Have You Ever Considered Abandoning Carrying a Firearm Because of Your Temperament?

[Neo-Luddite]

I know some folks who won't even have a gun of their own for this reason, although they carry on the job when required. For them, not for me or maybe others, their professional sense of control at work is different than in their private lives. Solid choices being made.

 

[C0untZer0]

We hear this argument from the anti-gunners, that people in general can't be trusted with guns, and they'll even say (as if it adds credibility to their argument) "I don't even trust myself with a gun"

Dan Gross believes that if he can't trust himself to treat a gun responsibly, then no one can really be trusted to handle a gun responsibly. But the argument isn't logical.

 

[Red Wind]

A couple of observations:
First, Post #75, where Tom Fury addresses me directly:

I do not refer to anyone trained to defend my freedom to this standard. But then again, standing down from this is a part of coming home. I do believe Once a Marine, always a Marine (or AODefender) and can live with that; by and large, I choose to trust you.

Carrying a firearm is not a sign of suppressed pre-psychotic rage, or intent.

I am personally too old (61, since we're telling) and afflicted with diabetic neouropathy to run from trouble any more. Flight is no longer an option. Fight has nothing to do with anger; anyone who has ever trained for a gunfight knows that when you are angry, you make mistakes. ("...to pull a trigger." "Or not.").

OP: My temper has been trained out of the equation. It's one of the first things you learn to do; like looking at the front sight. (Beyond the 4 rules...)

Observation: I believe carrying a gun requires a great deal of self-control (and we discovered this when we started doing it). Pay attention to how many of us are telling you we become cooler and MORE aware (of our responsibility) not less since we carry. I can't think of much else in my adult life that has required me to learn more self-control...

All I can say, Tom, is that after 6 years in the United States Army Medical Corps (1964-1970), and seeing sights, I believe, even you might have never seen, I believe I was quite well trained for anything, returning as a civilian. And I'm now 73. You're still a young stud!

And secondly, Vito's very succinct observation in Post #32:

Interesting thread, but most likely anyone who SHOULDN'T carry due to temperament probably feels that they are totally in control at all times. And anyone who would answer "yes" to your poll would be very foolish to admit so on a public forum. Someday that post might be read back to them in a courtroom.

So secondly,two points here: Everyone who answered "no" on this poll, did so with total honesty and sincerity. That is my true belief.

And, if I had made this a Non Public Poll, the number of yeses would far exceed the 14 we now show. You can take that to the bank. Or Vegas if you are a gambler.

Besides Vito, two other members PM'ed me, expressing almost the same thoughts as his. So, this is not isolated fear out there, of expressing, by the internet,snail mail, conversations over the phone,text messages and actions in public anything that might come back to "bite us."

I personally have no fears on that score, having voted yes, along with 13 other members. I believe we will be proven correct in honestly expressing our opinion on a difficult,thought provoking, visceral question, without fear of future negative consequences.

As HoosierQ thoughtfully intelligently said," I think everyone carrying a firearm should at least consider this question."

RW 10-7

 

[Drop45]

I put a gun to someones head 20 years ago. Stopped carrying for two years. I didn't feel at 28yo i was comfortable enough to have that much power (life or death power) in my hands. I'm a much different person today.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I have not.

But if you are someone who lets their temper get the best of them and is prone to escalating potentially violent situations, you certainly should.
And if you realize that you have that problem and choose not to carry because of it, then kudos to you. That's a great thing.

 

[ROCK6]

I carry because of these kinds of people...most situations often involve alcohol. For those that think their temperament and violence-prone behaviors should CCW, they probably shouldn't be driving either; I would hazard a guess that DUI and road rage contribute to more deaths and injuries than firearms.

If I ever did reach that state of mentality, I would probably just opt to become a recluse and move to a very remote area and limit my contact with other people.

If anybody here actually acknowledged this issue in their lives, firearms are the least of your worries and getting help should be your primary objective. Don't forget, those prone to such violent behavior most likely have a record of domestic abuse and if charged...they shouldn't have access to firearms. I would also guess 99.99% law-abiding gun owners don't suffer from irresponsible, violent behavior...some my have a poor disposition and a crotchety attitude, but they are "law-abiding" for a reason...

ROCK6

 

[ACP]

Nope. Never. Wouldn't have got a CCW if I didn't have the proper "temperment."

 

[Crashbox]

I found myself actually mellowing out a fair amount since I decided to carry; having the ability to defend myself from assailants certainly made a difference. I also believe carrying inherently requires maintaining a level head.

 

[Legionnaire]

No.

 

[MechAg94]

This is part of the personal responsibility of gun ownership. You need to use your guns responsibly however that works for you.

 

[riceboy72]

I'll chime in and say this: You know what triggers your temperament, where your established boundaries are, and what sets you off and to what level. If you're married or have a significant other, ask them to identify what sets you off since it's easy/easier to ask someone who spends vast amounts of time with you as they see things differently than you do.

For me, carrying a pistol means avoiding conflict as much as possible and walking away from a confrontation. Have I been verbal with someone? Sure, but not to the point where I was worried about anger taking over and worrying about the pistol I'm carrying. There is a great responsibility afforded to us who have the privilege to carry concealed, and it is inherent that we understand and know our boundaries and don't overstep them.

If you or someone you know even slightly doubts their ability to carry based upon temper, my recommendation would be to not carry until you talk to someone. It's okay to take a time out when needed because sometimes life gives us more than we can handle and that's okay, as long as your safety, and that of those around you, is primary.

Oh, and for DeepSouth -- thank you for sharing your story and being honest about it. Respect to you, brother, for being honest with yourself and finding your way out of that point in your life.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I've had outright enraged meltdowns. Never once considered the gun. I am well aware there is a certain line, and crossing it would be life altering, and not in a good way.

I'm generally pretty mellow, level headed and even tempered. But ever rare occasion, that temperament slips.

But always, in the back of my mind, when it comes to the guns at hand or on my person, that guy stays cool, calm and collected.

 

[Old Dog]

I'm coming into this thread way late, I know, and really have nothing to add except for a question ...

One poster said:

Being armed has made me more aware of my temper , attitude ,and responses to people I enter act [sic] with.

Not to pick on the guy who said this, but several others iterated pretty much the same sentiment, albeit phrased differently -- so, my question is: why does it require strapping on a gun for some to become "more aware" of their own temper, attitude and how they respond to people they interact with?

Because, if one is not planning on display or use of a firearm to resolve a confrontation anyway, why would having a firearm on one's person render one more self-aware? I guess my thing is, I knew, before I started carrying a gun as both a condition of employment and a personal lifestyle decision, why I would carry the gun. And it certainly wasn't to be an aid in my own anger management strategies.

Considering a tool I bring with me as an aid to help me maintain self-control when encountering other persons, well, that's simply never entered my mind.

I've been fairly hot-headed much of my life, and I was already aware of this before I ever carried a handgun. But I also was already aware of my capacity for self-control when really needed ... As Clint said ... "A good man's gotta be aware of his limitations."

It should not take the decision to carry a firearm to finally make the decision to work on conflict avoidance or ponder one's temperament. It almost seems as some here consider the gun a talisman which has somehow changed their basic personality. If one wasn't already practicing avoiding conflict and bad situations, when one starts carrying is not the time to suddenly start thinking about this ... Certainly, while taking on the greater responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon, awareness of one's character, tendencies, volatility or unpredictable response to situations is a key; the gun itself, remains simply a tool and cannot be responsible for changing a man's character.

 

[TwoFirstNames]

I did not vote, because I have not yet made the decision to get a concealed carry permit. I can tell you that one of the reasons I don't have that permit yet is because I have been asking myself this very question (would I be smart enough to not carry if I shouldn't one day?). Thank you to all who have posted, especially those who shared personal stories, and to the OP.
I also find this discussion fascinating from a professional point of view. I am a CISM (Critical Incident Stress Management) responder at my place of work. Something that I find incredibly interesting, which I think happens to apply to this discussion, is that sometimes stress can do funny things to people and make them react in completely atypical ways. I am sure the forum members who have military or law enforcement experience could give us some examples of a formerly rock-solid individual suddenly breaking down in tears or becoming unreliable after an incident, sometimes even something "small."
Most people never have a reaction like I am describing, because they are never exposed to stress of this kind, and that is a good thing, but we should recognize that it is possible for anyone to have a temporary break from their "norm," and it doesn't always take something as drastic as a near death experience.
As others have said, know your limitations. I would add have someone close to you who can tell you what you need to hear when you need to hear it, because we all have a blind spots when it comes to self-evaluation.

 

[JBY]

I actually only joined the forum after seeing this thread just now. I have been wondering about this exact point and actually have NOT joined the NRA for this exact reason. I am very new to the whole world of shooting and therefore would love to get others feedback on this point. Let me explain. I work in the mental health field as a very successful therapist (by the numbers) dealing mainly with children and adults with difficulties that have been treated unsuccessfully by others. I see what kind of "threat" mental health is to the safety of society. Let me say this. The idea that mental health is the answer to gun violence is (almost) complete hogwash. The idea that someone who suffers from "mental illness" shouldn't be allowed to exercise their second amendment rights is beyond foolish. It's foolish AND discriminatory. An angry person on the other hand is far more likely to fall to gun violence and becomes SOMEWHAT of a risk.
The reason this subject bothers me so is because when going for my FID license in NJ I was faced with the infamous question 26: "Have you ever been tended, treated or observed by any Doctor or psychiatrist, or at any hospital or mental institution, on in inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition?" I have seen reports of people being denied based on having being treated for disorders in years past that have absolutely zero to do with violence or having anything to do with violence. Things like ADHD, OCD and the like.
It bothers me tremendously that the NRA"s response to mass shootings is to fix our mental health system when such a plan would NOT be an answer to the issue. (What the answer is (and whether it necessitates an answer at all is for another discussion.) maybe if we worked on the mental health field for say a hundred years and found a way to "fix" ideologies and anger management issues, but that ain't happening any time soon.
In my mind such a response and platform by the NRA is a tactical move and not one born in theory. It's an answer that will evade the issue and keep guns in our hands. I "get" the idea of such an approach and actually admire the smarts behind it in a "tactical" sense, but it bothered me enough to cause me to not join the NRA!
Would love to hear others responses and insight.
PS There was a great study about this topic if anyone is so inclined to research it. See this article and links from there http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahae...rom-angry-people-and-reduce-firearm-violence/). An

 

[Ironicaintit]

Guns get blamed a lot for the actions of people.
The NRAs alternative is to search for the causes that may drive men to such criminal acts. Whether they be rash or premeditated, with a hot head or coolly calculated; the reasons that drive a man to murder are most definitely a mental "health" issue.
The types and degree of which are still surely up for debate...but first the focus for the cause of crime must be drawn away from the inanimate object that undeservedly collects the blame.
Simply put; a stable, rational, healthy mind does not lose itself to a degree necessary to murder in the heat of passion, nor in the cold view of the sociopath.

The groups out there defending the rational use of firearms are few and far between.
If you are rational and value those rights that enable our use of an armed defense for our own self preservation, joining the NRA is not a waste of dues or time.

Im not a writer or a lawyer... thats just my feeling on the matter. (A tenth grade dropout with OCD )

 

[JBY]

Guns get blamed a lot for the actions of people.
The NRAs alternative is to search for the causes that may drive men to such criminal acts. Whether they be rash or premeditated, with a hot head or coolly calculated; the reasons that drive a man to murder are most definitely a mental "health" issue.
The types and degree of which are still surely up for debate...but first the focus for the cause of crime must be drawn away from the inanimate object that undeservedly collects the blame.
Simply put; a stable, rational, healthy mind does not lose itself to a degree necessary to murder in the heat of passion, nor in the cold view of the sociopath.

The groups out there defending the rational use of firearms are few and far between.
If you are rational and value those rights that enable our use of an armed defense for our own self preservation, joining the NRA is not a waste of dues or time.

Im not a writer or a lawyer... thats just my feeling on the matter. (A tenth grade dropout with OCD )

People have a very difficult time coming to grips with the idea of a seemingly "normal" person "going postal" and shooting into a crowd of people. Because our feeling of normalcy is shaken, we look desperately for someone or some thing to blame. After all, if a guy or gal that looks like every other dude on the street goes off and kills a crowd of people, we sure aren't living in a safe world. (PTSD is most probably caused by this same reason. Nothing is "safe" if such trauma can happen.) This is the same reason why we almost involuntarily must know the cause of a severe car crash or other tragedy. The guy must have been "nuts" is a common refrain and our almost complete absorption in the causes of the San Bernadino tragedy is a good example.
This is the reason for people's call for reform; be it gun restriction or an overhaul of our mental health system. This is no reason to work with ideas that have little basis in fact and are definitely not the solution. I expect an organization that fights rhetoric to be above going down the same road of those that spew other types of rhetoric. All knee-jerk reactions are at the least unhelpful and at the most extremely unhelpful.
PS I looked into joining the NRA for that same rational that you subscribe to, but was turned off by this specific point. I then poked into other groups, but haven't found much in the way of rational and successful printing of ideas. If you know of any such groups please let me know.

 

[vito]

To JBY: I don't think the NRA has ever advocated that 2nd Amendment rights be denied to any person who has ever sought help in the field of mental health. What they have urged is that where the degree of mental health is such that the person is clearly a danger to others, that this information be included in the data base accessed by background checks. The NRA is not a medical entity and has not, to my knowledge tried to figure out the details of how the system should work, but just has brought attention to the obvious problem of clearly deranged and dangerous people buying firearms.

I don't agree 100% with the agenda or tactics of the NRA, but I see them as the primary agency for support and defense of the 2nd Amendment. Without the NRA we surely would have gun rights substantially diminished from what we have. That is why I am a strong supporter of the NRA and a Life Member.

 

[JBY]

I don't necessaraly disagree. I am sure if it was a different point that I wasn't so involved in, it wouldn't bother me in the same way. I also agree that no one has to agree with another person or group one hundred percent in order to have a relationship with that said person/group. (For this reason I am on the fence regarding still joining the NRA.) I guess to me this point is something that means a lot to me. I think it actually does have ramifications that actually lead to suppression of second amendment rights. If not for such a point, it would be quite likely that the state of NJ never would have had a question 26 on the FID application. (At the same time without the NRA we may not have ANY not government citizens with guns.

 

[shootniron]

if anything carrying a handgun is the best anger management tool i have.

That and the cross of jesus christ on my finger.

bingo!

 

[sawdeanz]

In a similar vein I have been thinking about this type of issue in light of depression. I myself have never been in a situation where I wouldn't trust myself but if I did I hope I or someone close to me would have the foresight to hold my weapons while I dealt with my issue. No matter what you would like to believe, the presence of a gun is likely to turn an attempted suicide into a successful one. I have know two people who have been through stages where they hurt themselves. By all accounts they are well past that and my one friend is now getting interested in owning a firearm (probably because he hangs out with gun nuts like me and my friends). From what I understand, depression like some other mental illnesses is something that can effectively be overcome but I still have a slight fear (whether justified or not) of the consequences should they go through a similar phase in life.

Maybe JBY can chime in on depression, suicide, and the likelihood of regression in a person who has dealt with it in the past.

 

[Red Wind]

I did not vote, because I have not yet made the decision to get a concealed carry permit. I can tell you that one of the reasons I don't have that permit yet is because I have been asking myself this very question (would I be smart enough to not carry if I shouldn't one day?). Thank you to all who have posted, especially those who shared personal stories, and to the OP.

Thank you very much for your comment and the comments of succeeding posters.
I'm quite gratified that this subject, which at first I had reservations about posting, is a matter that many have considered important and have contemplated.

 

[JBY]

It depends on what the question is. If the question is whether there is data showing an elevated risk of someone who has suffered from depression and was suicidal to fall back into that black hole, the answer would be yes. Does that mean that such people who "By all accounts they are well past that" should never own a gun? I don't believe that is necessarily so. There are a lot of variables that would go into such an answer. Severity of the depression, time lapsed, method the person used to get past the depression are just some points that would be taken into consideration before giving a clinical answer. But then again, if a now healthy person whom poses a risk of harming themselves in the future wanted to acquire a gun- should he/she not buy that gun? Don't all people face risk of falling into depression in the future? How much of a risk should be considered when making such a decision. Heavy questions.

 

[Z1900]

I have known more than a few people that will not get a CCW because of their temper. And a couple because they are prone to drinking. And a few more because they are on meds. Its actually quite common.

 

[JBY]

My PERSONAL belief is that such a person should make such that decision for himself. I definitely don't think the state or government should be allowed to take away that individuals right to own a gun. The state of NJ believes that it is within their right...