You mean like the time you called me a racist because I'm a Republican (before you edited the post, of course)? Was he doing that kind of "lumping" into categories?

I had never heard of HER situation before. That's not really shock.

And 2...whether you think I'm being ridiculous or not, he was including me in that. He knows it as well. And he's an idiot for doing so. But that just means that now I am free to make sweeping generalizations about him without him being able to get offended. Wonderful.

I called you a racist because of the content of what you were posting. And from here on out, none of you has any right or privilege to take offense if you feel I have lumped you into a category or made a sweeping generalization.

He was not.

Kevin has no frame of reference to call you a northeasterner when teh story itself says that this happened in Pennsylvaina which is ...where?

So, let me get this straight...

Lumping someone in as a Northeasterner - not ok.

Lumping someone in as a racist - ok.

Does that sum it up?

And that means what?

I don't know what level of abuse was going on in the household, but I'm sure she felt that her need for personal protection was against OUTSIDE forces...NOT members of her own household. I'm not sure why some people don't see it that way. From some comments I have read on various blogs and editorial pages, it is almost as if people are mocking her decision to carry a gun in light of the fact that her husband shot her. His craziness has nothing to do with her decision to pack heat.

Now that we are back on that....this is the irony that Phill mentioned earlier

If lumping someone who isn't in the northeast is ok, then yes, lumping someone in as a racist IS ok.

In my experience people are, in general, on pretty extreme ends of the spectrum when it comes to gun possession.

That said, even though it isn't common around my area, I'm not going to judge someone who has made the decision to carry a weapon. I'm not in their shoes, and if they can carry it safely, more power to them.

Yeah really... I don't think it's all that ironic. That she was protecting herself against outside forces when she should have been protecting herself from inside her own home?

Many people pack heat outside the house and "unpack" so to speak immediately upon returning home.

I think it's just terribly unfortunate, but not particularly ironic. I would venture a guess that most people don't think they'll be shot by their spouse, even if they end up being shot by their spouse.

agzg

Good point and even so, if he was going to kill her, he was going to do it, gun or no.

Well said.

Right and I don't really get what her packing heat at a soccer game really has to do with the actual story.

well I guess we can probably chaclk it up to sensationalism.

She liked to carry a gun because it protected her.

She was an advocate for gun rights

She got killed by her husband's gun.

Guess what you got?


Fuel for anti gun lobbyists.

Yes, they are. I respect the fact that some people don't like guns. They are entitled to feel that way. What I hate is being excessively criticized by those same people because I DO pack heat (concealed). I don't do open carry because the open carry laws here are absurd. I just can't risk not being able to take the bar because someone wants to call the police if they see me with my gun on my hip.

ETA: I don't think the concealed carry laws here are all that great either.

For what it's worth, I do support concealed/carry permits but I do not support carrying in places like bars.

Of course, many people I know who carried to bars probably shouldn't have received their concealed/carry permits anyway - complete wackos who liked to wave that crap around in bars and other public places.

It really has nothing to do with it in my opinion except mainly to serve, as DS said, as fuel for anti-gun lobbyists. But I guess it could also serve as a way of identifying who she is to those who may have heard her story and wondered "what ever happened to her."

LOL.

As with all generalizations, you know it is not meant to apply to everyone and everything. Yes, there are different laws in different states (thus, translating to regional variations) and different norms regarding guns. Those differences in laws and norms are discussed in every gun control thread.

I can understand why someone would have issue with carrying in a bar. Here, in my state, you can't legally carry concealed in a bar or any other place where alcohol is sold and consumed.

But I also know some people who carry their guns to bars, not because they are wackos who are waving it around, but because so many fights break out in these bars. They want to have some level of protection.

I can really understand both sides. :)

Precisely.

It is relatively uncommon to be victimized by a complete stranger. People who pack weapons for protection are unlikely to "need" the gun at all (unless they have quick tempers or use guns as a FIRST resort); and are more likely to "need" the gun as protection against a family member, friend, or acquaintance.

I ask gun carriers why they feel they need it (beyond "it's my right!!!") and who they think they'll need it against.

This is just a reminder that you're more likely to be sleeping with the enemy, so keep your heat on you even after you get home. I'm jokingly serious, but this woman probably knew she was in a dangerous relationship and that she and/or her husband ("victim" and "offender" aren't always easily determined) had homicidal and suicidal tendencies.

Do you take it in stride when people ask you your reasons for doing various things?

I'm not asking to be combative, I'm just asking in general because I guess I would wonder why you feel you need to ask someone that. Even if the only reason is because "it's their right," so what?

I feel as though I need it for protection. It goes beyond the fact that it is my right. And lately, I have had more and more incidents that have made me glad that I started carrying. Plus, I am quick to jump in my car and take off on a road trip. Often I travel alone and meet up with friends and family once I reach my destination. But I like having it with me in case something happens while I'm out on the road at night.

Congratulations.

I don't currently have a concealed/carry permit nor do I own a handgun, but honestly, I would. Gun ownership, in my case, however, is more of a hobby to me. I like to go to shooting ranges and when I lived in BFE I did go hunting on occasion.

Really? Is that even necessary? Do you respond the same way when the people you ask say they need it for protection?

I've never been hunting, but I do enjoy going to the range.

Yes.

You jumped the gun. Pun intended.

How did I jump the gun?

Similar to how you did with Kevin. You don't read for context.

ETA: Not to mention that I didn't ask you anything. ;)

lmao

I know that, and I agree that would have solved all of these issues. But that doesn't make him wrong.

Indeed, I thought you were from the west coast until this thread - I have literally no idea where you're from. I don't disagree with you because of some innate characteristic you have - that's a great example of the Fundamental Attribution Error. We come from different angles, but I think you'd be surprised that I'm a devout Libertarian, etc.

I don't hate you- I bet we'd get along in person and have interesting conversations. But I'm really not ready to cede the word "you" in a connotation sense, unless it's clearly a racial issue (the only way I've ever seen "you" be a problem in the past).

All of this over a damn "you Northeasterners?"

Shit....

You thought I was from the west coast? Why is that? (And I'm not being combative, I just think that's funny) :)

We probably would get along in person. I agree.

But the word "you" doesn't have to be used in a racial context in order to be offensive. Because I am a gun owner and carrier, I don't like to be lumped in with those who are so strongly opposed.

As far as finding "you" offensive in this type of context in which Kevin put it, that attitude would probably carry over in a multitude of situations. For example, if someone said, "you people in the South supporting Palin are crazy." Someone who lives in the South and is extremely opposed to Palin would most definitely take offense to that, and that would be completely understandable.

:eek:

I completely missed the part about her chatting with her friend via webcam when she was shot. I can't imagine what her friend must be going through to have seen that...

I think we need a little lesson in subject-predicate.

In your example "You people in the south supporting Palin" is the subject.
"are crazy" is the predicate. If the subject doesn't apply - in this case if you live in the South, but don't support Palin or if you support Palin, but don't live in the South - then the predicate doesn't apply. No offense necessary.

A lesson on subject-predicate is not necessary in the least.

I find it amusing that people are supporting Kevin in this, when they know dang well that if I said something similar using "you," offense would be taken.

Face it. Kevin is presumptuous and made a sweeping generalization about people in the north east. According to many of the people who post on this forum, making sweeping generalizations is not okay. So why the sudden change? Probably because I am the one taking issue with his stupid statement.

Not to mention the fact that what he said was condescending.

I'm not supporting Kevin - I'm pointing out that you are being ridiculous and looking to be offended. It really wasn't even that offensive of a statement, even if it *WAS* you in particular to which he was referring.

I'll agree people can be fiercely defensive of where they're from (there are a number of threads on GC that prove that fact). And, I think there's some importance to what is attached to the "you people" statement.

As an example, if someone said "You people in the Northeast supporting Palin," I would be a bit offended, as I can't stand Palin :)

I hope you see my point, though, that (to me) the context of the "you people" is important. In my mind, Kevin's statement isn't all that offensive, if only because my area of New England (both where I grew up and where I went to school) is pretty weird about the gun control issue. For example, you'd get some odd looks in Boston if you said that you were carrying on a random weekday.

As an aside, I don't know if anyone is "determined" to be on the other side of you in a situation. Personally, I don't agree with some of your posts, but I respond mostly because you're willing to debate the issue. That's not me trying to be combative with you or intentionally contrary - it's just me being honest and engaging in debate.

I agree with RC - the three of us would probably have some pretty interesting conversations if we actually met in real life.

If it *was* me that he was referring to, then yes, the statement is legitimately offensive because I had never posted my feelings on guns. He was making a stupid assumption.

I CAN see your point to a certain extent. I suppose it is relative.

lol at the part about Palin. We have something in common after all.

As for the part about debating with me, despite the fact that there are several people on this forum that I butt heads with, the debating aspect is one thing I love about this forum. I can't engage in the same type of debate on the purse forum. :rolleyes:

Just goes to show she wasn't carrying it, not that carrying it wouldn't have protected her.

Logic 101.

I thought I had quoted the earlier post; my statement was the "why" one "needs" to carry at a kids' soccer game.