I'm carrying a gun - Am I looking for trouble?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not quite, but it's close. Gun deaths are expected to surpass motor vehicle accidents by 2015.

Let's not forget that a much larger number of households owns and drives a vehicle than owns and carries a gun. In other words, cars are much more widely owned and much heavier in use than guns and yet, guns kill just about as many Americans as car accidents do. And the difference between one and the other is all but negligible at this point. The fact that guns are made to kill while cars are continuously improved to reduce the likelihood of fatal accident outcomes may have something to do with the number of gun deaths being on track to exceed the number of fatal vehicle accidents. Right now, we're probably talking a difference of less than 1,000 a year.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I vote "no"

I carry a gun. I never look for trouble. I always complete my business.

Next survey...

I own a fire extinquisher, am I looking for a fire?

OR

I wear a seatbelt, am I looking for a car accident?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I vote "no"

I carry a gun. I never look for trouble. I always complete my business.

Next survey...

I own a fire extinquisher, am I looking for a fire?

OR

I wear a seatbelt, am I looking for a car accident?

People that use seat belts are looking for accidents. And the only reason to own a fire extinguisher is to start fires. People with umbrellas are looking for rain. People carry a jack and a spare tire because they WANT to have a flat tire. People who have flashlights, candles, generators etc hope for a power outage. So naturally the only reason to carry a gun is to hopefully be presented with the opportunity to shoot someone.

[Peikko 1,575]

I vote "no"

I carry a gun. I never look for trouble. I always complete my business.

Next survey...

I own a fire extinquisher, am I looking for a fire?

OR

I wear a seatbelt, am I looking for a car accident?

Complete your business? What business? You need a gun at all times in order to feel safe as you do all the normal things that people do? Guess what? 99% of the US population do exactly the same without having a gun about their person, how shocking!

The only reasonable reason for carrying a gun is because you intend to shoot it. There are perfectly legitimate places to shoot guns and no one is trying to stop anyone shooting in those places. Believing that going to purchase groceries, or to borrow books at the library or out for a walk one would ever encounter a situation where an armed response would be reasonable and essential is bat ###### crazy, furthermore to try to pass this off as just another reasonable precaution, or to equate it to wearing seat belts or any other reasonable response to a realistic risk simply highlights just how far away from normal this behaviour is.

Edited August 3, 2013 by The Truth™

[Peikko 1,575]

People that use seat belts are looking for accidents. And the only reason to own a fire extinguisher is to start fires. People with umbrellas are looking for rain. People carry a jack and a spare tire because they WANT to have a flat tire. People who have flashlights, candles, generators etc hope for a power outage. So naturally the only reason to carry a gun is to hopefully be presented with the opportunity to shoot someone.

Once again proving just how little you seem to understand how to assess what constitutes a reasonable response or precaution to take to mitigate against potential outcomes of statistically significant risks.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Complete your business? What business? You need a gun at all times in order to feel safe as you do all the normal things that people do? Guess what? 99% of the US population do exactly the same without having a gun about their person, how shocking!

The only reasonable reason for carrying a gun is because you intend to shoot it. There are perfectly legitimate places to shoot guns and no one is trying to stop anyone shooting in those places. Believing that going to purchase groceries, or to borrow books at the library or out for a walk one would ever encounter a situation where an armed response would be reasonable and essential is bat ###### crazy, furthermore to try to pass this off as just another reasonable precaution, or to equate it to wearing seat belts or any other reasonable response to a realistic risk simply highlights just how far away from normal this behaviour is.

IMO. You must live in a very safe neighborhood.

[Peikko 1,575]

IMO. You must live in a very safe neighborhood.

I know I do, so do most people in the US and even people who live in 'bad' neighbourhoods are not in any statistically significant danger where an armed response or the threat of an armed response would improve things. In fact, if you live in a bad neighbourhood I would think the last thing you would want to be is armed, you would draw a huge amount of unwanted attention if you were.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Once again proving just how little you seem to understand how to assess what constitutes a reasonable response or precaution to take to mitigate against potential outcomes of statistically significant risks.

What's the right way? Your way?

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

The only reasonable reason for carrying a gun is because you intend to shoot it.

that crystal ball is amazing.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I know I do, so do most people in the US and even people who live in 'bad' neighbourhoods are not in any statistically significant danger where an armed response or the threat of an armed response would improve things. In fact, if you live in a bad neighbourhood I would think the last thing you would want to be is armed, you would draw a huge amount of unwanted attention if you were.

Statistically significant is a matter of opinion. 1:1000 (rough US average) chance of being robbed for instance seems significant to me.

Therefore it is illogical to write off having a self defense plan to mitigate that risk. For instance, it makes sense for a woman out at night to at least have spray or a taser. A firearm is just a bigger more lethal insurance policy to mitigate that risk.

Finally the point of conceal carry is to avoid attention.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Brown Dwarf

[Peikko 1,575]

What's the right way? Your way?

My way? Are you bonkers? It's about empirical data not something I dreamed up out of thin air. There is a significant statistical risk in not wearing a seat belt should you become involved in a car accident. These are measurable risks, people study these things and encourage the use of seat belts because it can be proved empirically that do so dramatically increases one's survival rates in high speed impacts. There also empirical data that proves that being involved in a car accident is a statistically significant risk granted it's a small one, but it is significant.

There is no data that supports the theory that carrying a gun improves your chance of survival pounding those mean US streets. Going to the store, out to a restaurant, off to the sport bar, out to a dance, walking, swimming going to the gym. none of these normal activities pose a significant risk that carrying a gun can measurably impact in any way at all. None, nothing, nil. Mitigating against a risk that is not measurable is not reasonable. You may like carrying a gun around all day, you may get a kick out of it but you can't justify it by saying it improves your overall safety because by all measurable data it doesn't.

Edited August 3, 2013 by The Truth™

[Peikko 1,575]

Statistically significant is a matter of opinion. 1:1000 (rough US average) chance of being robbed for instance seems significant to me.

Therefore it is illogical to write off having a self defense plan to mitigate that risk. For instance, it makes sense for a woman out at night to at least have spray or a taser. A firearm is just a bigger more lethal insurance policy to mitigate that risk.

Finally the point of conceal carry is to avoid attention.

Statistical significance is not a matter of opinion it's empirical fact. You can personally interpret an insignificant risk as whatever you want it to be but you have no data to support your theory that carrying a fire arm would mitigate against that insignificant risk. You think it should be true, it makes you feel better in some way to believe it is true I guess, but you can't point to one single study that supports that theory. There are hundreds of studies that support the theory that wearing a seat belt dramatically improves survival rates in car crashes.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Statistical significance is not a matter of opinion it's empirical fact. You can personally interpret an insignificant risk as whatever you want it to be but you have no data to support your theory that carrying a fire arm would mitigate against that insignificant risk. You think it should be true, it makes you feel better in some way to believe it is true I guess, but you can't point to one single study that supports that theory. There are hundreds of studies that support the theory that wearing a seat belt dramatically improves survival rates in car crashes.

The notion of whether a statistic is significant or not is opinion. The term statistical significance is a mathematical notion relating to whether an occurrence is related to a pattern or is simply background noise. There is a difference between the two.

Saying that a risk is insignificant is not statistical significance in mathematic terminology. Understand?

Also, just because a study has not been produced does not mean something should be discounted until its explored.

[Peikko 1,575]

The notion of whether a statistic is significant or not is opinion. The term statistical significance is a mathematical notion relating to whether an occurrence is related to a pattern or is simply background noise. There is a difference between the two.

Saying that a risk is insignificant is not statistical significance in mathematic terminology. Understand?

Also, just because a study has not been produced does not mean something should be discounted until its explored.

A bit of convoluted thinking there to try to fuzzy the line between something that is a quantifiable risk and something that simply isn't.

Statistics are only as good as the data they are compiled from but you would have to be pretty obtuse to argue that the data produced to support the favourable outcomes for seatbelt wearers in car accidents or that the chances of being involved in car accidents are merely a matter of opinion in order to support the argument that carrying a gun is anything more than a 'feel good' action.

I can't even be bothered to answer why no one will ever study something so inane.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

My way? Are you bonkers? It's about empirical data not something I dreamed up out of thin air. There is a significant statistical risk in not wearing a seat belt should you become involved in a car accident. These are measurable risks, people study these things and encourage the use of seat belts because it can be proved empirically that do so dramatically increases one's survival rates in high speed impacts. There also empirical data that proves that being involved in a car accident is a statistically significant risk granted it's a small one, but it is significant.

There is no data that supports the theory that carrying a gun improves your chance of survival pounding those mean US streets. Going to the store, out to a restaurant, off to the sport bar, out to a dance, walking, swimming going to the gym. none of these normal activities pose a significant risk that carrying a gun can measurably impact in any way at all. None, nothing, nil. Mitigating against a risk that is not measurable is not reasonable. You may like carrying a gun around all day, you may get a kick out of it but you can't justify it by saying it improves your overall safety because by all measurable data it doesn't.

How many assaults were there in the US last year? How many forcible rapes? Murders? Robberies? Violent crimes? Tell the 14,000+ women who got raped that it is not a measurable risk.