Originally Posted by Betty
Now I'll be blunt.
I will say that the man who puts a size 4 ring on my left hand needs to meet certain qualifications.
Anyone who does not see the sense in taking simple precautions is a liability. I'm tired of the seatbelt analogies that get ignored because "it's an unfair comparison." Fine, then. Go to Chicago and don't wear your seatbelt. Take the fire extinguishers out of your house, cancel your insurance, don't turn your alarm system on, and leave your doors unlocked, because all those things are "inconvenient" things that get in the way of your convenient fun.
Anyone who does not have even unarmed fighting skills and asks that I, as a smaller, easier target, go about unarmed with him is reckless. He is a liability.
I do not demand that my significant other be armed or even a gun owner. I do demand that he honor my desire to be armed and that I do not appreciate going to places where I cannot carry, and will do my best to avoid those places. As I've said, there's plenty of other places to go that are just as fun, and I can be armed. That is the compromise that I offer.
I've dated men who were more armed than me, and one who turned out to be anti-gun. None of those men were good matches for me, because it takes more than being a gun owner to be a good match. I will not, however, be permanently attached to a man who is unable and unwilling to ensure that he and his loved ones are safe, especially when the means are already in place and he willingly offers to remove them. I will not have a man who unlocks the door as soon as I lock it.
mrshonts, I know it sounds harsh, but this is my reality. After you obtain your permit and begin to carry, I hope you'll understand better. I don't want anything between us, but there are lines in the sand, and my safety is one of them.