Example of gunphobia?

[RoeBear]

Today's 'Annie's Mailbox' (formerly Ann Landers column) has a letter about a woman who left her husband because he bought a handgun. She had said it was ok for him to have a shotgun in the house as long as he kept it in a safe, but no hand guns. He got one anyways and she found out about it and left him for awhile. Is that a little over the top?

[roughsatori]

1. I never thought I would ask such a question but

Do you have a link to that "Annie's Mailbox" column? It will help me answer your question.

[CO Liberal]

12. It Doesn't Appear On Their Web Site Yet

I found their web site through Google:

http://www.creators.com/lifestyle_show.cfm?columnsName=ama

They have Saturday's column posted, but not today's.

[CO Liberal]

47. It Was Finally Posted On Their Web Site

The letter was finally posted on the "Annie's Mailbox" web site - here it is, along with the response. Looks to me like a simple case of a guy saying one thing and doing another - Wayne

http://www.creators.com/lifestyle_show.cfm?columnsName=ama

* * * * * * * * * *

Dear Annie: I am a 28-year-old newlywed, married nine months. My husband, "Elias," and I dated for three years before we were married, and I thought I knew him well. Our biggest issue has always been guns.

Elias grew up in a small Midwestern town where hunting is common. I, on the other hand, do not want to have anything to do with guns and DO NOT want them in our house. I have told Elias that I will not stay in a home where there are handguns. As a compromise, I agreed that he could keep the shotguns as long as he placed them, unloaded, in a gun safe. He agreed that he would never purchase a handgun.

Last week, Elias informed me that a year ago, he traded one of the shotguns for a pistol, and it has been in our house since our wedding. I packed a bag and left, reminding him that I wouldn't live in a house under those circumstances.

The gun has since been sold, and I have come home. The problem now is dealing with the betrayal. I told Elias that I no longer trust him. He feels extremely guilty and is sorry for what he did. He says that he was afraid to tell me at first, and as time went on, it became harder and harder to bring up the subject.

I do not want my marriage to end. I love Elias and want to spend the rest of my life with him, but I can't get over this. Please help. -- The Honeymoon's Over

Dear Honeymoon: Elias needs to understand that, in a healthy marriage, trust is the bottom line. However, it sounds as if he is plenty sorry and isn't likely to do it again. Make it clear to Elias that you expect him to live up to his end of the bargain. Tell him you will forgive this betrayal if he can promise, sincerely, not to repeat it. Let him know that a second breach could send you directly to a lawyer.

[-..__...]

2. Wasn't this on a Simpsons episode?

IIRC, Marge kept the gun for herself after she convinced Homer to get rid of it. :)

http://www.episodelist.com/shows/view_episode.php?episode_id=2543

[Rainbowreflect]

3. No, he know how she felt and went ahead and got the gun anyway.

It sounds like a much bigger problem. My husband know I personally hate guns. (no, I don't want to ban all guns) I am ok with the 2 hunting shotguns he has because on was left to him by his grandfather and the other by his father. If he went out and got a hand gun, knowing how I feel and tryed to hide it from me I would be very, very angry. He would never do that, so I don't have to worry.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

4. Whoa, that name sounds like a porn title -nt

[Heddi]

5. I don't know if it's over the top

but we have a gun---a .22 rifle. It's basically a bb gun with attitude---probably would do more to piss off an intruder than it would to stop them. Oh well.

When we got the gun, we were living in a very dangerous apartment building---homeless people slept under our building in the wintertime, slept in the bushes that ran next to our building. Our bedroom windows ran from floor to ceiling and it would be quite easy for someone to merely stick their foot through the window and have unfettered access to our home.

We got the gun for safety reasons, and luckily we've never had to use it.

But I would not allow a handgun in my home. Never ever. If handguns were the only guns available, we would have just 'made do' with the 'Beating Stick' we created prior to getting the gun (a 4-inch round solid oak dowell with about 200 screws on the end, sticking out about 1 to 1 1/2 inches).

I don't like handguns. They're far too accessable---and I guess if you're going for home saftey, that can be a plus---but not for me. The gun we have now is long and large, and it can't be 'hidden' under a pillow or accidentally mistaken for something else.

Even though we have no children, nor do we have friends with children who visit our house, the gun is locked and unloaded and hidden well out of reach---of course, now we live 5 floors up in a very secure building, and I don't see the need to use the gun where we are now unless Spiderman or the Human Fly takes to breaking into apartments in our area.

We never got the gun for 'peice of mind'---there is no peice of mind (in my mind) in having a weapon of death in my house. We got it in case the absolute worse thing happened and we needed to defend ourselves. Even when we lived in the old apartment, the gun was never loaded (but the clip was loaded, and kept separately from the gun).

If my husband got a handgun, I probably would leave him--but not SOLELY because he got the handgun, but because for him to get a handgun would mean that his brain had been switched with that of someone else, seeing as he hates having the gun around as much as I do. :)

[Cthulu_2004]

32. Ummm....Heddi....

the "beating stick" you described, while legal, isn't something you'd want to use in a defensive situation. It would make it look like you premeditated the attack and your response. Your civil liability would be HUGE. It falls along the same lines as a person who hand-made mercury tipped ammunition.

You're much better off getting rid of it and having an aluminum baseball bat instead.

[Heddi]

38. well we got rid of that when we got the gun

and the beating stick wasn't our ideal defensive mechanism either, but considering the way the bedroom was set up, the bed could ONLY go between the two windows---which like I said, went from floor to ceiling and could easily be steped right through, we figured it was better than nothing.

No, the beating stick went away a long time ago. We even called it "The Beaner" or something like that----I liked the way it looked, though. Quite menacing..... :)

Thanks for the advice---I guess I never thought about liability when it came to defending ourselves against someone breaking into our home---I know in SC (where we lived at the time) you could legally kill someone who was entering your property w/o permission and not face charges (note: property only was considered "your house"---you couldn't shoot someone climbing the fence in your yard b/c that didn't put you in mortal danger or what-not)

Just a question (for my own knowledge)---would I face the same problems w/liability had I stuck a knife under my mattress instead of having a stick by the bed?

I find it laughable that you can be held criminially and civilaly 'responsible' for beating the shit out of someone that's breaking into your house....seems like a no-brainer that if my house is being broken into, I have a right to defend myself---whether by shooting, or throwing glass vases at them----I guess while I'm no fan of guns, I think it's a bit.....er....weird, to have to wait to see if the person breaking into my home is just there to rob us, or is there to beat, rape, or kill us before we start defending ourselves.. :)

[Cthulu_2004]

40. The issue...

is the reasonableness of the force used.

If somebody breaks into your house unarmed, and doesn't threaten you, you can't legally kill them anywhere in the country. In order to use force, you have to be in actual fear for your life. On top of that, the force you use must be proportional to the threat. If they're unarmed and threatening you, generally you can't shoot them. If they're armed, it's a different story.

Once you use force to defend yourself, the police and the prosecutor will closely examine your actions. Having basically a homemade bludgeon with nasty screws sticking out of it that has no other purpose than to inflict messy damage to an intruder shows a mindset that would make people believe that you were a bit loopy. Consequently, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted. Once that happens, the civil suit would come along, and the nature of the weapon would be damning.

This is why most self-defense experts don't advocate using claymore mines for home defense. They're incredibly effective, but they REALLY look bad afterwards.

[Heddi]

42. But how are you supposed to know

if someone is going to kill you, or just....rob you?

I guess if I'm woken up at 4am from some freak breaking into my house, I consider that a threat to my life---I'm not going to make them tea and ask them how their day was, and by the way, you're not going to kill me, are you?

How are you supposed to know if they're armed or not? Couldn't they be 'armed' and only carrying a baseball bat, or a stick, or a knife?

The way I see it, if someone breaks into my house, THEIR life is in just as much danger as mine is---

And I'm not arguing with you---I think the law is stupid.

And I can see your point about having a wacked out weapon for defense---I guess we need to rethink our idea of running a tripwire through our apartment which would let-loose a guillotine on an unsuspecting burgular, eh :)

See---this is why DU is so great---I learn so many things I never knew before!!!

Out out, dang beatin' stick! :)

thanks again for the info

[Cthulu_2004]

44. LOL!!!

"I guess we need to rethink our idea of running a tripwire through our apartment which would let-loose a guillotine on an unsuspecting burgular, eh :)"

yup...they're flat-out illegal everywhere, even Texas.

In an after-the-fact review of your actions, the cops and prosecutors really don't have a whole lot to go on. However, the presence of a weapon like you described can very easily swing their opinion from thinking it was self-defense to thinking you're some kind of mideval weapons freak who was laying in wait for the first unsuspecting burglar to come along.

The law is kind of screwy. Often, if you THINK that they are armed, that's all that it takes unless circumstances would make a reasonable person know that they were unarmed. For instance, if a person caught a burglar at gunpoint, ordered him to his knees, and tied his hands behind his back and then shot him, well, that person's going to go away for a VERY long time because there's no basis for a reasonable belief that they are armed and a threat. On the other hand, if a burglar is carrying his lunch in his pocket, and reaches for his lunch to offer you a sandwich or a banana, so the person shot him thinking the bulge was a weapon, not many jurisdictions would prosecute.

Another thing to keep in mind is gender and race issues. I do not support this, I'm merely stating "the way it is" given the imperfect society that we live in. If a female is alone in the house and shoots an unarmed male burglar, she's less likely to be prosecuted than if a man did it. The same is unfortunately true of race. Size does matter, also. A 300 pound biker who shoots an unarmed 150 pound burglar is going to have a lot harder time avoiding prosecution than if the situation is reversed. So, if you're a white woman who weighs under a hundred pounds and are confronting a black male who weighs 230 pounds, you can pretty much blast away. There aren't going to be a whole lot of people who would think that the 98 pound white woman wasn't in fear for her life. That's a hell of a commentary on our society, isn't it? :grr:

[RoeBear]

48. Not sure about that...

"If somebody breaks into your house unarmed, and doesn't threaten you, you can't legally kill them anywhere in the country."

I think, and someone else can clarify, that in Texas (and possibly other states) they have the castle doctrine that basically says you can shoot anyone who has entered your home illegally.

[Cthulu_2004]

49. The Castle Doctrine...

basically states that you don't have to retreat in your home. It doesn't say you can kill somebody who doesn't pose a threat just because they're in your home. If somebody is stealing your TV and trying to leave the house, you can't shoot them in the back, even in Texas. There are certain exemptions to this, namely for the theft of things necessary for life, but as a rule, if they pose no threat, you can't shoot them. Even Texas's defense of property laws are based upon a perceived threat to life, it's just not an immediate threat.

[solinvictus]

35. .22 long rifle

There are a lot of dead people who were killed by .22's. It is better than nothing and often more lethal than you think.

[Heddi]

39. it's funny

a few days after we got it, we went to the shooting range to try it out and get comfy with it.

The guy next to us had a .45, and he was an off-duty police officer. The guy on the other side of us had a double-barrell shot gun.

So we're in the middle of these two, and we hear their guns going BANG BANG BANG.....so we load up the .22 and shoot it and our gun goes ping ping ping---it sounded so...wimpy compared to the other two guns :)

I just assumed because of the not-so-meanacing sound, that it was a not-so-lethal gun (which I know is an oxymoron)---that's why I called it a bb gun with attitude :)

[Cthulu_2004]

41. Ummm...Heddi...

the .22 LR is the round that kills the most people in the US. Part of this is because there are so many of them. They can be quite deadly, so don't underestimate it.

You should take it out to a range that allows frangible targets, and shoot it at a watermelon to see what it can do.

[Heddi]

43. oooh...watermellon!!!

Wow! we were just shooting paper targets of a shillouetted bad guy with a big bullseye on his chest...

Wow. I think I'm going to find a range that allows frangible targets and shoot it at a watermelon to see what it can do :)

I love shooting the gun for fun---I tried shooting a smiley-face pattern into the target, but alas, I was only successful in shooting away paper gonads :(

[slackmaster]

6. Reminds me of a T-shirt I saw at a gun show

"I got a gun for my wife.

Best deal I ever made!"

Serious comment: It sounds more like a marital problem than gunphobia.

[MrBenchley]

7. Gee

I wonder about the sanity of somebody who loves guns more than his wife....

[-..__...]

9. What about the sanity of someone

who would rather leave their husband rather than allow him to own a gun?
If it's because for lack of trust, then there's some other problem besides a
gun in the house.

[CO Liberal]

10. And What About the Sanity of Someone......

...who places his gun lust at a higher level of importance than his wife??

[slackmaster]

11. I question the sanity of anyone who questions the sanity of anyone who...

OK, two men with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder try to walk into a bar.

"After you," said the first man.

"No, after YOU!" said the second.

"I insist that you go first" said the first.

"And I insist that YOU go first" said the second.

"After you!"

"No, after YOU!"

And on and on and on.

[-..__...]

14. You're repeating Benchleys statement

There's nothing to indicate that this is a gun related problem when it should be obvious that it's a marital one.
Hell, I've read stories of wives leaving husbands, husbands leaving wives over pets, Beanie Baby collections,
etc.

The problem isn't soley the husbands or wifes... it's a joint one.

[slackmaster]

22. Yes, it's strictly a marital problem

I know of a woman who left her husband because he played too much golf.

I know of another woman who committed suicide because her husband played too much golf.

Are either of those cases a "golf problem"?

[RoeBear]

16. But she was ok with...

...a shotgun in the house. Why draw a line in the sand over a pistol?

It reminds me of a story, possibly here, about a mother-in-law who wouldn't sleep in a spare bedroom because it had a gun safe in it.
Certainly an irrational fear, not unlike my grandma; she would nearly pass out if just a picture of a snake would be on TV.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

17. It's not the wife

who has the obvious fetish....

[Rainbowreflect]

18. So she is the one with a problem.

Do you think maybe he should take her feeling into account.
I really, really want another dog. We have 2 right now. My husband says no more dogs. We have talked it over and his mind is made up. I wouldn't bring another dog home knowing how he feels. It is not about him controling me, it just that his feeling are more important to me than what I want.
Of course I will keep trying to change his mind.

[op6203]

45. Good example....

However, is your marriage weak enough that if for some reason you brought home another dog anyway, that you're husband would leave you? I'm thinking that's why people are calling it a problem with the marriage instead of the gun. If my wife buys something that I was against, I'd be mad - but I wouldn't leave her. I can't stay mad at her for more than an hour.
On top of that - she was okay with a shotgun, just not a handgun. I (barely) see why, but to be honest, they both can be just as deadly (and the shotgun even more so). That being said - I think it would be more like your husband saying you can't have a poodle, but he's okay with you getting a black lab. You show up with the poodle and he leaves you. I'm thinking it was a rocky relationship in the first place.
OP

[CO Liberal]

19. She IS Dealing With The Juvenile & Irrational One in The Marriage

She's dumping the loser.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

20. Really?

Why do you say that?

[CO Liberal]

21. Let Me Put it This Way

If your wife gave you the ultimatum "Either the gun goes or I go", how would YOU respond?

[slackmaster]

23. I'd say "Fine, but I'm keeping the cats."

It's hard for me to take such a question seriously. If you're married to someone and have such a big of a rift in attitudes about guns or any other possessions your marriage is already three-quarters of the way into the shitter anyway.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

24. Well

I have been in that situation.

I had a Fiancee that gave a similiar ultimatum (well it was a bit different it went more along the lines of 'Its either the guns and the Bikes or me!'.

My response was 'Without the guns or the Bikes I would not be me.'

For you see, when I first started dating this woman she knew I had guns, and knew I rode Bikes.

She ended up changing her mind about the ultimatum, but the relationship was really over from that point on though, it didnt last to the wedding. And in hindsight I am glad that it didnt, because if the person you are in a relationship with cannot accept you warts and all then that relationship is not going to be a lasting one.

[Rainbowreflect]

30. Big difference,

He knew how she felt and he changed things. It was not her asking him to get rid of something he already had. If that were the case I might agree with you.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

33. My personal opinion

It that the relationship probably had other problems that were not mentioned, and this whole 'gun issue' was simply an outlet for it.

And that both parties were probably equally 'juvenile and irrational', and that with the limited information we have it is silly and unreasonable to label either party as such.

[demsrule4life]

27. She sounds like a typical

I can change and control him woman. I would open a beer as she walked out the door and give a toast to the gods above.

[Cthulu_2004]

34. Somebody saying something like that...

would make me haul ass. I have no use for a person in my life who insists on micromanaging what I do or own. Been there, done that, and didn't marry her because of it.

If my wife said "you can't have a gun because we can't afford to buy one", that would be one thing, based upon some kind of necessity.

If money isn't the issue, and having something makes me happy (be it a gun, a truck, or an off-color bit of artwork) resulted in an ultimatum like that, I'd tell her to hit the road.

If she objected, I'd offer to put it out of her way, where she wouldn't see it. But I sure wouldn't get rid of it.

[iverglas]

50. nah, sorry, you can't quit ...

"If money isn't the issue, and having something makes me happy
(be it a gun, a truck, or an off-color bit of artwork) resulted
in an ultimatum like that, I'd tell her to hit the road.

... because she would have obviously already fired you. Duh.

You familiar with the concept of "ultimatum"? If you do "X", "Y" will happen. If you get that gun, you're gone. It ain't your decision, once you've got the gun. Got it?

She would either have hit the road before you told her to (if "Y" was "I'm leaving"), or you'd be the one hitting the road (if "Y" was "you're leaving").

The fact of this case is that a mutual decision was made: the mutual decision to live together with no handguns in the house. If he didn't like that decision after participating in the making of it, he was perfectly free to hit the road. "No handguns" was a condition of the deal. He broke it. He's a loser.

All relationships have conditions: things that each party must do if the relationship is to continue. Might we all agree that one common such condition is that neither party will have sex with somebody else? If the bozo in question had been engaged in an adulterous relationship for a year and she had found out and told him to break it off or get out, would this have been "micromanaging"? would it have been an ultimatum?

What it would actually have been would be giving him a second chance, because he had already broken the bargain. Denying someone a second chance, where the breach of the bargain is so egregious as to amount to a complete betrayal of the trust placed in the person who broke it, is not a breach of the bargain.

She didn't even have to give him an ultimatum. The deal was already off, he'd already broken it, it was over ... unless she chose to give him a second chance.

My own co-vivant may have reached his limit on stray cats, especially since he has cat litter duties. I may reach my limit soon on his being unemployed, since I'm supporting him. "Not adopting seventeen cats" (I haven't) and "not being unemployed for ten years" (he hasn't) are what you might call standard implied clauses in the co-habiting agreement, I'd say. Either party could tell the other to hit the road if those clauses were broken. (Hey, let's not get into any community-property, who owns the cats, when does support become an entitlement, crap, eh?)

Anybody who thinks that he's the one telling his significant other to hit the road when he's the one who has violated their agreement and betrayed the trust placed in him, and who has actually been given a second chance by being told to shape up or ship out, would be one great big loser.

He might want to do his spouse-hunting in some corner of the globe where women don't understand that they are entitled to a say in the bargain that governs their lives in the relationships they form, and entitled to cancel the relationship if the other person in it decides that his wishes are the only ones that matter. I'm not sure how many such places might be left, but I do know there are a lot of men around who are looking for them, or seem to be under the delusion they live in one. Losers, all.

.

[-..__...]

25. Maybe you should take over Annie's column?

You could call it "COliberals Corner" or "Waynes World"?

"Dear CO, my husband just bought another set of golf clubs". "Our once loving home is awash
with Titlest golf balls, Ben Hogan drivers and autographed photos of Tiger Woods". "To make matters worse,
all he wears now is clothing from the Johnny Carsons line of golf fashions... even to bed". I also think he's
cheating behind my back with his caddy". "What shall I do"?

Signed

He left my heart on the 7th hole

[RoeBear]

26. Gun owner = loser

Is that the inference we can take from your comment?

I can understand Rainbow reflects situation about bringing another dog into the house as being a 'last straw'. Dogs cost money to feed and there is an emotional expense to having one. But saying no handgun, when you've already allowed a shotgun is like telling a golfer you can have a set of clubs but if you get a pitching wedge I'm leaving you. There is just no logic to it.

[CO Liberal]

28. No.............

Moron Who Won't Take His Wife's Opinions into Consideration = Loser

I think a better analogy would be a woman who tolerates her husband's Playboy subscription, but leaves him when she finds out he's been downloading kiddie porn.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

29. Shotgun=Playboy, Handgun=Kiddieporn?

How ridiculous!!!

[-..__...]

31. How do you come up with these things?

[papau]

8. Is this proof that guns replace good liberal sex!

:-)

Wait I am a liberal, And I own guns, yet I want sex more than I want my gun!

I guess my priorites are Dem biased as opposed to GOP biased, since "I am a conservative, I own guns, and I want sex more than I want my gun" is not a possible combination of words if you are GOP biased!

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[Cthulu_2004]

36. Not true...

I'm a liberal, I own guns, and I want sex. When I was younger, I exclusively dated liberal women. (now I'm married, so I don't date anybody) They have less hang-ups than their conservative counterparts, and hang-ups are not an attractive thing to me. Part of my gun collection consists of family heirloom firearms. One of my girlfriends told me that I had to get rid of them, because she was anti-gun. That was part of the reason I showed her the door. I went off and found another nice liberal girl who didn't have the weapons phobia, and we settled down together.

A two-week interruption in my sex life was worth it to keep Granddaddy's guns. And if she would make a demand like that, I didn't need to know her.

[solinvictus]

37. Cosmo

There was a Cosmo article that basically advised its readers to avoid a man who owned a gun and categorized him unconditionally as a violent prone psycho. I beleive it was Sigmund Freud who stated that a fear of weapons was a sign of stunted emotional development. Very appropriate in the context of most Cosmo subjects.

[slackmaster]

46. I can't imagine having a relationship with a Cosmo reader

That magazine does more to reinforce negative stereotypes about men and women than any other glossy rag you can buy in a supermarket.

[iverglas]

51. and how does that make you feel?

... as Sigmund might say ...

"I beleive it was Sigmund Freud who stated that a fear of
weapons was a sign of stunted emotional development."

Leaving aside the accuracy of your belief, which I don't care about (it appears to come from his General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, although I've yet to see anyone actually cite it accurately, let alone place the aphorism in any context), we'll focus on the relevance of your belief, which is nil.


That is because:

(a) I'm not aware of anything that anyone hereabouts says that has anything at all to do with "fear of weapons"; and

(b) nothing that Sigmund Freud said about much of anything is proof of much of anything at all.



I believe it was also Sigmund Freud who said that women suffer from "penis envy".

Of course, ... someone ... probably believes that and quotes it at every opportunity too ... and I'd be sure that doing so would make ... someone, at least ... feel very manly and powerful. Kinda like holding a gun.

.