DH Bought a Gun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

Not a troll, just a normal DC suburban mom.

DH has promised to lock it up, clean it when the kids aren’t home, and safely transport to and from the range so it is what it is. I don’t love it, but it’s his hobby and he’s responsible.

No, I don’t plan on sharing that there is a gun in our home because it is locked and no one has access to it except DH.

You will refuse to tell other parents that send their children to your home that you’re now gun owners? That is incredibly irresponsible op. Please reconsider this. Just as you don’t want it around your kids, plenty other of us don’t want it around our kids either. Parents have the right to make that decision for their kids. You won’t protect your own kids and are now taking that decision away from other parents. Shame on you.

That really is terrible. Probably has pot laying around too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a troll, and I know I'm not the only progressive quietly asking this question.

It's masterful trolling to reframe the Right's "OwN a gUn To ReSiSt GoVeRnMenT tYrAnNy" argument from a Lefty perspective.

Instead of thinking about the prior post as trolling, think about it as a question about how to respond to the rapid rise of fascism in America. The Trump administration is already taking people off the streets and sending them away brutal prisons. Compare the current government's acts and attitudes to those of Hitler in the early days of Nazi Germany. How would history have been different if the Jews of Germany had guns? Some historians say that 6 million Jews walked into railroad boxcars like sheep and rode the trains to concentration camps without serious resistance. At a certain point, could resistance to fascism in the USA require guns? I'm not saying yes but I'm not saying no, either. I think it's a serious question.

This is just the Lefty version of the Right pretending fifteen years ago that they needed guns because Obama was a Maoist who was going to send them to FEMA camps.

[Anonymous]

Have an agreement that the second (first?) time you find it unlocked, when he is not holding it, it leaves the house permanently (to be stored elsewhere).

There are numerous studies that children will pick up and play with guns, even if they have been educated and promise they never would.

Also, teens are at much higher risk of suicide if they live with a gun.

And hopefully your spouse is not depressed or impulsive or has anger issues.

I would hate this.

[Anonymous]

That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

Same. When I was 19 I went through an awful depressive episode that I would’ve absolutely ended if I had access to a firearm. Guns are FAR more likely to be used in suicide than in protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a troll, and I know I'm not the only progressive quietly asking this question.

It's masterful trolling to reframe the Right's "OwN a gUn To ReSiSt GoVeRnMenT tYrAnNy" argument from a Lefty perspective.

Instead of thinking about the prior post as trolling, think about it as a question about how to respond to the rapid rise of fascism in America. The Trump administration is already taking people off the streets and sending them away brutal prisons. Compare the current government's acts and attitudes to those of Hitler in the early days of Nazi Germany. How would history have been different if the Jews of Germany had guns? Some historians say that 6 million Jews walked into railroad boxcars like sheep and rode the trains to concentration camps without serious resistance. At a certain point, could resistance to fascism in the USA require guns? I'm not saying yes but I'm not saying no, either. I think it's a serious question.

This is just the Lefty version of the Right pretending fifteen years ago that they needed guns because Obama was a Maoist who was going to send them to FEMA camps.

Not comparable. Obama didn't send people off to a Salvadoran prison without hearings, try to shut down law firms that litigated cases against him, pardon insurrectionists, try to fire entire agencies, threaten to deport U.S. citizens, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gun lives at t the range. Woman here and don’t mind guns, they live at the range where they are used and handled properly. If he won’t do that, teach your kids gun safety and consider divorce. Then mandate and decide how hard to fight if he prioritizes the gun over his family. Husband has considered a gun bc I was attacked and I say no even with that. Parents have guns and fine w gone safety protocols including acceptable mental health protocols

What range do you patronize that provides ongoing firearm storage service?

Only a gun club would provide that service. But you are paying a lot more than the gun he bought to be a member.

Owning a gun safely is not that hard - there are things called safes you bolt into your floor, wall or both that are nearly impossible to break into…and the people that could break into it aren’t wasting their time for a $600 Glock.
No kid is getting, that is for sure.

And yet, thousands (tens?!) of children do in fact get in there each year. You are wrong for claiming 100% success when there are so so so many gun deaths per years.

Sigh. NP. The kids who get ahold of guns aren't going through multiple safes, fingerprint triggers, etc. They're accessing guns that are carelessly stored. That was PP's point.

Agreed. Some of these people aren't thinking logically, and this thread has become a bit of a joke.

So how are thousands of kids killed every year from guns if everyone is super duper responsible? Clearly there’s a disconnect that you refuse to acknowledge.

There aren't thousands killed. That's ridiculous and you lose all credibility when you exaggerate things like that to that excess.

20,000 per year on average kill themselves with a firearm. Suicide is not "gun violence" by any means. So those are dismissed.

10,000 per year are killed by someone with a firearm, with around 9000 of those are inner city gang members or criminals that are shot either by citizens or police.

Suicide can't be dismissed. It's probably the best reason not to bring a gun into a house with a child, who is going to become a teenager, who may quickly develop mental illness and try to kill themselves. If you look at the rates of suicide by state, they mostly differ because of access to firearms.

Most all suicides by firearm are males over 25. Very few minors commit suicide that way.

False
“The firearm suicide rate among young people has increased faster than among any other age group.”
Firearm suicides are the #4 leading cause of death in children

Statistical anecdotes don't impress people with logic. If it was 1 kid, then next year it was 4, that's a 400% increase! OMG panic!

Statistics don't lie, politicians lie about the statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's taken up shooting as a hobby in the past few months and recently decided to purchase a gun. He came home with it without discussion. We have elementary age kids, and I just don't want it in the house. He doesn't care, says it's for his hobby and he'll keep it locked up. Am I unreasonable? Is he?

He's unreasonable, not you. Tell him that he has 1 day to get rid of the gun or he can move out.

He could just as easily say "You have one day to accept it, or you can move out."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

Same. When I was 19 I went through an awful depressive episode that I would’ve absolutely ended if I had access to a firearm. Guns are FAR more likely to be used in suicide than in protection.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing said on this forum in ages.

Guns are used over 1.2 to 2 million times a year in the USA alone for self defense. Most don't have to fire a shot, simply the presence of it stops the altercation or attack.

There are around 20,000 suicides by firearm a year in the USA.

1.5 million > 20,000 by a huge margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a troll, and I know I'm not the only progressive quietly asking this question.

It's masterful trolling to reframe the Right's "OwN a gUn To ReSiSt GoVeRnMenT tYrAnNy" argument from a Lefty perspective.

Instead of thinking about the prior post as trolling, think about it as a question about how to respond to the rapid rise of fascism in America. The Trump administration is already taking people off the streets and sending them away brutal prisons. Compare the current government's acts and attitudes to those of Hitler in the early days of Nazi Germany. How would history have been different if the Jews of Germany had guns? Some historians say that 6 million Jews walked into railroad boxcars like sheep and rode the trains to concentration camps without serious resistance. At a certain point, could resistance to fascism in the USA require guns? I'm not saying yes but I'm not saying no, either. I think it's a serious question.

This is just the Lefty version of the Right pretending fifteen years ago that they needed guns because Obama was a Maoist who was going to send them to FEMA camps.

Not comparable. Obama didn't send people off to a Salvadoran prison without hearings, try to shut down law firms that litigated cases against him, pardon insurrectionists, try to fire entire agencies, threaten to deport U.S. citizens, etc.

To be fair, he did do all those things also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

Same. When I was 19 I went through an awful depressive episode that I would’ve absolutely ended if I had access to a firearm. Guns are FAR more likely to be used in suicide than in protection.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing said on this forum in ages.

Guns are used over 1.2 to 2 million times a year in the USA alone for self defense. Most don't have to fire a shot, simply the presence of it stops the altercation or attack.

There are around 20,000 suicides by firearm a year in the USA.

1.5 million > 20,000 by a huge margin.

You’re living in lalaland.

https://hiprc.org/blog/firearm-deaths-in-the-home-due-to-suicide-and-criminal-homicide-are-more-common-than-self-defense-homicide/#:~:text=There%20were%20647%20firearm%20deaths,the%20National%20Institutes%20of%20Health.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2763812

Over the study period, 647 firearm deaths occurred in homes (3.9 per 100 000 person-years) (Figure). The median age of the persons killed by firearms was 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 30-64) years, and 541 (83.6%) were male (Table). Nearly all persons who committed suicide (502 [96.2%]) died at their own residence; whereas 57 persons killed by homicide (65.5%) died at their own residence, and 23 (26.4%) died at the residence of a friend or acquaintance. Of cases with a known firearm source, 114 persons who committed suicide (93.4%) used a firearm kept in the home. In contrast, homicide offenders brought the firearm to the home in 74 (81.3%) cases. Of the 99 homicides, 12 (12.1%) were self-defense. For each case of self-defense homicide, there were 0.9 unintentional deaths (95% CI, 0.4-2.1), 7.3 criminal homicides (95% CI, 4.0-13.3), and 44.1 suicides (95% CI, 24.9-78.1) in the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

Same. When I was 19 I went through an awful depressive episode that I would’ve absolutely ended if I had access to a firearm. Guns are FAR more likely to be used in suicide than in protection.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing said on this forum in ages.

Guns are used over 1.2 to 2 million times a year in the USA alone for self defense. Most don't have to fire a shot, simply the presence of it stops the altercation or attack.

There are around 20,000 suicides by firearm a year in the USA.

1.5 million > 20,000 by a huge margin.

You’re living in lalaland.

https://hiprc.org/blog/firearm-deaths-in-the-home-due-to-suicide-and-criminal-homicide-are-more-common-than-self-defense-homicide/#:~:text=There%20were%20647%20firearm%20deaths,the%20National%20Institutes%20of%20Health.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2763812

Over the study period, 647 firearm deaths occurred in homes (3.9 per 100 000 person-years) (Figure). The median age of the persons killed by firearms was 48 (interquartile range [IQR], 30-64) years, and 541 (83.6%) were male (Table). Nearly all persons who committed suicide (502 [96.2%]) died at their own residence; whereas 57 persons killed by homicide (65.5%) died at their own residence, and 23 (26.4%) died at the residence of a friend or acquaintance. Of cases with a known firearm source, 114 persons who committed suicide (93.4%) used a firearm kept in the home. In contrast, homicide offenders brought the firearm to the home in 74 (81.3%) cases. Of the 99 homicides, 12 (12.1%) were self-defense. For each case of self-defense homicide, there were 0.9 unintentional deaths (95% CI, 0.4-2.1), 7.3 criminal homicides (95% CI, 4.0-13.3), and 44.1 suicides (95% CI, 24.9-78.1) in the home.

Yes, this is deaths. But you are being dishonest by not counting the number of violent crimes committed with guns which far outstrips any perceived “self defense” which includes your crazy uncle chasing people off his lawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a hard no for be:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3085447/

Same. When I was 19 I went through an awful depressive episode that I would’ve absolutely ended if I had access to a firearm. Guns are FAR more likely to be used in suicide than in protection.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing said on this forum in ages.

Guns are used over 1.2 to 2 million times a year in the USA alone for self defense. Most don't have to fire a shot, simply the presence of it stops the altercation or attack.

There are around 20,000 suicides by firearm a year in the USA.

1.5 million > 20,000 by a huge margin.

You're figures are bulls*** and you know it.
Give a cite if you aren't just trolling with your stupidity.

[Anonymous]

To this PP… I really appreciate you doing your best to care for your grandfather’s collection of artifacts and to get them into good hands of future owners who will tend to them. My uncle has a handful of fantastic condition, all-original M1 Garand rifles, just like my grandfathers carried in Europe. Three of these rifles will be set aside for my kids to inherit and occasionally shoot, and pass on to future generations.

Anonymous wrote:My father started gun collecting when he turned 60 (he is 90 now).

He is a huge history buff, and knows a lot about WWII. He collected sidearms worn by German officers during the war. He learned all he could and was very careful in what he bought.

Why should you care? Because the appreciation of most of these guns exceeds 1000%.

We recently helped him move into assisted living, and he asked us (the family) to sell his collection and give the money to his grandchildren. We have sold one-half of the collection (in terms of the number of firearms), and netted $300K. The remainder should net another $200-$250K. He believes the entire collection's acquisition cost was between $50-75K.

I strongly support people lobbying to reduce access to firearms, because the collection jumps in value every time it appears that guns will be harder to own. I bring this example up because firearms can be much more than something you own for sport or self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's taken up shooting as a hobby in the past few months and recently decided to purchase a gun. He came home with it without discussion. We have elementary age kids, and I just don't want it in the house. He doesn't care, says it's for his hobby and he'll keep it locked up. Am I unreasonable? Is he?

He's unreasonable, not you. Tell him that he has 1 day to get rid of the gun or he can move out.

He could just as easily say "You have one day to accept it, or you can move out."

This. Some of these controlling women are telling on themselves, acting they they have the right to dictate how it's gonna be for their household, which simultaneously whining that "he should've communicated!!!"

I foresee a lot of divorces.