Giving up on Mother in Law

[Nick Burkhardt]

Last summer there was a rash of gang shootings and break-ins around my Mother-in-laws neighborhood. She is 65 and retired, while her new, younger pacifist husband still works. Since then I have offered to: come over with unloaded firearms so they could check them out; take her to the BiMart gun counter; pay for a firearms safety course; pay for a women's only dry fire SIRT pistol season a few blocks from her house; pay for a Women on Target class and of course to take her to the range myself. I even bought a 22LR Single Action Army replica and some 22shorts for her first shots.

Every time I offered something she came up with some excuse to not go, but still wants a shotgun or a revolver just in case. So I finally figured out that she really only wants a Talisman to feel protected, but flatly refuses to put any time or effort into training. A recipe for disaster. So I told her that "I am out. She is not ready for responsible firearm ownership". Now she is giving my wife the silent treatment.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Read More

 

[William Jones]

Just my opinion but, I don't think a lot of training is necessary for basic home defense. If someone is interested in training that's great. If they just want a simple reliable weapon to deal with a possible intruder a shotgun or revolver is a good choice. Some low pressure target practice and some common sense safety advise is a good start to get them interested in shooting. JMHO as a non tactical guy.

 

[rick benjamin]

Not that your MIL is nuts, but she married a pacifist.
My wife married a Marine, so I should know (something).
You can lead em to water, but they'll fight tooth n nail to return to the surface.
Take her to DRRC. EPA, OR-DEQ approved. We cease-fire when the local elk herd wanders by.

William has some good points. Meet the immediate need, then flank em.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

When anti gunners and the media state that "You are more likely to have your firearm taken away by a bad guy and used against you" these are the type of people they are talking about. They just do not have the mindset or the will for lethal self defense. I am not saying that is a bad thing, it takes all kinds of people to make the world go around. It is just futile to continue on this path without a commitment to at least make one range trip.

 

[Capn Jack]

Why not try to get her started with an air pistol in the garage and have your
wife there for encouragement?

If all else fails, buy her a can of Wasp spray, or Mace.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I offered pepper spray, she said that she keeps a can of wasp spray by the front door.

 

[Patriot1668]

Sometimes it's just better to leave people unarmed. If they're not taking interest in responsible ownership, I wouldn't want them as an armed neighbor.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

I'm with you Nick! I assume that she's a citizen, then she has the perfect right to go buy a firearm all on her own. I would not participate, unless she meets the conditions that you have set down! If she doesn't want to be a responsible adult she has no right to ask you to be irresponsible! Just my $0.02

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Well you can only do so much , if the other party doesn't even meet you halfway.
Maybe just keep your training line of thought / offer open , just to keep peace in the family.
No pushing Just wait till she comes around , or not ...

As for being a pacifist , well I am a proper pacifist.
"A proper pacifist fights for his right to be peaceful" ... Robert A. Heinlein.
It kinda puts the "fist" in pacifist ... LOL
Andy

 

[Doc In UPlace]

So, the mother-in-law has shut up.

I can't really see the downside here.​

 

[etrain16]

My FIL wanted to look into getting a handgun to keep at home in case someone tried to break in. He's 83, not in the best health and, we are pretty sure, starting to slip mentally. Really not someone who should own a gun as he could be a greater danger to himself or others around him. He knows I carry and started asking questions. I responded by asking him the same question I was asked in my very first CC class - would you/can you, shoot another person? As many folks would have to say, he had never considered what that question really meant. And while my MIL is of much more sound mind and completely intact mentally, she has no interest in having a gun. So, I kindly encouraged him to keep away from the gun. Thankfully he is in no condition to go out and get one without someone's help, so I know he's not going to change his mind and sneak out to do it.

So, after some lengthy discussion, we agreed that for them, having some pepper spray is probably the best option, and we offered to buy it for them, which we did, as well as show them how to use it, which we did. Both seem content with the solution. Ultimately though, we drove the conversation in such a way that he made the actual decision to not get the gun rather than us lecturing or pushing him against the grain to force him that way. Thankfully, he relented and relations remain in good standing.

BTW, my MIL and FIL are both good people that I have always got along with. They respect our opinions and we respect theirs, even if we don't always see eye to eye. They did vote for Obama, twice, but they are regretting that decision now...

 

[Joe13]

Good on ya Nick for trying then deciding it wasn't going to happen on your (reasonable) terms.

The whole can/will you shoot someone thing put the kabosh on my own mother getting a gun. She bought a mouse gun (I was with her and learned my lesson on those things) and had a hard time hitting a target (she was taught to shoot as a kid). Heck I even had to seriously concentrate to hit anything at 10 yards.

Sold that gun and bought myself a Walther p22 because she "might want a laser on it" and it has a rail for one. I figured and told her that when she was proficient with it that she could have the option of buying it (not a straw purchase as she did buy the first one so I know she would have been able to buy another one).

However, while she was able to hit paper with this gun the following comment came out of her mouth, "Well, at least it has 10 rounds in it so that I can try and scare them off with the first few shots".

I knew my mother was a hippy from AZ/CA and thought we had had a very serious talk about if she was going to own a gun, she needed to be willing to use it - no warning shots.

I still own that little Walther, it's been a great plinker and a good light weight pocket gun and all of the guns I will ever inherit are in my possession currently so no need to worry about my parents for now - I think an untrained person without great mental disapline should not have a self defense gun.

If my mom popped off a few warning shots towards her front door then there is a decent chance she could hit a nieghbors house.

 

[Capn Jack]

A "Warning Shot", or otherwise, at an armed person could get you killed. This is not TV, or the Movies.

 

[PiratePast40]

There should probably be some common sense laws on the books that require testing and training before you can buy a gun. And then you should be re-tested and required to qualify every few years to prove that you'll act responsibly with a gun. It's just common sense. I mean, who could be against people proving they know how to use a gun before they go hurting themselves or allowing kids to get hurt. Those same people should be required to own a gun safe and prove it to the government before they can buy a gun. Just to make sure, they should have the police inspect their homes once in awhile to make sure they have their guns locked up.

It's a reasonable and common sense requirement. If it saves just one life, it's worth it!

Edit: YES - This is sarcasm!

 

[Joe13]

There should probably be some common sense laws on the books that require testing and training before you can buy a gun. And then you should be re-tested and required to qualify every few years to prove that you'll act responsibly with a gun. It's just common sense. I mean, who could be against people proving they know how to use a gun before they go hurting themselves or allowing kids to get hurt. Those same people should be required to own a gun safe and prove it to the government before they can buy a gun. Just to make sure, they should have the police inspect their homes once in awhile to make sure they have their guns locked up.

It's a reasonable and common sense requirement. If it saves just one life, it's worth it!

Sorry boss, but I say NO to all of your posted ideas.

We don't need any more regulations.

Saying "if it only saved one life" could apply to alcohol or many other more dangerous things.

You don't need a gov ok to buy a set of kitchen knives...

 

[Joe13]

I think that I detect a hint of sarcasm.

I hope so. Hadn't thought of that.

 

[etrain16]

There should probably be some common sense laws on the books that require testing and training before you can buy a gun. And then you should be re-tested and required to qualify every few years to prove that you'll act responsibly with a gun. It's just common sense. I mean, who could be against people proving they know how to use a gun before they go hurting themselves or allowing kids to get hurt. Those same people should be required to own a gun safe and prove it to the government before they can buy a gun. Just to make sure, they should have the police inspect their homes once in awhile to make sure they have their guns locked up.

It's a reasonable and common sense requirement. If it saves just one life, it's worth it!

Sorry boss, but I say NO to all of your posted ideas.

We don't need any more regulations.

Saying "if it only saved one life" could apply to alcohol or many other more dangerous things.

You don't need a gov ok to buy a set of kitchen knives...

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm/tongue in cheek since everyone here (with maybe a few exceptions) are completely against such requirements.

That said, as one of those firmly against such rules and requirements, I do think it is the responsibility of the gun community to police itself and those that want to join. I think we should help encourage, inform and train those, within our individual limits, who wish to enter the world of gun ownership.

I think that includes helping to identify those that should not own a gun - and there are definitely those out there. I don't think we need big brother to weed them out by putting restrictions on all gun owners. But we should be diligent and watch for those that are mentally unstable, potentially criminal or just someone that could do more harm with a firearm than good. It is certainly not a perfect science, but we are all capable of assessing people to some degree, and I do think it's important that we watch out for those that could hurt the cause of gun owners. Everyone has a right to own a gun, but not everyone should. Just like not everyone should drive. Hell, some folks shouldn't be allowed to vote

So looking at folks and considering that they may need to take extra classes, may be true for them. Those that know those people the best are the ones best qualified to make that judgment. We have to stop short of forcing people, but if we have any reason to suspect that a gun in the hand of a particular person could be harmful to themselves (suicide or accident) or others around them, then we should be responsible and do what we can, within our limits, to keep guns out of their hands.

About 15 years ago, my grandfather was living alone in a house of a family friend he shared after their spouses had passed away. The family agreed to let him continue to live there after she passed away. One evening, her family stopped by to pick some of her things up - a planned visit, and he answered the door with a loaded shotgun pointed at their faces. Obviously they were very upset, so they called on his family, us, to take care of the issue. He was in his 80's at that point and still fairly clear mentally, but we knew that he could potentially hurt someone, so we needed to get the guns out of the house. My mother, who is pretty much an anti-gun person, called on me to go with her and help talk to him, as well as to help secure the guns.

We chatted for a while and discussed his concerns as well as the concerns of the family that owned the house. He agreed, fairly easily, to let the guns go, and I equipped him right there with a big can of pepper spray. I unloaded and secured the guns. He kept the pepper spray nearby for the next few months before he moved into assisted living.

It was one of the more difficult things I have done. He was very important to me and it felt like I was lecturing him, something that just didn't feel right considering I was his grandson. But I knew it had to be done, so we did it gently, kindly, respecting his concerns about safety, and it went as well as it could. And any potential harm to someone else was removed and he was able to have a measure of safety reserved for himself.

 

[Joe13]

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm/tongue in cheek since everyone here (with maybe a few exceptions) are completely against such requirements.

That said, as one of those firmly against such rules and requirements, I do think it is the responsibility of the gun community to police itself and those that want to join. I think we should help encourage, inform and train those, within our individual limits, who wish to enter the world of gun ownership.

I think that includes helping to identify those that should not own a gun - and there are definitely those out there. I don't think we need big brother to weed them out by putting restrictions on all gun owners. But we should be diligent and watch for those that are mentally unstable, potentially criminal or just someone that could do more harm with a firearm than good. It is certainly not a perfect science, but we are all capable of assessing people to some degree, and I do think it's important that we watch out for those that could hurt the cause of gun owners. Everyone has a right to own a gun, but not everyone should. Just like not everyone should drive. Hell, some folks shouldn't be allowed to vote

So looking at folks and considering that they may need to take extra classes, may be true for them. Those that know those people the best are the ones best qualified to make that judgment. We have to stop short of forcing people, but if we have any reason to suspect that a gun in the hand of a particular person could be harmful to themselves (suicide or accident) or others around them, then we should be responsible and do what we can, within our limits, to keep guns out of their hands.

About 15 years ago, my grandfather was living alone in a house of a family friend he shared after their spouses had passed away. The family agreed to let him continue to live there after she passed away. One evening, her family stopped by to pick some of her things up - a planned visit, and he answered the door with a loaded shotgun pointed at their faces. Obviously they were very upset, so they called on his family, us, to take care of the issue. He was in his 80's at that point and still fairly clear mentally, but we knew that he could potentially hurt someone, so we needed to get the guns out of the house. My mother, who is pretty much an anti-gun person, called on me to go with her and help talk to him, as well as to help secure the guns.

We chatted for a while and discussed his concerns as well as the concerns of the family that owned the house. He agreed, fairly easily, to let the guns go, and I equipped him right there with a big can of pepper spray. I unloaded and secured the guns. He kept the pepper spray nearby for the next few months before he moved into assisted living.

It was one of the more difficult things I have done. He was very important to me and it felt like I was lecturing him, something that just didn't feel right considering I was his grandson. But I knew it had to be done, so we did it gently, kindly, respecting his concerns about safety, and it went as well as it could. And any potential harm to someone else was removed and he was able to have a measure of safety reserved for himself.

I agree with that as long as it is within the family, otherwise it would be a slippery slope.

 

[PiratePast40]

I think that I detect a hint of sarcasm.

OOPS ..... forgot to turn the sarcasm light on!

And by the way, on some gun forums from other states, there are people bragging on how well they did on the state mandated live fire tests. Some of those with high scores also complain that it should be harder for the great unwashed to obtain guns. Is that really where we want to go?

As far as immediate family, that's a personal issue and should absolutely be addressed. My main concern here is that it's very easy to step off of that cliff when it comes to other people.

 

[Member 5605]

sounds like you need to be nice to her, make sure her young spring chicken boy toy dies off first and you are in her will.

Problem will resolve itself in it's own time.