum. Both a shove and beating someone nearly to death constitute physical assault.)
• Thirteen women were inexplicably removed from the control group because they reported abuse so severe they thought they could have died. (Isn’t this what the authors were looking for?)
• The authors state that only 10 percent of the women in their control group were physically abused.
• There are dissimilarities between the control and study groups in terms of race, education, employment and income for both victims and perpetrators. There are also differences in alcohol and drug use.
• The data used for the study is fairly dated, having been gathered between 1994 and 2000. (One could make the argument that times have changed and that more women are familiar with and trained in the use of firearms based on increased representation in the trigger sports.)

Other commonly cited studies in this space have similar issues with questions regarding controls and relying on relatively old data. To the credit of the academics who conducted the studies, many include important caveats that are rarely carried forward by domestic violence organizations in search of damning statistics.

One study found elevated risk of female homicide with a handgun purchase in 1991.⁴ However, the control group was simply all adults in California between 1991 and 1996. An obvious confounding variable is that a significant percentage of those women likely purchased a weapon because they already feared for their lives, which would be a very different level of risk than found among Californians in general.

Another study found that guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.⁵ But its authors made no bones about its potential shortcomings, stating that:

• “If case proxies or controls selectively withheld sensitive information about illicit drug use, alcoholism or violence in the home, inaccurate estimates of risk could result.”
• “The rate of domestic violence reported by our control respondents was somewhat less than that noted in a large telephone survey.”
• “Underreporting of gun ownership by control respondents could bias our estimate of risk upward.”
• “[I]t is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide — i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due, at least in part, to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants.”

In summary, many — if not most — of the anti-gun statistics put forth by domestic violence organizations are not as straightforward as they’re made out to be. And these organizations largely advise against victims getting armed and trained in favor of disarming abusers.

Reverse Effect

The flip side of taking guns out of the hands of abusers is evident in the case of Carol Bowne, a New Jersey hairdresser who was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend in 2015. It’s an example of a state government doing its level best to keep guns out of the hands of its citizens — and with tragic consequences.

On April 21 of that year, Bowne, in fear for her life, applied for a permit that would allow her to purchase a handgun. State criminal code mandates that such permits be granted or denied within 30 days. She was still waiting when the ex-boyfriend, Michael Eitel, stabbed her to death outside her Berlin home on June 3.

“New Jersey laws are designed to protect the public from law-abiding citizens,” said Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. “It’s backward. And in this case, the state didn’t even follow its own absurd rules.”

Indeed, reports suggest that the Berlin Township Police Department had yet to receive the results of Bowne’s fingerprinting.⁶ Two days before her murder, Bowne had gone in to check on the progress of her application.

“Now if she had a firearm, does it guarantee she’d be alive today?” Bach continued. “No. But it would have guaranteed she had a fighting chance. And that’s true for anybody.”

Two thousand miles away from New Jersey, the state of Utah takes the opposite tack and tries to protect its citizens from criminals. In 2019, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert signed House Bill 243 into law, allowing domestic violence victims with an approved protective order to carry concealed without a permit.⁷

Republican Rep. Christine Watkins sponsored the legislation. She said it was partially in response to abusers preemptively getting restraining orders against their victims, stripping them of their gun rights.

“It can still be done now,” Watkins said. “Say they beat you up, but you try to stop them and you hit them? They can run right to the courts and get a restraining order and claim you are the abuser. It’s a real nightmare.”

Watkins explained that abusers learn about this loophole and use it to turn the law against the victims. For instance, a young woman she worked with was thrown in jail because she shut the door on the arm of a former boyfriend who was attempting to enter her home to harass her. (Fortunately, a judge had the sense to have her released.)

 

Two thousand miles away from New Jersey, the state of Utah takes the opposite tack and tries to protect its citizens from criminals.

 

While a step in the right direction at the time, the legislation was made unnecessary in 2021 when Utah became the 17^th state to legalize permitless carry.

“We were losing women,” Watkins declared. “We still are. It’s not just Utah; it’s nationwide. But to me, the Second Amendment says you can protect yourself. And I don’t care what anybody says; that’s really important.”

Of course, taking guns away from abusers is not necessarily a bad idea. But, as with anything, there are downsides. It can be a complicated and lengthy process. And victims are dependent on the courts and law enforcement agencies to do their jobs in a timely and efficient manner.

“It can happen in a handful of different ways,” said Wisconsin-based attorney Tom Grieve. “One way is if a victim reaches out to law enforcement. There’s an arrest involved. And the aggressor is placed on some sort of bail that will restrict them from the possession of firearms.”

Another tool on the civil side, he said, is the domestic abuse injunction, referenced in 18 United States Code Section 922(g)(9). If a petitioner successfully pleads the case in court, a judge could order the aggressor to turn over any weapons.

A third option, Grieve stated, would be involuntary commitment for mental illness.

“Maybe they themselves are suicidal,” he said. “Maybe they have a history of self-harm. Why is any of that relevant? Because perhaps they could be chaptered under their state’s laws for mental incapacity.”

Armed and Trained

When it comes to the arguments against victims of domestic violence getting armed and trained, Seattle-area attorney William K. Kirk summed them up nicely on his website’s blog.⁸ Namely, he states that women will be unable to pull the trigger in self-defense and that a woman will likely have her firearm taken away and used against her.

“However, these opinions are based upon one premise,” he wrote, “which is that women are incapable, or not as capable [of] using a firearm as their male counterparts.”

A gun is just as lethal in the hands of a trained female as it is in the hands of a trained male, Kirk declared — the key factors being proficiency and familiarity with the firearm in question.

“[I]t’s a very valuable tool in protecting yourself and … your family,” he continued. “And there’s a biological instinct that goes with that. Because there is a mama bear instinct. And it’s real. And it’s true. And God bless it. Because we all need it.”

 

A gun is just as lethal in the hands of a trained female as it is in the hands of a trained male.

 

To address the training aspect of this issue, I spoke with famed instructor Massad Ayoob and IllinoisCarry spokesperson Valinda Rowe. Both are fed up with the notion that women are less capable than men when it comes to armed self-defense.

“I’ve heard this myth repeated over and over and over again throughout the years,” Rowe stated. “And frankly, I find it insulting. But I think it’s being dispelled by the number of women today who train in firearms self-defense. And who carry every day.”

Ayoob indicated that the arguments against these women getting armed and trained are sexist and outdated, analogous to the cartoon character Blondie jumping up on a stool and shrieking at the sight of a mouse.

“For one thing, women have fewer illusions about being able to handle anything that comes their way,” he stated. “They know damn well that they’re particularly disadvantaged and are probably, if anything, less likely to hesitate.”

Rowe, a well-known instructor herself, said that many of the women she deals with at the range have an initial fear of firearms — something she can relate to, having grown up in a household without guns. She helps these women move past their hesitancy by teaching them the basic rules of firearms safety.

“We practice the firearms safety rules with unloaded or dummy firearms extensively,” Rowe stated. “And they must be able to demonstrate these safety rules before we ever get to the firing line. So that’s part of what I would call the physical and mental preparation before we ever get to actually firing a live round.”

Ayoob offered equally practical advice in terms of preparation. He said it’s imperative for a woman to get a firearm that she’s able to physically manipulate.

“With a semi-automatic,” he explained, “make sure she can run the slide. With a double-action revolver, make sure she can run the trigger. Get the gun to fit the hand, get the holster to fit the body. Ninety plus percent of guns were designed by males for males with average-sized adult male hands.”

Rowe noted that women oftentimes have more difficulty carrying concealed because of the variety of clothing styles they wear. This is unlike most men, who tend to wear similar outfits every day.

 

Ninety plus percent of guns were designed by males for males with average-sized adult male hands.

 

“And so, we urge them and we encourage them to practice drawing from lots of different types of clothing,” she stated, “so that they’re prepared if they find themselves in an emergency.”

Rowe also mentioned the importance of firearms retention in the context of defending against a domestic abuser.

“A good firearms self-defense class is going to cover different retention techniques so that someone cannot take your firearm from you,” she indicated. “And I encourage women to learn as many of those techniques as they can. And then paramount will be the mental preparedness. Don’t draw if you’re not prepared to use it.”

Ayoob echoed Rowe’s sentiments and said that someone who can’t pull the trigger has a gun waiting to be taken away. He also stated that a man who has successfully victimized a woman in the past might not be deterred by the presentation of a firearm.

“He has become overconfident and emboldened,” Ayoob warned.

He also discussed the legal concept of “disparity of force.” It is something frequently left out of concealed carry courses and a concept of which many attorneys don’t seem to be aware.

“Disparity of force means that the opponent is ostensibly unarmed,” he indicated, “but his physical advantages over you are so great that in a violent, physical attack, the likelihood of you being killed or crippled if the attack continues … it becomes the equivalent of facing someone with a deadly weapon.”

As a result, this disparity of force legally warrants your recourse to a per se deadly weapon, such as a gun, to defend yourself.

“If you look every year at the FBI homicide stats,” Ayoob stated, “more people are murdered with bare hands and stomping feet than are killed with all the rifles that are ever used.”

Examples of disparity of force include able-bodied versus disabled, multiple attackers versus a single victim, and male against female.

“The law recognizes the male of the species tends to have greater size, greater strength and more of a cultural predisposition for violence,” Ayoob said. “There’s no varsity female tackle football.”

When it comes to a woman keeping her firearms and ammunition away from her live-in abuser, Rowe indicated that getting out of that situation should be the highest priority. Absent that, technological advances make things easier.

“There are a lot of safes on the market today that were not available a few years back,” she stated. “They can be programmed to open at the touch of your hand or your fingerprint. And only your hand or fingerprint. Your firearm can be loaded and ready to use and access very quickly in an emergency.”

Rowe said that women should ignore the critics who say that they can’t protect themselves because they’re women. At the end of the day, the decision of whether or not to get armed and trained is a personal one.

“Don’t make the decision out of fear,” she advised. “Get the knowledge. Take the training. Learn what it means to be a responsible gun owner. Learn how to safely handle a firearm. And then make that informed decision.”

Solitary Confinement

Meanwhile, back in Florida, Hendley would spend the next 30 days in solitary confinement at the Hillsborough County Jail. Initially, because of the first-degree murder charge, she was held without bond. Adding to her humiliation, a local newspaper headline suggested that she shot her husband simply because he wouldn’t apologize.⁹

She was allowed out of her cell for one hour each day. She usually spent the time meeting with her father. She worried about how he and her two girls were doing. In turn, he revealed to his daughter that a local victims’ advocate, Julie Weintraub, had become interested in her case.

The fourth and final installment in this domestic abuse and self-defense series analyzing how firearms ownership and self-defense training help domestic abuse victims to regain their confidence, take back control of their lives and heal old wounds will appear in the May/June 2023 issue of CCM.

Endnotes

(1) Heather, a Hotline Advocate, “Safety Planning Around Guns and Firearms,” National Domestic Violence Hotline, Jan. 11, 2023, TheHotline.org/resources/safety-planning-around-guns-and-firearms.

(2) Observational studies are used when there are ethical or practical concerns that prevent the researcher from conducting a traditional experiment. Tegan George, “What Is an Observational Study? | Guide & Examples,” Scribbr, Dec. 2, 2022, Scribbr.com/methodology/observational-study.

(3) Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 7 (July 2003): 1089-1097.

(4) Garen J. Wintemute, Carrie A. Parham, James Jay Beaumont, et. al, “Mortality Among Recent Purchasers of Handguns,” The New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 21 (Nov. 18, 1999): 1583-1589.

(5) Arthur L. Kellermann et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” The New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 15 (Oct. 7, 1993): 1084-1091.

(6) Greg Adomaitis, “N.J. gun association calls Berlin woman’s death an ‘absolute outrage,’” NJ.com, June 5, 2015, NJ.com/camden/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html.

(7) Emily Ashcraft, “Utah House approves bill giving victims with protective orders the ability to conceal carry gun without permit,” Deseret News, March 4, 2019, Deseret.com/2019/3/4/20667426/utah-house-approves-bill-giving-victims-with-protective-orders-the-ability-to-conceal-carry-gun-with.

(8) William Kirk, “Is Arming Women the Best Way to Prevent Domestic Violence?” WashingtonGunLaw.com, March 5, 2019, WashingtonGunLaw.com/is-arming-women-the-best-way-to-prevent-domesticviolence.

(9) Jeffrey S. Solochek, “Her husband wouldn’t apologize to her father — so she shot him, police say,” Tampa Bay Times, May 26, 2018, TampaBay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/Her-husband-wouldn-t-apologize-toher-father-so-she-shot-him-police-say_168604050.