The author has every right to protect their professional equipment, especially given the history of damage and loss caused by their siblings. It's unfair to expect them to risk their livelihood for the sake of familial obligation. The siblings' refusal to sign a simple agreement shows a lack of respect for the author's property and boundaries. The parents' pressure only enables the siblings' entitled behavior, further eroding the author's trust and sense of security within the family. The author's attempt to set reasonable boundaries should be supported, not criticized.
The author's rigid stance and insistence on a formal agreement within a family setting appear overly legalistic and strained. While past incidents are regrettable, holding onto resentment and distrust only serves to create further division. The author is displaying a classic case of being overly attached to material possessions, prioritizing them over familial harmony. The author's defensiveness suggests a deeper issue of control and a lack of willingness to compromise. Perhaps the camera is not just a tool for work, but a symbol of personal achievement that they are unwilling to share, revealing a selfish streak beneath the surface.
The author's concerns are valid, given the history of damaged and unreturned items. Protecting one's professional equipment, especially when it's essential for income, is a reasonable stance. However, the author's insistence on a formal agreement within a family context may seem excessive and could be perceived as creating unnecessary friction. The siblings' refusal to acknowledge past mistakes and respect the author's boundaries is problematic. The parents' pressure to share without addressing the underlying issues of responsibility and respect is also unhelpful and perpetuates a cycle of entitlement. While the author is justified in protecting their property, a more flexible approach might foster better family relations.