A Mother's Journey to Bearing Arms

[armueller2001]

Editor's note: Tracy Scarpulla is a traveling nurse and a mother of three from Albany, New York. For years, she was adamant about not having a gun in the house, especially when she had children. Her husband, a Marine, is a firm believer in the right to bear arms. Scarpulla's story first appeared on CNN iReport.

(CNN) -- I am the mother of three amazing children. Before having children, I was a firm believer that guns were dangerous. But I did nothing to educate myself about guns or gun safety. I feared the unknown and the danger guns seemed to possess.

But after 10 years, I now have a gun in my home. Listening to President Obama's news conference on Thursday marking 100 days after Sandy Hook, and the whole gun control debate, prompted me to get my viewpoint across.

I married a U.S. Marine. He of course was a firm believer in his right to bear arms. This posed no issue until our son was born. I was adamant that no gun be allowed in our home, while he felt quite the opposite. We agreed on one gun locked in a safe, and his other hunting guns were stored at his parents.'

Slowly over the years, I became more and more fearful of being home alone on the nights he worked, especially after I had children. We were living in Maryland on a farm in the middle of nowhere. One night, I got a call from my husband telling me to lock all doors and windows as he had just spoken with a sheriff down the road who was looking for an escaped convict.

I was terrified.

We had that one gun, but I had no idea how to use it. That changed very quickly over the following weeks, as we went out for target practice. I learned how to shoot and for the first time in years, I slept well. I finally felt safe at night.

Over the 11 years of our marriage, I slowly learned about guns. I began to accept that the gun itself posed no danger -- any danger was in the hand and heart of the beholder. I learned there were safe ways to teach your children about guns. Guns were a tool like any tool; they have multiple purposes and uses. I learned more about our Constitution and our rights as U. S. citizens. I learned I had nothing to fear and a lot to gain from owning a gun.

I think mothers need to educate themselves and learn how to best educate their kids. I work with a lot of other mothers, and many of them are shocked that I was taught how to shoot. I understand because I was there at one point -- I was scared of guns. But I no longer fear them.

So Mr. Obama and your gun control advocates: I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from raping me or my daughters. I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from entering my home and doing what he may. However, my gun is very capable of stopping such a criminal if such an act were to occur.

We live in a society where no one is there to protect us. The police come after the crime, not before. I do not have 24/7 armed protection like you do, Mr. President. Neither do my children.

So until you can explain to this nation why your old city of Chicago has rising murder rates by guns, despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, I will continue to support the NRA, I will continue to urge others to support the Second Amendment and I will continue to vote for those politicians that support my views. I will also support the notion of placing armed police, veterans, etc. in our schools.

Why should your children, Mr. President, be of the select few children in this country who are protected by armed guards? Why are your children more special than mine?

The fact is they are not. All children are special and have the right to be cared for and protected.
I am a mom, and I am proud to support the NRA and my right to bear arms.

Source - http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/02/opinion/mother-guns-commentary-irpt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Nice to see parents taking responsibility for their family's safety and security instead of expecting the state to do it for them.

[bowens43]

1. Nut job fear mongering, typical NRA bullshit.

You would really have to me a moron to swayed by this tripe. She's much more likely to kill her children the protect them.

Guns are the problem. Period. End of story.

[Eleanors38]

65. "End of story" you say. Please, PLEASE! nt

[Walk away]

78. These gun people are easily frightened and swayed by stories of things that go bump in the night.

That's why they have guns in their houses with children. It makes them feel safe when their is every indication that it is far more likely that one of their kids will be shot than saved with their gun.

It's a simple story for blood simple.

[msongs]

2. she is more likely to murdered by her husband or shot by her kids playing with guns nt

[tblue]

52. Happens every day.

How is it worth it?

[armueller2001]

3. No need to worry about either of those scenarios

if you keep your firearms locked up and trust yourself and your spouse. What's keeping anyone from stabbing their spouse or their kids with a knife from the kitchen drawer? But nice try.

[jmg257]

8. Yup - no need to worry AT ALL!

Bet ya Nancy trusted her son Adam, AND they had a gun safe of some sort!


As for spouses...

Around 9:40 a.m., 63-year old Scott Edgerton reportedly shot and killed his wife, 56-year old Sharon Bellingham

SANDY, Ore. - A man who always sleeps with a loaded 9 mm pistol tucked under his pillow shot to death his wife of 22 years as she lay sleeping, but says he

7 days ago – A Fremont man fatally shot his wife before turning the gun on himself Wednesday, according to Carroll Township Police

A 24-year-old Detroit woman was reportedly killed after the gun of an off-duty police officer accidentally discharged as she was hugging him, ...

Scott Hain used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she ...

...&c &c &c.

Trust will only get ya so far. Brains are often required too. (they work better if they are not blasted all over your pillow by your loving hubby, or son)

[armueller2001]

14. So what is keeping those people from murdering their spouses

with knives, or hammers, or baseball bats, or poison, or the other million ways people killed each other prior to firearms?

I forgot, it was the gun mind control rays that made them do it. My bad.

[jmg257]

15. Oh - nothing at all. Want to start a discussion group about all that - go for it!

Meantime, let's stick to Guns & RKBA in the Gun & RKBA Group.


"No need to worry about either of those scenarios"

Quite clearly you were wrong, but...nice try.

ETA:
But since you asked:

"So what is keeping those people from murdering their spouses
with knives, or hammers, or baseball bats, or poison, or the other million ways people killed each other prior to firearms?"

I take it you meant this as a great advocacy for guns? Because there is often tendency for people kill their spouses (by the millions apparently)?

Yep - now THAT makes sense. Let's give 'em even more deadly weapons!


Any other nuggets you got for us?

[armueller2001]

19. I did not mean it as a great advocate for guns,

I was merely pointing out that if there is no firearm in the house, and one spouse wants to kill the other one, that they will use a different tool. The absence of a gun doesn't stop a murder. So why cite it as a reason not to keep a gun in the house?

[jmg257]

20. Cause, in case you haven't been reading the news, guns

make killing a bunch of people, or even a few inside one's home, MUCH easier?
And studies show the dangers of dying increase when there are guns in the home?


Of course you were using your comment as 'justification', but it is a bit silly to think guns are nothing to worry about.

"Nice to see parents taking responsibility for their family's safety and security instead of expecting the state to do it for them."

You might pedal this type of statement at CC or FR - you'll likely find a much more receptive audience, and one you'd relate better to.

[armueller2001]

22. Guns literally ARE nothing to worry about

if they are used by knowledgeable and safe individuals and are stored properly. They are a tool, nothing more nothing less. Nothing magical, no mind control rays, just a tool that can be used for good or bad depending on the operator. Or they can sit in a safe and rust for decades.

[jmg257]

24. Well - you are partly right. "IF" being key...

but then you included this...

"...depending on the operator"

NOW you got it!

Guns are deadly weapons.
They are tools indeed, the tools of the trade for people who shoot people.


And some people WILL shoot people with guns, thousands and thousands and thousands of times a year.

Now THAT is a GREAT reason for wanting to limit the access to them and substantially reduce the numbers in circulation.

[armueller2001]

25. I agree that access needs to be limited.

Mentally ill and felons have no business being able to purchase firearms. Universal background checks seem to have no problems to me (excluding a national registry). But I think people should be free to choose the best type of self-defense for their families, whether that is a handgun, a shotgun, or *GASP* an AR-15. They are, after all, only used in less than 3% of crimes annually, so no rational basis for banning them.

[jmg257]

27. Hey, if close to 100 people shot at only 2 incidences involving ARs isn't a "rational basis",

then we should admit that all hope for you is lost. Atleast in regards to caring about the rest of society.

But I won't give up!
There just may come a time where you REALLY should re-think your perceived needs vs the damage your so-called tools do when just about every other person has the same levels of uncontrolled access to them that you and I do.


PLENTY of valid choices out there besides ARs, high-cap mags, etc.

There is NO rational reason for NOT restricting them...only selfish notions of want & fantastical perceived need.

[WinniSkipper]

75. So which is it the control side is going for

...guns (like handguns - which everyone will agree is an issue) or an AWB? How many of those stories were about an AW?

[jmg257]

76. Seems the control side is going for AWs, and weapon capacity, mostly.

(Plus UBC, mental health, domestic offenders, etc. depending)

[WinniSkipper]

77. Which one of those stories was about an AW? nt

[jmg257]

79. Stories concerning Newtown mostly, Aurora & Webster were recent ones.

ETA: For your referral:


In Newtown, a murderer using an XM-15 w/30rnd mags killed 20 kids and 6 adults (guns were his mom's).
In Aurora, a murderer using an MP-15 w/a 100rnd drum, handgun and a shotgun shot close to 70 people.
In Webster, a murderer using an AR-15 and a shotgun shot 4 fireman, killing 2 (these were straw purchases).

[shadowrider]

28. Haven't you learned by now that you're more dead when killed with a gun than anything else? n/t

[jmg257]

32. No need to worry at all, worry at all, worry at all, at all at all...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022611693

This nation's gun violence dilemma hit a little too close to home to me today.
There was a shooting in my office building today. A murder-suicide. Husband shot his wife, then himself.

I did not see it, but I did hear it.

I was sitting in my office when I heard it. Pop-pop-pop-pop, coupled with some muffled yelling. Even though I don't own any guns and I don't go shooting guns, I knew it had to be a gun. Instinctively, I went to my office door, closed it, locked it, and then went under my desk and hid. I waited for about five minutes, not hearing anything more. When I heard some of my office staff outside my door saying that they had called 911, I figured it was safe enough to come out of my office. We then all went into one of the front offices and waited for the police to arrive.

I'm still trying to digest it all, not having excessively panicked when it actually was happening.

However, just a few thoughts in light of the recent ongoing conversation about gun violence.

This would not have happened without the presence of a gun. Not like it did, at least. Not in such a spectacular, horrific fashion, out in the public, in the workplace like that.

The shooter was a well-respected member of the community, upper middle class. He did not strike me as an individual who would obtain a gun illegally. Yet clearly there was something that drove him to do what he did, and that he had a gun so easily and readily available to do it...

[armueller2001]

33. So what is your solution?

It seems that the person you quoted would suggest banning guns -"this would not have happened without the presence of a gun. Not like it did at least"

So assuming a law could get passed repealing the second amendment and banning all firearms from civilian ownership, would it be effective? Last time I checked, drug prohibition wasn't working out so well.

[jmg257]

34. Are you saying gun use is physically addictive, like drugs? Or that drug use wouldn't

Be more widespread if there was no controls on them?

Cause having few controls on guns has lead to well over 300million guns in society....and millions and million of new ones every year.

It would be effective for reducing gun related gun deaths if those numbers were substantially reduced, and uncontrolled access severly restricted.

[holdencaufield]

35. Are you saying ...

... all users of recreation drugs are addicts?

How do you feel about people who drink, Ms Carrie Nation?

[jmg257]

36. I'm sorry...did someone mention alcohol, which is already legal?

Besides you I mean.

[holdencaufield]

37. Lots of things are or have been prohibited ...

... by hand-wringing, reactionary zealots over the path of our history ... including drugs, alcohol, consensual gay sex, voting (for women and persons of colour), pictures of women in brassieres and "Catcher in the Rye".

That prohibition is still proposed as a knee-jerk reaction to the outrage d'jour is not surprising. What IS surprising is any carbon-based lifeform with an IQ larger than its hat size still believes it would actually work.

[jmg257]

39. You forgot slavery, hate crime, discrimination due to sex or race, child labor

& Kiddie porn.

Yep..prohibition of harmful things is a terrible idea!


Of course I wasn't the one who mentioned prohibition, only that substantially reducing numbers and access would be effective. But don't let that stand in the way of a good rant on your part!

[holdencaufield]

47. Not surprisingly, you're confused ...

... about the nature of prohibition. Things like slavery, hate crimes, discrimination, etc are things people do to EACH OTHER that are harmful. There is no such thing as recreational slavery (except between kinky, consenting adults) or recreational hate crime.


... drinking, recreational drugs and dirty books are things people do to THEMSELVES. Of course, if doing something to yourself that ends up adversely impacting others -- like driving under the influence -- then they become either illegal or the subject Tort Law.

The argument behind prohibition is banning everyone from participating in what is currently a LEGAL activity because it sometimes impacts other -- i.e None can drink because some people get drunk and do bad things.

In our history -- various (apparently well meaning) control freaks have attempted to ban or prohibit activities, ideas, or things in the name of the "common good". These efforts never go well and almost never have the advertised effect. Banning guns is no different.

[jmg257]

58. And there it is...Now that's a pretty good rant!

Feel better, now?

[holdencaufield]

67. So, you got nothing then.

It's alright, very few people feel comfortable talking about subjects outside of their comfort zone. I understand that feeling is common with a lot of "true believers". I suggest you spend your time in the Echo Chamber where no one will question your ill-designed ideas.

[jmg257]

70. Go nothing?? About what? I already stated that prohibition was no notion of mine.

"Of course I wasn't the one who mentioned prohibition, only that substantially reducing numbers and access would be effective. But don't let that stand in the way of a good rant on your part"


YOU want to talk about gun prohibition - have at it. Its a non-issue.

There are lots of windmills out there - ya better get going.

[armueller2001]

40. I didn't see any suggestions

for possible solutions to prevent the workplace shooting you mentioned or gun violence in general

[jmg257]

41. Maybe you missed it...substantially reduce the numbers of guns, and severely limit access to them.

Just takes the will to do it.

[armueller2001]

42. How would we do that

Randomly confiscate half the guns in the country? How would you restrict access?

[jmg257]

43. IF We had to? Hmmm...That will take a while to articulate...

Ipad won't cut it, so quickly..

Pass ban on numeous targeted weapons
Offer tax credits within grace period
Federal LE staffed turn in locations
Severe penalties for violations
Harsher penalties for criminal use
Use ATF perusal of existing 4473 and civilian complaints for issuing warrants
Limit police to on duty exemptions only, soon after

Registration of remaing arms, to include BCs, permitting firearm ID cards or whatnot

Probably some more things, but this will get ya going.

[armueller2001]

44. Wow, we are in agreement on an idea.

I completely agree that we need harsher criminal penalties for gun crimes. I would also add in that we need to end the failed war on drugs and remove the incentive to engage in drug trade violence. Legalize, tax, regulate just like alcohol. I don't see the executives of MillerCoors doing drive by's on the Anheuser Busch crew.

[jmg257]

45. Then we have more in common re drugs. Cause of much gun violence, gangs..

Plenty we could do with higher levels of LE too. Wouldn't help with the stuff we were talking here (domestic, most mass shootings), but certainly overall.

See common ground!

[gejohnston]

46. tax credits is not just compensation

and would be a 5A violation.

[jmg257]

48. What is the fair market value/just compensation on contraband? Be thrilled to get something.

You may be right though, of course.

But Don't forget..."the restrictions No matter how strongly worded, will never be regarded if opposed by the decided sense of the people"

Madison, re: the Bill of Rights

[gejohnston]

49. the price paid for it

Most working class people would get zero with a tax credit because the income tax paid would be too low or none. Since 70 percent of Canadian gun owners ignored their long gun registration, and was never enforced, good to see Canadians reading Madison.

[jmg257]

50. Ha love that Madison quote...but!!!

He also said:

"I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public"

Which I take it to mean those rights which were enumerated should NEVER be disregarded.

Interesting...Because that is why he rejected so many proposals, things like restrictions on 'large standing Armies'..

"Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn: or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety"

Makes sense these days.

[holdencaufield]

68. Interesting Scam ...

... take a legal item ... ban it ... converting it to contraband ... force owners to sell at a loss ... take the items and sell them in Mexico for a profit. If a private company could pull that off, I would totally invest in it.

As for fair market value of anything -- only a fair market can decide that. What you describe isn't a fair market ... it's a bunko scheme.

[jmg257]

71. Yep - such a company would stand to make alot of $$$.

And lots of people "investing" in items figuring they'll be banned, but NOT deemed contraband, would have chosen poorly, and would stand to lose some $$.

[holdencaufield]

73. In order for that scam to work ...

... you'd need a lot of easily-led, hyper-emotional drones to produce a lot of artificial outrage and force the government to ban the guns ... and where would we get those?

[jmg257]

74. Easy enough...just wait till the next gunfreak massacre...they'll be out in force.

Its just a matter of time.

[tblue]

53. People snap.

Happens everyday to somebody. Maybe this couple will always be okay. But how about every other person who enters their house? No one's mental or emotional state is guaranteed for life. People think the worst could never happen, until it does. No one plans on having a nervous breakdown

[rdharma]

4. "I was terrified. "

Nothing more dangerous than a paranoid person with a gun. Hope she doesn't shoot one of her kids during a panic attack!

[upaloopa]

5. Fear is the motivation for many people to

Own guns. Undefinable irrational fear

[armueller2001]

16. Good reason to own fire extinguishers and smoke alarms too.

I also buckle my seat belt when I ride in an automobile. AND I have homeowner's insurance! I am one paranoid individual, that's for sure.

[upaloopa]

21. Lame I think.

Everyone does those things not everyone owns a gun.

[armueller2001]

23. So, if everyone does something it is considered normal

but if a fraction of the population does it, it's considered fear and paranoia?

[Bay Boy]

26. Fear is the motivation for many people to

support gun control. Undefinable irrational fear

There, fixed it for you!

[jimmy the one]

6. Waynette's anecdotal evidence

armmuellers link: So Mr. Obama and your gun control advocates: I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from raping me or my daughters. I am not physically capable of stopping a 200-pound man from entering my home and doing what he may. However, my gun is very capable of stopping such a criminal if such an act were to occur.

Gee, armmueller cites Waynette & her anecdotal evidence. 'Waynette' should listen to some of the parents of the school shootings victims & hear what THEY are saying about the need for stricter gun control, and not rely on her armed fantasy doctrine.

We live in a society where no one is there to protect us. The police come after the crime, not before. I do not have 24/7 armed protection like you do, Mr. President. Neither do my children.

I wonder if she really wrote this or had it computer generated by an nra puter.

So until you can explain to this nation why your old city of Chicago has rising murder rates by guns, despite some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, I will continue to support the NRA..

Actually you probably can't say this anymore waynette, chicago's murder total for spring 2013 fell by 42% from spring 2012. But you should look at murder rates in memphis & gary indiana & several other cities with higher murder rates than chicago, & houston at about parity, cause right now you're being very gullible to use chicago as a pretext to ignore guncontrol, and you are ignoring the stink in your own backyard.

[armueller2001]

17. "'Waynette' should listen to some of the parents of the school shootings victims"..

What would you suggest as additional regulations to prevent a tragedy such as Sandy Hook?

[jmg257]

7. Hey! Know who else was a gun-loving mom? Nancy Lanza.

Yep.

SO until Tracy can explain to this nation just how the fuck guns worked out GREAT for her, and those 26 other people HER fucking guns murdered, this genius should re-think this tired old bull shit.

(She might also want to read a bit about how much more danger having guns in the house poses to her & her family...info I'm sure N.L. readily ignored.)

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
...
Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

[gejohnston]

9. who offer no sources

number five is related to a study by an ER doc named Author Kellermann and was savaged in peer review.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=290313&mesg_id=292405
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436#334456

Linked actually doesn't mean anything.

[jmg257]

11. Ok - thanks! We'll use another source!

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Which sort of makes sense - more guns in the home = more deaths by guns in the home.

[gejohnston]

12. accidents and suicides

but it has the same flaw as the Kellermann, the homicides did not control for the gun brought in the home by the killer.

[jmg257]

13. Huh - hard to keep track of these...this one states

Proxy respondents were asked, “At any time during the last year of life, were there any firearms kept in or around the home where the decedent stayed? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, truck, or car.” Responses were coded as follows: yes—one or more firearms were kept in or around the home; no—no firearms were kept in or around the home.

Hard for them to fudge that.
But maybe they lied?

[gejohnston]

18. and the answer was?

and does not mean anyone was killed with weapon, but what they are trying to say is that the murder would not have happened if the gun wasn't there regardless if gun was used or not. It is also limited to where murders happened, but did not account for the millions of gun owning households that did not.
http://www.drgo.us/?p=285

[holdencaufield]

38. "nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners ..."

If more women had guns -- they could shoot back. Luckily, all the women I hold dear in this world know how to defend themselves.

[jmg257]

60. Or let their kids get at them to shoot themselves, each other, their folks, and other people.

As long as they realize the potential dangers, and do what they need to do to make 100% sure it doesn't happen, as it does too often.

[Bonhomme Richard]

10. For Gods sake. Stop the

"He's going to take my guns away" bullshit.

[ileus]

30. Excellent story thanks for sharing...

Safety first and carry on my friends.

[jmg257]

31. Hold it, hold it...

[tblue]

51. I'd never let my kid go to her house.

I wouldn't go there either. She can have her gun. Just keep it the hell away from my family and anyone else who wants nothing to do with it.

[armueller2001]

54. Unless you're in Illinois or DC,

There's a good chance that 1-3% of the people you see in public are carrying a concealed handgun.

Happy spring!

[tblue]

82. You can only control so much.

But I ain't going to that woman's house and neither are my kids. I ask people if they have firearms in their home. I have a right to know before letting my children play there.

[Common Sense Party]

55. Amazing how so many in this thread denigrate this woman's right to choose--

how to defend herself, how to be prepared.

Her body, her family, her choice.

[jmg257]

59. Yep - worked out well for Newtown.

[Common Sense Party]

61. So you think that's the norm?

You don't know any gun owners, I take it.

[jmg257]

62. Kidding, right? I know/have known plenty of gun owners, including myself.

No, what happened in Newtown is not the norm, but such (and other) incidences happen often enough - too often, where simply leaving it up to everyone to make their own choice with little concern by the rest of us is not such a good idea anymore.

The number of deaths related to firearms provides an incredible interest in how they are/become part of society.
And it is NOT only because of career criminals. Peole are getting shot by the bucketloads - 1000s and 1000s and 1000s - with guns. We can't or shouldn't just ignore all that - ignore guns, simply because we selfishly want what we want.

[Common Sense Party]

63. So what is your solution?

Do you and I and the mother who wrote the article have to give up our guns? You seem particularly hostile to her expressing an opinion that she should be allowed to own them if she chooses.

[jmg257]

64. Hopefully not - not all of them at least. But if we all don't agree to something substantial,

INCLUDING dealing with the guns themselves, we all may have to. And I understand that dealing with guns may include some inconvenience, surrendering a bit of liberty, having to give something up, etc. I think Wayne made a BIG mistake in surprisingly not acknowledging that just maybe guns ARE a part of the problem.


As for this lady, of course she has the freedom to do just what she likes. As long as her choices don't infringe on anyone else's rights - to life, to happiness, etc. all is well. I understand her opinion, her fears, her perceived needs, her wants. I also understand the freedom and low level of restrictions she is allowed, that most of us are allowed, affects us all. Surely she does not feel she is the only one with valid & selfish concerns & fears. And plenty of people in AND AROUND the same situation as her have paid and do pay an enormous price for the wrong choices.

The next Newtowns and Auroras are coming up fast. And in the mean time 100's are dying everyday as just a 'normal' part of life (and death).


If I had the ideal solution I'd run for God. In this country, I have a better chance of getting THAT done.

[tblue]

83. Could hug you.

Thanks. 100% agree. So selfish some people are. NO sense of community or responsibility for others. That is one huge difference between us and other countries. That's why progress has been stifled and halted in almost every category.

[mwrguy]

56. She's a nurse? We don't need armed paranoids in the ER.

I wonder what her employer thinks of this.

[armueller2001]

57. What in the article leads you to believe

she is paranoid?

Would you feel the same way if, instead of a firearm, she had pepper spray for defense?

[Eleanors38]

69. Paranoia has become projection for the controllers.

[armueller2001]

72. Sure has.

I'd be willing to bet that no one would consider a woman carrying pepper spray or a rape whistle to be "paranoid". But if she carries a more effective form of self defense? WACKO!!!

[Eleanors38]

80. All I get from controllers is fear, fear, fear. What a life.

[holdencaufield]

66. I'm a nurse ... and I carry.

"Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean people aren't out to get you" -- Johnny Fever

[sarisataka]

81. Most city hospital ERs

do have armed guards, whether police or hired security.