Gun Ownership w/ a questionable partner

[GPIA7R]

Originally Posted by bigus_D

I carry now because of an experience I had (at gun point), very near broadripple actually.

When I first told my girlfriend (wife now) that I carry, I started with that story. She's never had any problem with it... but she also grew up with guns around, so a little different background perhaps. Anyhow, she won't handle them yet, but I'm working on that as well. Slowly but surely.

My girlfriend will play FPS games with me on occasion, so maybe I'll bring her out to shoot sometime (still never shot, myself)... that may change her mind

[SERVED_USMC]

When I started dating my now fiance, she was a little leary of the whole idea. She gave me the whole "why do you need to carry that thing" speech numerous times. I always responded the same " It's just like you carrying your purse, you might not think youll need it, then when something happens you wish you would have made a different decision." After a few months of me carrying, going to the range, having a weapon on the night stand she is fully open and supportive of the idea, even more comfortable knowing I have it, can use it, and am responsible with it. Take her, No.. DRAG her to the range with you a few times and get her use to the noise and all the hoopla associated with it and she will warm up to the idea.
Once she gets open to it find her a Ruger .22 or something comparable for her to start practicing safe shooting techniques. I think you would be surprised with the turnaround. As for the family... only a select few know I carry and are fine with the idea. However I would never OC, let alone around family, but thats just my stance on it.

[Panama]

Seriously, do I understand you correctly.
1. She is against guns?
2. She voted for Obama?
3. She is your "girlfriend" not wife, not co-owner with you on a house?

Can't tell you what YOU should do, but I would be puttin' some permanent distance between me and her!
YOU gotta do what is right for YOU!
GOOD LUCK!
But remember this, "Life is too short to be miserable"

[hardtrailz400]

I'm hardtralz400's girlfriend and when he first talked to me about guns I was completely against it. As time passed and he took me to more and more gun stores, I got more and more comfortable. I even bought him a gun. Now when we go into stores, I am very comfortable and even have started holding some and testing them out.

My advice is to talk to her about it, don't force the issue. If she wants to go with you to the store or to shoot great. If not, don't make her. Also, don't flaunt it around her. Tell her you would like her to learn to be ok with them for her protection. I was at home one night alone and there were a ton of people outside. It scared me and that's when I really became comfortable and a bit interested. Since then, I have not put up any fight against guns. It is a scary world and it is better to be safe than sorry.

Remind her that you don't want anything bad to happen to her and if someone comes in and tries to attack her it is better to have a gun on hand even if she doesn't hit the person.

Sorry if this was too long, I hope it all works out.

[mikea46996]

Man I'm tired but I am trying for you...


TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
MYTH 2: "The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people."

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: "Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.' " There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 --less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the "only purpose" of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.
By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun's function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."

This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3
The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

• 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
• 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
• 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
• 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
• 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
• 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

• 2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
• 3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
• 4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
• 5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
• 6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
• 7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the "10 Myths of Gun Control" brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.



Nice pdf file here ----- > http://www.personaldefensesolutions.net/Gun%20Myths.pdf

[GPIA7R]

Originally Posted by Panama

Seriously, do I understand you correctly.
1. She is against guns?
2. She voted for Obama?
3. She is your "girlfriend" not wife, not co-owner with you on a house?

Can't tell you what YOU should do, but I would be puttin' some permanent distance between me and her!
YOU gotta do what is right for YOU!
GOOD LUCK!
But remember this, "Life is too short to be miserable"

Haha...

1. I think I can convince her otherwise.
2. That's a huge flaw, but I think I'll also talk some sense into her on that.
3. She's wonderful and worth it

[esrice]

Originally Posted by GPIA7R

She keeps saying "Statistically, people hurt themselves/their family with their guns!" =/

Then ask her "Do you think I will hurt you with my gun?"

A pistol never turned anyone into a psychotic murderer. If she can't trust you with a gun, she won't really trust you with anything.

Does she trust you with a chainsaw or sharp gardening equipment?

[esrice]

Originally Posted by hardtrailz400

I'm hardtralz400's girlfriend . . .

Hey we missed you at Jughead's last Thursday!

[GPIA7R]

Originally Posted by hardtrailz400

*snip*

Very helpful, thank you! Great insight on the subject.

Originally Posted by SERVED_USMC

*snip*

Also very helpful, thanks for that info, I do appreciate it

Originally Posted by mikea46996

Gun Facts

Awesome, that's great. I'll be sure to keep that as a good source of counter-arguements

[LPMan59]

i'm thinking about getting my wife an AR15 with pink furniture. i know it sounds stupid and sexist, but making something a bit more feminine can have a positive effect.