My wife and her gun views

[Aaryq]

Howdy folks. I had a gun debate a few nights with my wife because I'm getting a CCL in about 30 days and she's very middle of the road when it comes to not having to have a permit for CC and CCL in general. Here were her points:

If you believe that gun rights are unfair, why would you get a CCL and help the system? I answered, I believe in gun rights and I can only change them by voting and writing congressmen. If I break the law then I'll only hurt the pro-2A community

If everyone could get a CCL wouldn't there be more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west? I answered, a lot of the wild west is over exaggerated to start with. And the answer to your question is no. If you knew that at least 1/3 of the people (I chose an arbitrary fraction) had a gun in a place that you wanted to rob or commit a crime with a gun, wouldn't you think twice before whipping out a gun and threatening people? It was the best example I could think of

There would be irresponsible people/those who don't know how to use a gun running around with guns. Yes this is true. That's why those of us who ARE pro 2A must do our best to not just sit and chatter amongst ourselves and write our congressmen, but we must go out and educate others who do carry about safety and responsibility. In addition to that, there SHOULD be laws about people using firearms irresponsibly. If you are the one who pulls the trigger, you should be 100% responsible for what comes out of the muzzle accident or not.

If there weren't any firearms laws, you'd have murderers and psychos buying guns and killing people. I answered that's true. There are gun laws that I do believe in. NICS checks should screen for the mental defectives and violent criminals (people who deserve to loose their gun rights).

What if average joe with no criminal/psychological record just snaps? I have no answer. Hopefully THR will help me here

That's all I can remember because it was late and I had to work in the morning so I was bloody tired.

To her defense: She is pro-2A to a point. She believes in the current laws: Class III restrictions, Shall issue CCL, and there shouldn't be laws about assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and Castle Doctrine. She also believes if you go through the paperwork for a more restricted permit, every other permit should be free upon request without any more paperwork.

How did I do. What arguement should I add. And we're not fighting. We talk like adults and we don't yell at each other.

 

[RNB65]

wouldn't there be more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west?

The "Wild Wild West" is mostly a work of Hollywood fiction. Starvation and disease were the big killers on the American frontier, not gun violence.

 

[Reddbecca]

What if average joe with no criminal/psychological record just snaps? I have no answer. Hopefully THR will help me here.

The number of incidents where somebody just "snaps" are relatively few and far between. The Secret Service conducted a study on school shootings and found that the perpetrators don't just "snap" or "go off", they actually plan things out for months or even years and are well aware of what they're doing.

While there's always the minute possibility that somebody might actually lose it, the chances are very minute. With 100 million legal gun owners in America, those who snap don't even equal .05%, which is very much in our favor.

Besides, if somebody does just snap like the anti-gunners claim we're likely to, wouldn't it be better if the people who are around this individual have the means to defend themselves and their loved ones if the police are more than 15 seconds away?

 

[target1911]

If there weren't any firearms laws, you'd have murderers and psychos buying guns and killing people. I answered that's true. There are gun laws that I do believe in. NICS checks should screen for the mental defectives and violent criminals (people who deserve to loose their gun rights).

They have guns anyway and the laws dont stop them from gettin more. They just buy them off the street...

you did very good

 

[Belgiboy]

I am totally with you on this one, Redbecca. I think that people that 'snap' have spent a great amount of time fantasizing about the effects of their act... now imagine this, would anybody risk barging into a college classroom if there was a good chance that you could get shot in the dingies by a cute cheerleader that had a ladysmith in her purse? There is no glory in that. That would make him the laughing stock of the prison hospital wing.

 

[TallPine]

If there weren't any firearms laws, you'd have murderers and psychos buying guns and killing people.

If there weren't any drug laws, you'd have bums and losers buying drugs and wrecking their families and their own lives.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Originally posted by Aaryq:
If you believe that gun rights are unfair, why would you get a CCL and help the system? I answered, I believe in gun rights and I can only change them by voting and writing congressmen. If I break the law then I'll only hurt the pro-2A community

Exactly. We put up with it because it is what we have to work with and the alternative is to not be able to "carry" at all. I would certainly not want to be the test case for the constitutionality of CCL laws, especially when they are as relatively benign as Arizona's. I could probably afford to pay a lawyer for about, oh, ten minutes.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I think you did fine with most of that discussion

What if average joe with no criminal/psychological record just snaps?

It's a nonsense argument. First you can pose the turnaround question of what happens if someone "just snaps" now? Virginia Tech LEAPS to mind.

Secondly, laws and policy should only be made on the basis of what someone -has- done. Policy making based on the possibility that somebody might do something is creating punishment where there has been no crime. The truth is that the world can be dangerous and there are an awful lot of things that people "might" do, but restricting/punishing everyone on that possibility is tyranny of the worst sort.

 

[Notch]

If a person "snaps" it doesnt matter if they have a carry license or not.

 

[ozwyn]

People who just snap seem to have a habit of finding groups of unarmed victims to assault. The ones who try it in area where people do carry don;t make a big splash on the news... usually due to not surviving the mistake in judgement long enough to get a body count the news would care about.

consider some of the cases with people driving into crowds, for instance. They snap and kill people without any firearm handy to "magically empower them to snap".

 

[budney]

Reddbecca,

So well said that I have nothing to add. Great!

 

[DirksterG30]

If everyone could get a CCL wouldn't there be more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west? I answered, a lot of the wild west is over exaggerated to start with. And the answer to your question is no. If you knew that at least 1/3 of the people (I chose an arbitrary fraction) had a gun in a place that you wanted to rob or commit a crime with a gun, wouldn't you think twice before whipping out a gun and threatening people? It was the best example I could think of

Another way to address this is show her the Brady Bunch propaganda they spout whenever a state goes to shall-issue or relaxes its gun laws (the streets will be red with blood, etc.) and then show the actual results of shall-issue. People with CCLs have proven to be more law-abiding than the non-CCL folks.

 

[Sniper X]

In the "wild wild west" about 1 person for every 100 who fell off their horse and died was killed by a gun. Most who were killed by a gun were killed by "illegal" guns that we sold to the rnengade Indian tribes.


Someone "normal" doens't just snap, that also is a movie thing. Someone who just snaps has a history of mental illness that is either being ignored, or hidden by those around him. And anyone who allows a person like this to purchase a handgun is also guilty.


The stats show that 90% of all handgun violence is committed by those with stolen guns, and the other 10% is probably justified but considered criminal in our current "politically correct" society.


The stats where gun accedents happen are usually with legal firearms, but most are actually hunting related, not those youy hear about where a kid gets daddy's gun. Those are overinflated, and get "storied" when told.

I know personally ONE person in my whole life who has a gun accedent that was blamed on his son. He supposedly killed his dads best freinds daughter but the evidence shows that the kid could not have done it but they can't pin it on the parrents even though all of us know one of them was showing off the handgun and shot the kid accedently.


She may be a closet liberal, so pick her brain about other issues.

I am lucky I was able to "turn" my girlfreind by showing her and educating her the truth about guns and that everything her rabid liberal mom had filled herhaed with about guns was wrong or outright lies. Typical of the liberal side when it comes to guns. That is a whole nother thread!

 

[Justin]

The "Wild Wild West" is mostly a work of Hollywood fiction. Starvation and disease were the big killers on the American frontier, not gun violence.

That and giant, steam-driven mechanical spiders.

In all seriousness, it sounds like your wife's viewpoint isn't bad or anti, just that she lacks a bit of experience.

 

[waterhouse]

In all seriousness, it sounds like your wife's viewpoint isn't bad or anti, just that she lacks a bit of experience.

I think this is very common. Living in the liberal center of the state, I often get into discussions/debates with people who think they are anti gun. They spout the same stuff that you always hear through the media. These are usually pretty intelligent people, and after talking to them for a while most of them realize that they have no argument. You can almost see the light bulb going on.

I'm not saying they go out and decide to buy a gun, but at least they don't go around complaining about them anymore.

 

[AJ Dual]

There are lots of men here who wish your wife's position was the "starting point".

I think she's worried that if you carry, that a confrontation or criminal act where you were "in the right" but was not worthy of lethal force would escalate, and you'd be in trouble, but she can't quite come out and say so.

I'd stress how the gun stats are skewed "42 more times likely etc." because of how the introduction of an armed victim ends the vast majority of crime without any shots fired. And the public, press, and authorities never get to know how serious the incident would have become otherwise. Most crime, aside from crazies, stalkers, and crimes of vengance/passion, is opportunistic in nature, and the introduction of an armed victim flips the criminals risk/reward ratio 180 degrees almost instantly.

You also want to point out every example you can find about the "zen of carry". i.e. How you have better threat awarness, and how threat avoidance and conflict de-escalation becomes even more important to anyone who takes carry seriously.

 

[Noxx]

In response to

What if average joe with no criminal/psychological record just snaps? I have no answer. Hopefully THR will help me here

I offer a post of mine from another forum on the same subject.

The real question is how will the legal control of guns, and the compliance of law-abiding citizens, prevent someone like the VA shooter who has suffered a complete break with all standards of morality in their quest to feel empowered, from doing grievous harm to other people?

The plain fact is, it's not nearly as difficult as the government (which wants you to feel safe and warm) would have you think to kill/maim/injure tens or hundreds of people. If I get it into my mind to do so, the options available to me are limited only by my imagination.

A personal explosive is easy to make with a little information. Ask the Palestinians. Combine it with a cold-weather football game where bulky clothing is the norm. Lotta deaths there.

I can drive my car through a street fair, or a schoolyard, or a mall.

I can poison the coffee, disable the brakes, lock the door and set the fire. I can spike the road, mine the elevator, or run thru a nursing home with a lead pipe.

I can pick up a truck full of day-laborers from Home-Depot and drive off a bridge.

The problem with over-legislation, is that it gives Joe Citizen the idea that the laws are what keep us relatively safe in our day to day lives, and it's just not true. Respect for those laws and fear of the consequences are only a small part of the story. In truth, we are protected from these sorts of acts largely by the general social covenant between people that defines these actions as "off-limits".

In short, people, as a rule, don't do these things because they know better.

So what do we do when someone has lost their copy of the contract, mentally speaking, and seeks only to harm others with utter disregard for societal mores? We can legislate our safety until we are all trapped at home in padded houses sucking salt-free vegan milkshakes and watching approved non-violent programming, somehow it will still go wrong.

The human mind is the only real deterrent to poor human behavior. Sometimes, it gets broken, and innocents bear the cost. That's sad, but that's life.

 

[Beatnik]

If everyone could get a CCL wouldn't there be more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west?

The correct position, IMO, is that we shouldn't need CCL's at all, for the same reason as below....

There would be irresponsible people/those who don't know how to use a gun running around with guns....
If there weren't any firearms laws, you'd have murderers and psychos buying guns and killing people.

I would have said:
Really?
Says who?
The burden of proof isn't on us. It's on the people passing these laws.

Was there an epidemic of children dying in car accidents? No, there wasn't. So how come your kids now have to be graduated from college and gainfully employed before they can get out of a car seat?

Was there an epidemic of water shortages across the entire United States? No, there wasn't. So how come people with thick hair can't get it wet in the shower, and nobody can remove excrement in one flush anymore?

Where is this data coming from?

I just heard yesterday, to my shame, that Virginia passed a law which prohibits people with learner's permits talking on the phone while driving. No study was done, no data collected - some noodnik just thought it was a good idea and propogandized the thing into existence. "It WILL make Virginia safer!!!!!"

Personally, I react only to facts. If someone can point to the data, I'll examine whether or not a proposed law addresses a real problem. But they're not making a case for there being a problem to begin with - they're just inventing laws for no good reason. Law isn't supposed to be there to make us feel good about ourselves. It's supposed to be there to make our society function.

 

[sacp81170a]

What if average joe with no criminal/psychological record just snaps? I have no answer. Hopefully THR will help me here

What would be the difference if the person were armed with a couple gallons of gas and a lighter? Answer: with a few gallons of gas and a lighter, he'd have a chance to kill more people at once. It's happened, once at a nightclub in New York, IIRC. 80 or 90 people were killed.

There is no shortage of dangerous articles, SUV's, chemicals, motor fuel, etc. None of these require you to be fingerprinted and have a background investigation equivalent to that required for a Secret security clearance before you're allowed to possess them in public.

 

[Prince Yamato]

if you believe that gun rights are unfair, why would you get a CCL and help the system?

Render unto God which is God's, render unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. In other words, you have a God given right to defend your life, but the state requires you to register with it in order to defend yourself.

As far as people suddenly snapping... I think that term is an invention by families of the perpetrator's of crimes to save face. "Frank was so normal, then he suddenly snapped and shot 10 people in his office". No, Frank was chronically depressed and hated his job and on top of that, he had been thinking about murder/suicide for the past year. If you've shot firearms before, you know their power. The chance that you could just "suddenly" shoot someone is almost no-existant. Does this phrase seem familiar? "I swear, Bob's so stressed, I wouldn't be surprised if he just SNAPPED one day and started shooting people". If Bob carried out these actions, it would be described as "suddenly snapping", but in reality, it would have been things building over time.

 

[Landor]

Their are millions of people in this country. There has never been a law that will work with everybody. The government can not protect everybody. Look at all the drugs that have been outlawed yet all those illegal drugs are still everywhere. If joe smoo has a CCW and snaps people might die. At the same time if Joe Smoo has a CCW and is at the mall and some psycho starts killing people Joe Smoo has the means to stop him and save lives. If guns were not available all the bad gun related accidents would not of happened BUT other bad things would happen elsewhere using other tools. Drugs are illegal and people still OD. Bad people do bad things and they will still do bad things no matter if guns are available or not. I am an average American. I am not as fit as I should be, I have no special training as far as fighting goes and no military background. If I or my family is attacked I might need a edge and that edge is my gun. I know how to use it and pity the guy that tries to hurt me or my loved ones. That is my god given right as an American and a human.

Ted Nugent said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If everyone could get a CCL wouldn't there be more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west?

Tell her everyone can get a CCL (if they're over 21 and have no criminal record.) Some states have had liberalized CCL going back a quarter of a century, and they haven't had more shootouts like in the wild-wild-west.

It's intellectually dishonest to talk about what might happen with CCL -- the course of honesty is to report what has happened. No shootouts and reduced violent crime.

 

[209]

Your wife? Let me tell you about mine!

Your first mistake was trying to debate something with your wife.

Guy, you're gonna lose!

Just kidding!

How did I do. What arguement should I add. And we're not fighting. We talk like adults and we don't yell at each other.

I think you did well. I may steal some of your thoughts and use them with my wife if I may.

My wife pretty much demanded she get a CCW when we got married. Her thought was that if there were guns in the house, she should know how to use them. I refused to put her through the safety course and told her she had to take it from someone else. We set that up and she did well. I figured she would learn more from someone else. I did the same thing when my son went for his CCW. I did teach my future daughter-in-law which still irks the hell out of my son, but that's the breaks.

My wife can't understand why I won't have an AR available as a home defense weapon. She always says, "We have them- why not use them." I try to explain that I have the ARs because I train with them and I shoot them in competitions that require those types of rifles. I try to explain that using one in a home defense mode will immediately be flagged as a negative thing in the media. And, I try to explain that we don't need that type of reporting. She doesn't get it.

I explain we have other guns that are equally suited for that type of use. I use a "plain-Jane" Mossberg 500 with reduced loads for the house. Of course, she started asking why I don't use the 500 I use in tactical shoots for the same purpose. I tried to explain that using a shotgun with a fixed "pistol grip" stock with an attached side-saddle and (ohmygosh) a sling would make for some negative pictures for gun owners should it show up in the evening news. She fails to see why I am concerned with the portrayal of the weapon used.

But, now she's starting to get into Cowboy Mounted Shooting and needs two .45LC revolvers. Once we figure out which ones she likes, I'll be able to ask her why she doesn't use one of those as her defense weapon. While using one of those wouldn't necessarily result in bad press, I kind of pan them as a home defense weapon and think she will also.

"Honey... do you still want the G23 available, or are you going to use the Uberti Cattleman .45?" I'll say it quite innocently.

I believe she'll say the Uberti isn't the gun she wants for that purpose, and maybe I can use that to move her towards my way of thinking.

 

[CountGlockula]

You did fine. As an added help, I would recommend picking up "On Killing" by Grossman. http://www.killology.com/

 

[HellsBelle]

she's very middle of the road when it comes to not having to have a permit for CC and CCL in general

Her feelings on this might change the first time someone tries to carjack her.

I live near a city where there are, on average, about 2.5 carjackings a day. The perps here love to prey on the old, handicapped, and women.

I'd rather make a target out of someone else than be a statistic for MPD to add to their list. I'll take a chance that "disparity of force" will come through for me in front of a jury.