“We didn’t want to live in a reality where the gun — and violence — became our go-to option for dealing with major problems; a lens through which we see the world. Even if that problem was an armed intruder. Rather than living according to the fear of having to protect ourselves from a man in a ski mask, we’ve chosen to protect ourselves from the more likely reality of accidentally hurting ourselves or someone we know.” – Berit Anderson [above left], How one young couple resolved their own gun debate [via crosscut.com]
I wonder if the Petit family had a similar talk? They were certainly unarmed. Living in a nice neighberhood. Didn’t stop rape, murder and arson. 2 teenage girls suffered rape and death because their parents were unable to protect them. Mom died also, Only dad lived. Wonder if he’s armed now?
“We didn’t want to live in a reality …”
And that summarizes their approach to dealing with violence. Head firmly in the sand.
We didn’t want to live in reality is more like it. Never mind doing the research to discover how bad you’ve been lied to. That’s what this site is supposed to be for.
Happy thoughts and sunshine also didn’t stop the 2006 Richmond spree murders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Richmond_spree_murders
“Wonder if he’s armed now?”
I’m unfamiliar with the case you’re referring to. But it sounds awful. If it were me (assuming he has no other children), the answer would be “I have nothing left to protect or live for.” That’s why I am armed and hope to never need it. The case you’ve described is my own personal hell and I’ve spent the last few years working up ballistic deterrence. Even my wife is coming around.
This article….why you gotta be so dumb…..
Meh. I don’t care what they decide to do as long as they don’t try to infringe on my right to do as I wish.
+1
Problem is, you know she’ll vote Yes on I-594.
… and he’ll vote however the hell she tells him to.
Yep. I was going to write a reply on the web site, but there were only 5 responses. I’m thinking giving the website more attention/traffic would probably do more harm than good.
“We didn’t want to live in a reality where the gun — and violence — became our go-to option for dealing with major problems”
When violence is involuntarily thrust upon you, there isn’t much choice in the matter…
Exactly. I don’t want to have to shoot someone, but it won’t be my choice to make if a criminal is intent in causing bodily harm on me or my family.
But if they want to choose to be victims because of an irrational fear, so be it. Don’t force that surrender on me. Can the please put one of those gun free house signs on their home?
Lastly, does the “man” in the picture look like some direct relation with pajama boy from the healthcare exchange ads?
NPR people I’d guess.
“Lastly, does the “man” in the picture look like some direct relation with pajama boy from the healthcare exchange ads?”
Yeah, I’m sure he’ll be right on it when Tyrone busts through the door to “get him some pooty-tang”.
“Don’t hurt me!! Take her!!! Just leave me alone!!!”
To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in violence, but violence is interested in you.
To paraphrase Trotsky: “You may not be interested in violence but violence may be interested in you”
To paraphrase Trotsky, “You may not be interested in violence, but violence may be interested in you”
To quote Sergeant Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis.”
“How one young couple resolved their own gun debate..”
Couple of what?
future victims
I suspect the “couple” that resolved to get rid of the gun was “she” and “her”. From reading the article, this feels like one of those cases where the female half of the couple is using the royal “we”, in place of “I”. Rather than constantly being hectored about it, the dude just gave in and got rid of the gun, and she can talk about the decision “we” made.
One the main reasons I don’t foresee myself ever getting married. The institution and the laws surrounding it have become so female-centric there’s no incentive for a man to hitch up. It has become one of the more effective forms of emasculation in our society, unfortunately.
Only if you don’t put any thought into the relationship. Different strokes and all, but if you want to marry a parent and be told what you can and can’t do that’s his business.
depends on what you look for in a wife. . . if you are cool with one who berates you into giving up your role as protector by threats of emotional blackmail or withholding sex, then you get what you deserve. I learned that in the first marriage. I got tired of her using “we” for “her” and cut my losses after 2 yrs. Been married to wife #2 for 11+ yrs and she has a carry permit.. . . but she also has traditional marriage roles in mind so responsibility to provide and protect falls on my shoulders. We also go to church every week and agree on child rearing tasks.
Marriage is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
This was NOT a compromise. From the full article:
“Eventually, back in Seattle, he and I found a compromise: The gun would live at his brother’s Capitol Hill apartment, which has a gun safe. Eventually, when we live somewhere with room for a safe of our own, we might revisit the concept of gun ownership.”
What?!
They don’t have room in their house for a small handgun safe the size of a dictionary?
ROFL!
That’s an excuse, not a compromise.
In their situation as described, the “gun safe” should also be describable as a “holster”.
“from the more likely reality of accidentally hurting ourselves or someone we know”
Ha! Statitics much? Apparently not… :p
That quote translates into “we have been sheltered our whole lives and we will continue the chain and spread more sheltered ignorance. I will find a discomforting fact to be false by the only merit than that of its lack of warm fuzzy feel. Reality is scary and I’m just not ready for that.” -future robbery victims
“-future RAPE victim”
fixed it for ya
plus 10 to you both.
Such sheltered delicate snowflakes the authors are…
“We didn’t want to live in a reality where the gun — and violence — became our go-to option for dealing with major problems”
I’m a little rusty on my stages of early childhood development (college was a while ago) but I’m pretty sure that thing about not being able to distinguish fantasy from reality was supposed to be over by 8 or so.
Shut up, Berit! The grown ups are trying to have a conversation.
“We didn’t want to live in a reality where the gun — and violence — became our go-to option for dealing with major problems”
We’d (I’d) rather climb aboard my unicorn and ride away from trouble and into the rainbows.
“Regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home,” the abstract reported, “having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide.…”
If I live in an apartment complex with a balcony on a high floor, I’m more likely to jump off it as my method of suicide, too. It’s such a pointless statistic because if a person is suicidal the lack of a gun isn’t likely to stop them!
Statistics show that 100% of people will die at some point for some reason.
That’s why we should raise taxes and ban soda.
Incredibly dumb on so many levels but it should be their choice just as it should be my choice to protect my family with whatever means I feel is appropriate.
Well said sir, well said.
Well the ”more likely” problem of hurting friends and family with a firearm is easily solved. Dont point the damn thing at friends or family. I am sure these two manage to navigate the streets in their car without plowing into pedestrians, so they should be able to understand the 4 rules. But sadly, they refuse, because GUNZ!
If momma ain’t happy, nobody gonna be happy.
But if ole Brett is going to trade em off he needs to find a libtard gal that is a lot hotter than Berit.
The details just sound rather contrived to me.
I was thinking the same thing. If he’s going to play the “happy wife = happy life” card then the article needs to be writtin in his narative and not hers. Otherwise he comes off looking like a cuckold.
I agree, suspect Bloomberg paid somebody to write this, totally bogus. The simplification alone makes it suspicious. I cannot even imagine spending my life with a woman so bereft of common sense, so gullible and determined that she is RIGHT.
That guy has a look on his face that says “If I run now, I might be able to salvage my dignity and manhood.”
If he was secure in his manhood he’d have shaved that hipster beard.
I think he’s self-conscious about his hairline.
Boy, I’m not! I haven’t seen it in decades!
Think so? It strikes me as him reminiscing about being in a gender studies class.
I think he looks like someone who is going to have the blinding flash of reality thrust upon him and his family someday. With the world’s problems of today, it is statistically and historically inevitable. He looks like someone who will cower in a corner when his family is in danger.
If the need ever arises, the light bulb in his brain will flicker on just as the power shuts off.
With her, there will never even be a flicker; her brain will remain forever…dark on the concept of proactive self defense.
““We didn’t want to live in a reality where the gun — and violence — became our go-to option for dealing with major problems; “”
As if reality lets you have a say-so in how it’s going to be.
If I run fast Reality says you see me as thinner than I see me!
Exactly!
“We didn’t want to live in a reality…” Period.
Outstanding point!
And to echo what others have said, I don’t want to live in a reality where a violent attacker causes serious injuries or death to me or my family because we are NOT armed.
“Area man pretends to give a s£#t while his wife wishes away bad people”
Lol.
I respect their choice. I don’t support it, but it is theirs to make. I wish, though, that they had come to see me, or another firearm safety instructor, rather than make a decision based on fear of their own incompetence.
and ignorance, and lies, etc
I am REALLY getting tired of that CDC “data” that gun owners are at greater risk of gun injury or death than non-gunowners. That “statistic” is ridiculous as it is counter intuitive. It is like saying pool owners have an increased chance of drowning… duh. And people who have stairs have increased chances of falling down them. Gun injuries, deaths, and murders are an extremely low proportion of potential hazards we face. Would someone in the MSM PLEASE crush that ridiculous talking point?
As a frequent flier I know I’m at greater risk for aviation death than a non-flier (duh). If I was closed minded enough to only look at the con side of that equation I might conclude that I should stop flying… and drive instead.
As a frequent flier you should be more worried about your cosmic radiation exposure.
Those high-energy atomic nuclei going right through you are damaging your DNA.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
Using that web app, I found 198,550 gunshot related incidents (unintentional) from 2001 through 2012. That comes down to roughly 16,547 incidents a year. Considering there is estimated to be 100,000,000 legal gun owners in America (probably more, considering I know I’m not the only one that answers gun-related survey questions with a “no”), that puts it at roughly 1:5,882 that a gun in the home will be used to kill or injure a person in the home.
This is a worst case scenario based on the assumption that every accidental gun injury or death happens in the home, which we all know is false.
You bring up some interesting stats, and I’ll add one more. Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I read/heard this, though I THINK it came from John Lott.
The “more likely to be hurt by a gun in your home” stat is also tainted by false counting due to BAD GUYS getting shot in the home by the home owner’s gun. Or, false counting where the BAD GUY was also a friend of the family…as in, the stats get compiled from report data where “did you know this person” but not distinguished from “is this person you know ALSO the bad guy breaking into your house at 3 am?”
The anti’s misuse of data and their resulting statistics is revolting. It’s not just annoying, it is downright disgusting.
The proper analysis is to compare victimization rate of unarmed vs armed victims, along with “degree” of victimization (attempted violence, injury, death). The numbers are squarely, and unequivocally on our side, and they know that. That’s why they constantly trot out these ridiculous, easily refuted non-stats in the hope that uneducated, uninformed people will blindly follow emotional appeal.
The more I hear what anti gun people say the more I’m convinced that they are the ones who shouldn’t own guns.
They frequently bring up the “hammer and nail” analogy, but it’s clear that they are the ones who honestly think that way. Guns and violence are not a “go-to solution for major problems”. That’s not what responsible gun owners see them as. An armed intruder or a situation with an already violent outcome, though, is exactly the type of problem they are a solution for.
I think somewhere deep inside these people know that they are not responsible enough to own firearms or make that kind of life or death decision, and so I commend them for recusing themselves of that responsibility.
Now if only they didn’t project their cowardice and lack of responsibility on the rest of us, and make their “go-to solution for EVERY problem” to coerce and control people through political posturing and hysteria.
What all such bogus studies, such as the quoted CDC study ignore, is the deterrent effect of gun ownership. Because so many of us do own guns, criminals alter their behavior. That’s why we have fewer home invasions than England.
“A national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study vindicated my position: “Regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home,” the abstract reported, “having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide.…””
All of us here know this is BS, just like having a vehicle in the household is associated with an increased risk of car accident injuries and deaths. CDC isn’t an unbiased source.
“As a 7-year-old, he was schooled in sharp shooting by his biological father. Together, they traveled regularly to a multi-state gun jamboree in Montana, where Brett won first place in a shooting contest. Back at home, his mom worried about the Band-Aids peppering his arms. Stray buckshot, they told her.”
Wait, what? This doesn’t even make sense.
“Rather than living according to the fear of having to protect ourselves from a man in a ski mask, we’ve chosen to protect ourselves from the more likely reality of accidentally hurting ourselves or someone we know.”
Well that’s certainly your choice, the ability to defend yourself comes with certain responsibilities that it looks like you aren’t ready to shoulder.
Also, Brett? that beard doesn’t make you look rugged. It makes you look like a hipster.
Another male metrosexual is born.
I bet there’s two other things hanging in that offsite safe also.
Yep. I’ll respect their decision as long as they respect mine.
She looks like more of a man than he does.
If you have a pool, you are more likely to drown, even your kids! I hope they never opt to own a pool since they can’t trust themselves with basic safety.
Don’t forget bathtubs and stairs, too.
….. and if you own a knife, you are more likely to cut your self.
” Rather than living according to the fear of having to protect ourselves from a man in a ski mask, we’ve chosen to protect ourselves from the more likely reality of accidentally hurting ourselves or someone we know.”
True that the odds are you may never need to use a firearm in defense of your life, but, like any tool if you don’t respect it you will hurt yourself. Having a firearm in someones home other than your own is worthless to you if the time comes. If you feel like you are going to hurt yourself than maybe you should not own one after all if it is not in your possession what control do you really have over it? There is also this “Better to have and not need than need and not have”.
I agree. If you don’t trust yourself to keep a gun in your own home, then how is keeping it elsewhere any better, safer, or rational?
If I “hide the cookies from myself,” I won’t eat them. Uh-huh.
She needs to ask herself if that gun has ever been in her home. If so, she must recognize the proven danger of it escaping from the safe and hunting her down! Happens all the time, you know, probably better to have it where you can keep an eye on it. And why does she wish to endanger the poor innocent who owns the safe?
glad the picture was included. these are people i will not protect. when people believe they can choose their own reality, we need protection from them.
someone should post a sign on the door to their apartment, “brain-free zone”.
cheers, ya’ll.
“Eventually we reached a compromise: we would do what I wanted and he’d stfu about it.”
Yep. My wife used to be nervous about having guns in the house before we were married because she was never really exposed to them until she met me, but unlike this guy I have a pair of balls and told her she would have to deal with it. She has come a long way and is now thinking about getting her CCW permit.
I’d be finding me a different wife! I knew where this was going when she said she knew from all the news stories that “she’d written”.. he never stood a chance!
It is okay for people to be willing victims. If there were no victims, it would be so much harder for us to prove that the 2nd amendment is as relevant today as much as it was 200 years ago. Their sacrifice will be remembered.
That’s a lot of words to say “I wanted a gun. Wife didn’t. Wife won.”
I get it man, that’s why you gotta choose your battles. I might not have shit to say about the wallpaper or the paint colors, but I got my safe full of guns upstairs.
Perfectly free to make this choice, many people do. I only have an issue with these types of people when they vote to elect politicians at the federal level who would try to enforce a similiar decision on me and mine.
Amen!
“Rather than living according to the fear of having to protect ourselves from a man in a ski mask, we’ve chosen to protect ourselves from the more likely reality of accidentally hurting ourselves or someone we know.”
Huh? There were close to 600 deaths and perhaps another 2,400 injuries from unintentional (negligent) gunshot wounds last year … and that includes hunting accidents. However, law enforcement agencies reported more than 1 million violent crimes last year. How 3,000 unintentional (negligent) firearm injuries/deaths is a “more likely reality” than 1+ million violent crimes is beyond me.
That is a textbook definition of a delusional person.
How can they not have room for a single handgun safe? Those are maybe slightly bigger than a shoebox.
+1
I think I prefer it with my edits, personalized for me:
“I don’t live in a reality where the gun — and violence — is my go-to option for dealing with major problems; a lens through which I see the world. Even if that problem was an armed intruder, I would prefer a peaceful outcome.
Rather than living in fear of those who would bring violence into my life and the lives of those I love, I’ve chosen to prepare myself for the unlikely and unwanted scenario where I must commit an act of violence in order to protect myself and and others in my life.”
Idiocy. If there is, in fact, an armed intruder in your house then your options for a “peaceful resolution” are already out the window. If someone comes into my home armed – which shows a willingness to do harm to the people he/she finds inside – then violence is already in the mix. Your choice at this point is to either be a helpless victim and rely on the armed intruder’s sense of mercy…or turn the decision to do violence back on the one who brought that intent into your life.
I will not be a helpless victim like these two. I will not trust the safety of my wife and children to the flimsy hope that a violent criminal will take pity on them. While the use of a firearm is not the “go to option” for solving every problem, for this particular problem it’s a pretty damn good one.
People “come into my home armed” a lot. Many of my friends carry.
(Yeah, I know you mean “break into my home” but I am feeling a bit snarky this morning.)
I think you misunderstand my meaning.
I said “I would prefer a peaceful outcome”, as in I would prefer to not have to resort to violence. That being said if I find an intruder in my home the outcome will not be peaceful.
Don’t mistake my preference for “a peaceful outcome” as “Idiocy” or willingness to be a “helpless victim”. I prefer that every situation I go into in my life does not end with me killing someone, but if I find myself in a situation where I (or others) are at risk of death or great bodily harm I will do what is necessary.
Her husband as a child required only band-aids on his arms from being hit by “stray buckshot”???… That’s one tough kid.
I also guffawed at the line about “firearms absolutism”.
I’m betting the “stray buckshot” was, in fact, birdshot from a skeet load.
Violence is always a solution, not the best for most situations, but really effective for better or worse.
I believe it is more like, if you choose peace, you need to back up that belief with the option of violence. If you want peace and the other person disagrees, you have to have a way to defend yourself. If you choose only peace with no effective way to ever protect yourself except with words, you will be a victim of violence.
The cold war came to a close only after there was a point of mutual destruction.
Even in martial arts, they teach you never to start a fight but be always prepared to finish the fight you did not want.
Way to say it in a nice way.
Regarding the whole martial arts thing:
I am not a violent person but I have to admit the rush and excitement of a fight is fun (though I never start a fight). One of the few times it is acceptable to unleash the crazy.
Yep, I had trained in martial arts for years, but since I don’t hang out with stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places; I had never actually got to use those skills for “real”.
Until the human predator picked me as potential prey. And in the middle of the “zone” everything moving lightning fast but it is all in slow motion, I’m feeling totally in the now, totally in the present, all is peaceful, even joyous, and in the middle of it all, In the immediacy of the now, feeling totally and completely, unambiguously alive, I’m thinking, “this is fun!”
That was seventeen years ago, I can still feel it as if it was yesterday. And I continue to live by that rule, do nothing “stupid”. So if I never have to fight another human being again in the same level of life and death, I will be completely fine with such an event.
I have heard this same argument before. As with anything emotional, you can find false arguments to support your initial desire.
They are anti-gun and found an argument to be anti-gun. It is really that simple.
The facts say different. You are just as likely to never have to use your gun, only about 2% of police will ever be involved in a shootout.
Accident involving guns are just as rare. Accidents regardless of its an gun, trampoline or swimming pools (anyone remember why jarts were taken off the market?) are caused by someone being careless, stupid or negligent. Vigilance and discipline is the only thing that can stop accidents.
I personally do not care if someone chooses to be armed or not, that is their personal choice hopefully made with facts versus simply emotions, however, if one chooses not be armed, leave the rest of us who do choose differently alone. Do not try to make your “no guns” choice everyone’s choice. That there is the crux of the issue, people trying to impose their own personal choice on others.
Is it me or is the jean pool getting shallower? They have spent way too much time in lala land college and not in reality.
Who is Jean?
Dunno, but she needs to call someone about her pool.
The jean pool is getting shallower. Back in the ’70s and ’80s, we had hundreds of brands of jeans to choose from. Now there are just a few. Kids these days are more into wearing shorts and cargo pants, I guess.
*gene
“keeping a gun in our home changed how we related to the world.”
Even if kept unloaded? And given that they could even choose to keep no ammo at home?
Read: “My inability to handle my own overwhelming need to control everyone around me made having access to a gun too tempting a way to coerce people into doing what I know is best for everyone”
Dear criminals. My name is _________. My husbands name is __________. We have blinded ourselves to the evil that lives in the world with us. Actually, it’s just terribly inconvenient to think that people exist that do not know us but may, one day, want to harm us. It means that we have to spend money to buy and train with firearms and ammunition to ensure our safety. We would rather spend that money on killing unborn babies or supporting politicians that refuse to protect the Constitution of the United States. Plus, I would rather not have that responsibility. I can barely make it to the local Walmart and back without having a bit of an episode. Anyways, our names are above, or address can be easily found by a cursory search for us on the internet. Feel free to come on by, break into our house, rape me while my husband watches, and kill us in the most horrible way possible. After all, as you well know by now, we are unarmed and will just try to bargain for our lives or rationalize with you. I’m sure you know this will not end well for us.
Thanks
It’s a long walk from Seattle to the nearest Walmart.
She couldn’t breathe when she saw the gun, she had visceral reactions to the sound of gun fire, she associates guns with death. That is classic hoplophobia, an irrational fear of firearms. I hope he realizes that his girlfriend has this problem. If she was my girl friend, I’d be breaking off the relationship.
Unfortunately it is too late … they are already married.
I had met the perfect woman; former marine, self-employed, beautiful, had a pistol and an M1 carbine; not like my collection, but still, she had some guns. We got involved and then six months later comes to a “revelation”, that she didn’t like my military style rifle collection or the fact that I carried a pistol for self-defense. I would have to give up the collection and carrying a personal weapon if we were to stay together. She didn’t like being “paranoid and fearful” by having these weapons around.
So we parted ways.
Owning and carrying personal weapons suitable for the battle battle field has always been the symbol of a free person. In my opinion, It was ultimately about control; she didn’t want to walk side by side as equals, she wanted total power, total control, she wanted a servant, a peon, slave, not an equal partner.
Look at the picture. Her, front and center, arms crossed in a defiant fashion. He, behind her, not making eye contact, waiting for her to let him know what he needs to do next. I know who wears the pants in that household.
The mans traditional role has been the protector of the family. Only in a “civilized” society where the role of the protector is given to the “professionals”; can this traditional role be subverted, even applauded by the masses and those “men”? that accept this debasement feel superior and oh so “civilized”.
In fact, it is simply another sign of a corrupt and degenerate culture.
Only in the a “civilized” society where the role of the protector is given to the “professionals”…
And what society would that be? Certainly not this country.
(Pro Tip: see Castle Rock v. Gonzalez)
Noticed that too, eh?
M1 carbines are cool! Did she think that was some kind of toy?
That’s why it was really about control; because the M1 is a battle proven “assault weapon”.
My mantra of late: This woman is a perfect example of someone who lacks even an abstract understanding of what being threatened, let alone being actually harmed, is like. She’s led a sheltered, cosseted life and is completely and willfully clueless—a perfect victim-in-waiting. She’s also In Charge and, in writing this article, she’s making sure Bubba gets it.
Saw a similar thing happen at a car show a couple of years. Momma shows up, stands outside the conversation, and says “ok, you’ve been here long enough, we need to go”. Guy hopped to, and left.
Poor shmuck.
yea, about the time other people start telling me how I think and feel, that’s about the time I totally discount anything they have to say. I applaud people that choose pre-victimhood. Just don’t presume to choose for me.
Everyone makes fun of these people (and rightly so) but there is an aspect that should be brought to attention. The hoplophobic fiancé acknowledged that she is at higher risk to commit murder or suicide if the gun were in the house, and did the responsible thing by not letting the gun stay in the house. You pick your poison, and if she recognizes that she is not mentally stable enough to possess a firearm without harming herself or others, she did the right thing.
Two more points. 1) In a world of compromise, some men don’t. But then again some men do. If my hypothetical fiancé did not want me to protect her or myself from criminals, I would reevaluate the relationship before saying the vows. 2) He or his brother should become a FFL to save on money for all the transfers they will have to run if I-594 passes.
“The hoplophobic fiancé acknowledged that she is at higher risk to commit murder or suicide if the gun were in the house, and did the responsible thing by not letting the gun stay in the house”
It’s not much of a stretch to think the pistol could be easily retrieved if either felt homicidal/suicidal urges. Most people just don’t “snap” at a moment notice that would preclude a short drive across town.
Robert? Is it possible that these individuals also qualify for the “IRRESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS OF THE DAY” award?
A quick comment on the “gun in the home is more likely to harm you than protect you” bit.
A gun in the home IS more likely to harm you than protect you in these situations:
(a) Your live with a domestic abuser.
(b) You are suicidal.
(c) You are a fool (break gun safety rules).
And guess what? Eliminating a firearm will not prevent harm in those situations! A domestic abuser can kill a sleeping victim just as easily with a hammer as a firearm. A suicidal person can drive into an overpass at 100 mph just as easily as they can pull a trigger. A fool can harm themselves with chainsaws, chemicals, fire, cars, compressed gas, etc. just as easily as they can with a firearm.
Thus: removing a firearm from the home does NOT reduce risk of injuries or death to yourself or family members. Rather, removing a firearm from the home transfers the risk that you harm yourself or a family member from a firearm to other equally harmful objects.
Or…
People who drive cars are 100 percent more likely to die in a car accident in the drivers seat than people who never drive cars.
I think you can add “(d). you are a drug dealer.” to your list, as well.
It’s ok, nothing bad happens, say the people who lock their car, have a car alarm, lock their house door, and have a house alarm, who have a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, a carbon monoxide detector, 8 air bags in their volvo and always wear their seatbelt….All things meant to protect your life from just about anything, expect an armed intruder..
Oh…idealists. Anyone who can believe that acting like everything is hunky dory actually makes everything hunky dory is psychotic. Realists are just idealists who understand that the ideal is an end, not a means.
When it comes to opinions on gun rights, Americans can be broadly categorized into four (or five, if you include the indifferent) groups.
1. I don’t like guns; therefore I will not have one, and you must not have one either.
2. I don’t like guns; therefore I will not have one, but you may one, if you so choose.
3. I like guns; therefore I have one, and you may have one too, if you so choose.
4. I like guns; therefore I have one, and you must have one too.
The first and fourth groups are equally wrong. Nobody has the right to infringe on someone else’s rights. Infringement includes both prohibiting gun ownership, and mandating it; both extremes remove the choice from the individual and give it to the state.
That isn’t what 2A is about. The RKBA is about choice. You may choose to have a gun, for whatever reasons you want. You may choose NOT to have a gun, for whatever reasons you want. These people choose not to have a gun. It doesn’t matter if their logic is sound, or if their statistics are correct. The choice is theirs!
To all of you criticizing these people because their choice doesn’t agree with your opinion…
Think about that for a second.
Does it sound familiar?
It should, because it’s the same position that MDA, MAIG, Everytown, the Brady Campaign, and every other gun control group takes. They criticize everyone that makes a choice that doesn’t agree with their opinion.
So, the next time someone exercises their 2A right by choosing not to own a gun, but doesn’t care if you do. Skip the criticism, and don’t belittle their choice. Engage with them. Tell them the 2A is about Americans’ choosing their own actions when it comes to gun ownership. Remind them that we have something in common regarding gun ownership, and it is that we all believe individuals should determine their own actions, independent of government mandates. Educate them, without bias, on gun ownership, gun laws, and gun culture. Tell them that gun-control activists’ goal is mandating people’s choices regarding gun ownership, not safety. Then ask them, do they really want someone making that choice for them? Ask them if that’s any different than mandating gun ownership. Point out the hypocrisy in the antis’ argument. Change the argument about gun control from being about guns, to being about individuals making their own choices about how to live their lives and we may be able to turn some of these people to our side. Attack them, and you all but guarantee that they will join the antis.
It IS NOT the same, bud. Not even a little. That is ridiculous. I can criticize these morons for the assumptions they make all I want, but it doesn’t mean I think that they MUST own a gun, it just means that I think that their reasons for not owning one are ridiculous, and they have every right to make that decision. All of the organizations you mention would send men, with guns, to take my guns if they could, and the fact that you would equate mere criticism with that actually makes me feel less and less heated as I write…it isn’t even worth thinking about…because it is ridiculous to the point of laughter. Thank you. Thank you for making me laugh.
I didn’t say anything about criticizing people for their assumptions. (Personally, I believe their logic is pretty flawed.) I specifically stated “criticizing these people because of their choice”. Choice, not assumption. Those words have very different meanings. Nor did I claim that all gun-owners think everybody should own a gun.
Also, I was addressing gun control groups’ fondness of criticizing anybody who chooses to own a gun as paranoid, or delusional, or whatever it is they’re saying this week.
We can live in a fairytale world of delusions. I live in a real world full of evil. This gals post doesn’t rise to diatribe. Drivel is an apt description. Please RF flesh out some of your posts. I hate clicking on lunatic sites and supporting them. Oh yeah her boy needs to grow a pair.
(insert whip noise here)
Typical insufferable overly-opinionated, controlling liberal Seattle woman. I’m glad I found a good woman already, because the Seattle dating scene is miserable for any man who isn’t willing to put up with this type of woman.
25yr there were some normal women. About 1990 that the house rich yuppie libtards started cashing out and began infesting the rest of the West. Seattle was got more than it’s share. Add in the Microsoft chicks. I can only imaging what it’s like today by looking at the breed of politicians elected.
Sad, beautiful area but so was S. Kalifornina once upon a time.
Reading such liberal navel-gazing drivel is always nauseating. Is this woman related to “Mary”?
I don’t usually win arguments with my wife, so i pick my battles. Concealed carry just came out so I announced my plans to get a license. The argument ensued. Her final comment was “You’re not taking my Daughter out while you have a gun”. I responded “Good thing, shes not only your Daughter”. We haven’t gotten down to the nuts and bolts of it yet basically because i cant afford the classes and fees yet, but there will be a long sit down over this and safety. This is one of the battles I’m prepared to fight. The next will be teaching my daughter to shoot.
K. Read the article. Nowhere did I read that these people wanted to ban guns, or try to keep me from having mine. So, so what then? If they don’t want guns in their house, so be it. Lighten up folks.
“These people” don’t even exist. Story is made up to promote gun control. Obviously. Pretending otherwise is adhering to the Osama concept of tricky wording to disguise your real goals from the stupid voter, the stupidest of which, he believes, is the gun owner.
Reading between the lines, Berit is torn between living up to her previous “gun ownership makes people violent”-type HuffPo writing and her realization that nice people really do own guns, and the guns can both provide a defense and help “scare up some dinner.” She wants one. The pistol will start out in a safe but end up on her hip or in her handbag.
Does she think ALL of her new inlaws are idiotic killers? This whole story is bogus.
I’m gathering this “debate” was like that “conversation” the gun-o-phobes are always wanting–where only one side gets to talk.
Well my wife has her pistol permit ( that’s what we call them in NY) oh and yes full carry,no classes to take,good for life.
Years ago she suggested buying some hand guns out of state to keep them off NY radar,and just locking them away,as if she knew what was instore for NY ers.
Not that we did this just showing you simply have to marry the correct one.
You can’t buy handguns out of state. Rifles and shotguns, yes, handguns no. Find a way, you might go to fed jail and lose all your guns. I think that’s since 1986, not sure.
Good for life? Aren’t they going to become renewable every 4 or 5 years in NY?
“Regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home,” the abstract reported, “having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide.…”
Did I miss the huge increase in suicides and homicides with the millions of new guns sold in the last few years?
As for the risk of homicide, the study does not reveal if the gun in the home is used to kill or it was an outside firearm.
It’s a meaningless statistic. Replace “firearm” with pretty much any potentially dangerous object–car, kitchen knife, length of rope, lethal chemicals, swimming pool–and it would be just as true.
I respect their choice and their reasons for it. I also respect that they did give gun ownership serious consideration, including doing some shooting. I even agree with their reasoning FOR THEM. If you think you shouldn’t own a gun, you’re right. You shouldn’t. I think there are a lot of people out there who do own guns who shouldn’t, but I’m willing to live with that because I’m not in favor of the government deciding who should and who shouldn’t any more than it does already.
I also believe that some people have to ease into gun ownership. I’ve got a daughter and son-in-law about that age who are going back and forth about it for some of the same reasons. I think if they or couple in this article, or thousands of couples like them, perceive a greater threat at some time in the future, they may change their minds more easily and be more responsible about it than couples who have never considered it. In the meantime, I would like them to perceive gun people as polite, law abiding citizens who would welcome them rather than as a group of zealots who put people down who do not agree with them. That’s what the anti-gunners do us and I won’t sink to that level.
Oh, they’ll just take their chances with home invaders, will they? How nice. Hope that works out for them. Unfortunately, firearms freedom isn’t merely a matter of to each his own or live and let live. Hope isn’t a serious strategy on our part any more than ignoring danger is a serious tactic on their part.
You see, even though this couple prefers not to live in a reality where dangerous people intend nefarious acts (and who wouldn’t prefer that, really?), that reality nevertheless endures, despite this couple’s protests or indifference. What is variable, is their reaction to those threats.
If this couple forfeits their responsibility to address their own safety and security, then the lingering realities of danger will prompt them to demand government action to fill that defensive void. That will mean more police presence and more citizen deference, of course. It will also inevitably mean calls for civilian disarmament as a means of addressing the threats at their root cause. That the true root cause is human desires, not human devices, will be lost on them while disarmament is imposed on us.
Everyone who stumbles, falls, and abandons his own right to keep and bear arms, is an indirect threat to our own rights, for their retreat equates to support for those who would snatch our firearms and snuff out our rights.
These people need to be educated with ideas and exhibits to reverse their ambivalence and enhance their self-reliance. The security of a free state depends on it.
Do not feel bad for her husband. The personality traits and logic that led her to this decision were visible to him before he married her and no doubt have been manifesting in many other decisions she makes. The fact that he allowed their private decision to be publicized by her shows that he is basically another american man that has been emasculated.
+1. What in the world happened to manhood?
This happened to manhood:
http://images.politico.com/global/2013/12/18/131218_lowry_pajamaboy.jpg
although I question this couple’s reasoning and using questionable resources from the questionable CDC, (A better resource is the FBI statistics),I respect your right not to be armed. But if it ever does come a time when they are attacked with her home was invaded where they are raped or robbed they certainly will not receive any pity for me. That’s the choice they have chosen that’s the logic and reasoning they have used.it’s up to them who will have to live with the consequences and them alone.
Whelp, makes me love my wife even more. She’s grounded in reality and has recently picked the M&P9 as her choice of protection, after trying it out on the range last weekend. Glad she doesn’t stick her head in the sand like these people do.
Good for them. The bad people of the world need soft targets; so do the hard targets of the world, who would prefer it if the bad people concentrated on soft targets. It’s a win-win.
Please move next door to me, Anderson. Then put up a sign that says something like “defenseless twits live here.” I’ll make popcorn.
What kind of parent names their daughter “Berit”?
Almost sounds like “bereft”: lacking something needed, wanted, or expected.
*Boggle*
Behold, ladies and gentlemen… The Beta Male!
I respect their choice on the matter of self defense and they should respect alternate choices.
When the judge said that I marry you or go to jail for 10 years, I married you. I am upset because I would be getting out about now.
Comments are closed.