Is It Time For At Least Some To "Woman Up And Disarm"?

[emzie]

Then tell her how important it is to you (if it is indeed that important), and what you will do to be responsible with it.

I did. The "you" in the original post was in her voice, meaning me. Rereading, it is a bit confusing. I agreed to keep a trigger lock on the rifle which would be stored in a locked case and the ammunition would be stored separately in another locked case. She agreed in the end that without the keys, it's no more lethal than a bat so as long as we're responsible with the keys, the rifle couldn't be used without my direct permission.

But this is quite a tangent.

The masculinization of firearms is rather unhealthy and it's probably the biggest part of "gun culture." Hell, I rather ironically echoed it when I made sure to clarify that I wasn't against gun ownership in our home.

Bushmaster's ad campaign right before Sandy Hook rather sums up the problem well:

http://gawker.com/5969150/bushmaster-firearms-your-man-card-is-revoked

 

[Dreadnought]

I'd like to hear commentary from somebody that defended his/herself from a sexual assault using a gun.

You could ask this woman, who had the experience yesterday.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you think that all woman live in fear of rape 24/7?

Do you think you can draw that preposterous conclusion based on my comment?

Careful, you might hurt yourself with all that brain power working so hard to imagine all that.

It doesn't seem to injure your own health to repeatedly do so. See the above comment for yet another excellent example.

Just answer a simple question. Would you marry an atheist who insisted that her children not attend church until they were adults because she didn't want it to "restrict" their "belief system"?

If you view it as some kind of 'battle' then non wonder divorce is involved. If one approaches marriage with that kind of attitude it will indeed fail.

Are you an authority on why marriages fail? What educational training and professional experience have you accumulated to be able to make such a sweeping generalization?

Most relationships have arguments, even serious ones. The US has the highest divorce rate of any country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce

In the USA the percentage of marriages ending in divorce varies from around 30% of all U.S. marriages [1] to 50% of first marriages and 60% of second marriages.[2] In the UK, according to ONS (Office of National Statistics), marriages ending in divorce after 15 years in England and Wales rose from just under 1 in 4 (22%) of all marriages in 1970 to a third (33%) of all marriages in 1995.[3]

There is obviously a great deal of conflict in any relationship, even when the couple have much in common.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you think you can draw that preposterous conclusion based on my comment?

Yup. You directly said its a primary reason why they feel the need to carry handguns. Here is your quote:

Don't you think that is a primary reason why many women own and even always carry handguns? That if it wasn't for the threat of rape that many of them would likely not do so?

Given this comment, I dont think my question preposterous at all. Now, i'm sure you will whine and cry and bellyache on how I continuously misinterpret your comments; but really...thats the quote, and it certainly indicates your opinion that the fear of being raped is a primary reason for women to own and always carry a gun.

You see, this is why no one pays attention to your cries of misinterpretation: ITS ONLY YOU THAT THINKS THIS. It is your personal illusion created to absolve you from actually having to take responsibility for the crap you say. If you blame others for it, you're never responsible, no?

The problem with that is you are only fooling yourself. No one else buys the act. Havent for a long while now.

It doesn't seem to injure your own health to repeatedly do so. See the above comment for yet another excellent example.

Just answer a simple question. Would you marry an atheist who insisted that her children not attend church until they were adults because she didn't want it to "restrict" their "belief system"?

Rather big hypothetical dont you think? How do I quantify my love for her? I remind you form, I was a non-religious lib in my youth, so I very well could have done that back then. Today? Well, I would hope that any couple would have worked out that prior to having kids in the first place. I wouldnt mind my atheist wife explaning her belief system to 'our' kids, but she shouldnt restrict me doing so as well, and church is indeed a primary part of Christianity. It wouldnt be fair for her to do that anymore than it would be for me to deny her talking to the kids about atheism.

Are you an authority on why marriages fail? What educational training and professional experience have you accumulated to be able to make such a sweeping generalization?

Have you been married? Are you still married?

I'd like to think that after being married for 28+ years, i've garnered some insight as to why marriages fail. My wife is also pursuing her Masters in marriage and family therapy, and i'm basically her study partner for all of it, and i've done an absolute ton of reading myself in order to make my own marriage better.

I know it probably irritates you no end for someone to have more knowledge/experience than you can find on wikipedia, but there it is.

Most relationships have arguments, even serious ones. The US has the highest divorce rate of any country.

Odd these links indicate that honor belongs to mother Russia.

http://www.siliconindia.com/news/ge...e-Highest-Divorce-Rates-nid-117141-cid-1.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...-rates-in-_n_798550.html#s211130&title=Russia

As much as you use huffpo as a source, surely you woudnt argue its not a valid source, right?

According to this MSN story, it indicates the UN says its Russia as well:

http://living.msn.com/style-beauty/...1895a&_p=192ed64c-095d-4ea3-9819-2ffd1cc5536e

So, thats Huffpo, MSN, and the UN all saying Russia is the highest. I can find more, but I didnt think I needed to kick you that much. You going to double down on your source?

There is obviously a great deal of conflict in any relationship, even when the couple have much in common.

Sure, but with healthy boundaries, conflict resolution and communication its entirely possible to have a great marriage even if you are opposites on a lot of things.

 

[Grisu]

Well since monogamy is still pretty much the standard that most people strive for, i'd think most people would draw the line here.

What if she wanted you to help kill someone?

You see, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I think your question proves that some lines are simply more reasonable than others.

Absolutely, but you basically just agreed that you arbitrarily draw the line somewhere, just at a different place than this guy did. Almost everybody will agree that killing is a deal breaker, most people would agree that refusing to commit to monogamy is as well, though many people today don't. But just because a majority wouldn't live with that doesn't make a refusal any more or less valid than refusing to live with somebody that keeps a gun at home. In fact, I managed to think about something where my wife would definately draw the line: if I were to keep a tarantula as a pet. Would you think that's any more or less valid than keeping a gun? (except for the thing that probably way less people get hurt by their pet spider than from accidents with their own gun)

Because in a relationship, its not longer just 'his' house. It's their house.

It's their house but it also is his house, and there's some things people just won't condone in their house, whether it's shared or not. Now I agree that whenever possible a compromise should be reacht, but in this specific instance I don't see how such a compromise would be? If she brought the gun home, it was just she trying to control the relationship, which certainly wouldn't have been any different, no? Maybe buy the gun but keep it in a bank locker?

 

[MobBoss]

Well, not 'arbitrarily' just more along the lines of social norms.

As to the tarantual thing: do you have a driving desire to have such a pet? Is it a big deal to you? Probably not.

The point being, people who draw such lines have a much harder time finding a lasting stable relationship. Compromise is a big part of relationship success, and if you are unwilling to compromise, well, good luck with that.

And if the gun is for home defense, what good is it in a bank locker? Why not just have a gun safe or something similar at the house, or at the very least trigger locks?

 

[Grisu]

Well, not 'arbitrarily' just more along the lines of social norms.

As to the tarantual thing: do you have a driving desire to have such a pet? Is it a big deal to you? Probably not.

hell no, can't stand the buggers, but what if it were? FWIW, we don't really know how big her desire to own that magnum was either

The point being, people who draw such lines have a much harder time finding a lasting stable relationship. Compromise is a big part of relationship success, and if you are unwilling to compromise, well, good luck with that.

sure thing, but if she just got her way it wouldn't be a compromise either, would it?

And if the gun is for home defense, what good is it in a bank locker? Why not just have a gun safe or something similar at the house, or at the very least trigger locks?

the article said nothing about the intention (unless I missed it) so who knows if it was for home defense. Home defense is just one of the reasons why people buy guns (and funnily enough the one I can follow the least). and if home defense was her reason, would a gun safe be that much better? If security was her concern, wouldn't moving be the much more sensible solution? I mean a date rape, an assault and three muggings? wth?

 

[MobBoss]

hell no, can't stand the buggers, but what if it were? FWIW, we don't really know how big her desire to own that magnum was either

That's what compromise is about.

sure thing, but if she just got her way it wouldn't be a compromise either, would it?

Depends. Dont you think there would be some kind of give and take there? At least I would hope so. If not, then, again...good luck with that.

the article said nothing about the intention (unless I missed it) so who knows if it was for home defense. Home defense is just one of the reasons why people buy guns (and funnily enough the one I can follow the least). and if home defense was her reason, would a gun safe be that much better? If security was her concern, wouldn't moving be the much more sensible solution? I mean a date rape, an assault and three muggings? wth?

There are plenty of ways to still responsibly keep a gun safe and easily accessible if needed.

And yeah, I agree on all the issues she had with crime. I wonder if she carried pepperspray and took self-defense classes?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yup. You directly said its a primary reason why they feel the need to carry handguns..

That is because it obviously is a primary reason. To suggest otherwise is completely absurd.

But that also clearly doesn't mean "all women live of fear of rape 24/7!"

You simply can't seem to help yourself from incessantly creating such absurd straw men like this while discussing me instead of the topic. When others point it out you claim they are "whining", when it is actually you who continues to do so instead of discussing the real issues.

 

[Angst]

The articles of the sort in the OP rarely present proper arguments to change my mind, personally. They're always heartfelt and well-written, but present only a healthy anecdote. I don't see why I should be convinced of its contents even though it was interesting to read.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Were you really expecting it to be a scholarly dissertation, instead of a POV by one woman? How often are such articles ever used for discussion in this forum, especially the Tavern? I posted because I too thought it was a very interesting read, especially by a woman who has experiences that give her all sorts of reasons to want to carry a firearm all the time. Yet she now no longer has any desire to do so.

You might start by explaining what your position is. From your location, you live in a country with incredibly restrictive gun control laws. Are you claiming you wish Britain was far more like the US in regard to gun ownership? That you might even want to be able to get a concealed carry permit, or possibly even own assault weapons and extended capacity magazines?

 

[Angst]

I'm not British. I really have to change this Yu-Gi-Oh internal joke thing back.

Why do you care what my position is? I deliberately left it out to demonstrate my relationship with one such source. just pointed out that one such source would be insufficient to convince me. I'm much more fond of demonstrable statistics or notions that her experience wasn't the only one.

 

[MobBoss]

That is because it obviously is a primary reason. To suggest otherwise is completely absurd.

Form, unlike you, other people arent ruled by fear every day of their life.

http://www.corneredcat.com/article/why-a-gun/why-i-carry-a-gun/

Before I left the house, I put my gun on.

Did I expect any trouble? Nope. I just wear it as a matter of course. It’s what I ordinarily do and so that’s what I did on this ordinary day.

I largely suspect that women carry guns pretty much for the same reasons men do. Not because they live in fear as you so often allege, but because its simply what they do. If you want to call it a 'gun culture' then so be it; but lets dispense with the silly (not to mention paranoid) notion that everyone carrying a gun is somehow daily living in fear of something happening.

But that also clearly doesn't mean "all women live of fear of rape 24/7!"

Just the ones that carry guns, right?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Form, unlike you, other people arent ruled by fear every day of their life.

Your comments in this forum while calling apparent burglars "robbers" who will likely kill if you don't kill them first, and may even come after you later to settle a "grudge", seem to suggest just the opposite.

It must be sad to think so many people wish you and your family harm. That many aren't "woman" enough to not have concealed carry permits and rarely leave the house without a firearm. Just imagine how they must have felt when concealed carry permits required a legitimate reason to carry a firearm instead of simple fear and paranoia of others, especially given how much more violent crime there was back then.

 

[Crezth]

Do you think that all woman live in fear of rape 24/7?

Are you seriously trying to marginalize the very legitimate concern to do with rape in our society?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm not British. I really have to change this Yu-Gi-Oh internal joke thing back.

Why do you care what my position is? I deliberately left it out to demonstrate my relationship with one such source. just pointed out that one such source would be insufficient to convince me. I'm much more fond of demonstrable statistics or notions that her experience wasn't the only one.

Oh, you meant in an abstract sense.

I would certainly agree that emotional first-person accounts are usually far less compelling than facts when I decide to change my own opinion. But I did change my mind about spanking children based on posts in this forum about how others feel about corporal punishment of children. It became quite clear to me that some cannot responsibly use that that form of discipline without abusing it.

I am certainly not "convinced" that we should completely disarm. Nor would I likely ever be. There will always be quite legitimate reasons to own firearms other than self-defense. And a good case can be made for that as well.

I think it is clear that Sandy Hook has changed a lot of attitudes about our current gun laws though. The "statistics" of only 27 more dead people certainly isn't going to convince some that assault weapons and extended capacity magazines should again be banned. But the mental images of 20 dead first-graders may do so with enough people to get this ban re-implemented. I can only hope so.

I also think we need to again require far more legitimate reasons to get a concealed carry permit. Merely being in fear of others shouldn't be a sufficient reason, and may even be a very good reason not to get one.

 

[MobBoss]

Your comments in this forum while calling apparent burglars "robbers" who will likely kill if you don't kill them first, and may even come after you later to settle a "grudge", seem to suggest just the opposite.

You actually think there is a big difference in 'burglers' and 'robbers'? To me, both are just 'criminals' and should be dealt with in the exact same manner.

And as I pointed out, of course people have been killed in their homes by
'burglars'. Are you actually trying to deny that this occurs?

Are you seriously trying to marginalize the very legitimate concern to do with rape in our society?

Thats perspective, not marginalization. I'm fully supportive of increasing the punishments for rape whole heartedly. But to imply that women (let alone armed women) live in constant fear of it is just misleading. They dont.

I guess the word "convince" must mean something quite different to you than it does to me, or why it is really even important in this context over any other thread in this forum.

The lightbulb has to want to be convinced.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You actually think there is a big difference in 'burglers' and 'robbers'? To me, both are just 'criminals' and should be dealt with in the exact same manner.

Indeed. I think that that comment is quite revealing about your attitudes towards "law and order", as was the one about dead people not being able to seek revenge.

Fortunately, our draconian criminal justice system hasn't gotten that completely perverse yet to the point where it doesn't discriminate between relatively benign criminal behavior and extremely violent ones where the threat of physical harm is an inherent part of the crime.

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed. I think that that comment is quite revealing about your attitudes towards "law and order", as was the one about dead people not being able to seek revenge. Fortunately, our draconian criminal justice system hasn't gotten that completely perverse yet to the point where it doesn't discriminate between relatively benign criminal behavior and extremely violent ones.

I'm talking about protecting my home and family, not courtroom proceedings. And I dont care whether the person breaking into my home is a 'burglar' or 'robber', either will be treated the same as the other. As it should be.

If you want to lay out cookies and milk for those benign burglars stealing your crap, thats your business. They come at me and mine, they are going to have a fight on their hands.

 

[Crezth]

Thats perspective, not marginalization. I'm fully supportive of increasing the punishments for rape whole heartedly. But to imply that women (let alone armed women) live in constant fear of it is just misleading. They dont.

It's not that they live in constant fear per se, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is a prevalent concern.