I don’t care what “the media” says. Nor do I base my opinions on what the media says.
The odds are irrelevant. I am concerned with me and mine, and nothing else. The ability to help some random person never enters into my mindset. If I can help, great. If not, that’s too bad. In that respect I am no different than any other unarmed person.
The point is this: a gun is an absolute last resort I’m going to die option. Which is as it should be. The responsibility, liability, and assumption of risk is too great for it to be otherwise.
Or do you seriously think that gun owners dream of whatever silly motivation you assign to them? That’s not a dream, that’s a nightmare. I NEVER, EVER want to have to use my gun for any reason other than to put holes in paper. That is, contrary to popular opinion, true of virtually all law-abiding gun owners. None of us want to carry the guilt of having killed someone, or face potential jail time, or face ludicrously expensive lawsuits. That’s your reality.
I’m not assigning any motives to anyone. People (like myself) are not worried about being in a mass shooting event because the odds are so low. I am also not worried about meteor strikes on my house, or a flash flood that destroys my house, or what I will do with all the money I win from mega-millions.
The odds that I will be in a situation where I need a gun are so low as to be meaningless, therefore I wouldn’t go through the hassle of carrying one. Surprisingly, nor would I shoot someone for stealing my TV or my car.
If your reason for carrying a gun around is “I feel safer” then more power to you. If your reason is “I might need it one day” then why don’t you play the lotto every day because “You might win one day” If your reason is “Because I can because of my rights” then I will mock you for not being able to articulate a better reason. The same as I would mock someone demonstrating their First Amendment rights by burning a flag.
Indeed, the odds are exceedingly low. So what were we talking about again? 49 innocent people dead, 53 wounded? Their odds were exceedingly low, too. It’s silly to bring up odds and then dismiss them when the evidence necessary is why we’re talking about this to begin with.
I’m not dismissing the odds, I’m embracing them. They are the reason i don’t carry a gun around. The odds come up when someone says “We should ban guns because of the mass shootings” and the answer is “The odds of being in a mass shooting are so low, banning guns because of them is stupid” and then later “I carry a gun for protection in case I need it” and the answer of “Well, the odds of needing it are so low that you don’t have to carry one around to be just as safe” is somehow not acceptable and anti-gun or pro-gun control or whatever.
And they are the reason I do.
As is your right. As is my right to mock someone for worrying about something that has such a little chance of happening.
Significantly greater than being in a mass shooting. Like, orders of magnitude greater.
so, 10 or 100 times .00001?
It probably depends significantly on where you live and who you associate with, but in 2014 the FBI recorded: “There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement. Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.”
So, call it roughly 1 in 300 in any given year?
Which street? Some neighborhoods are more dangerous than others.
(post shortened, underline added)
Oh no! Not “mocked” by someone on the internet. :rolleyes: That could be devastating to someone if they actually thought being mocked by someone on the internet was important.
Just as it is everyone else’s right to mock the mocker.
p.s. There is no reason better than - “Because I can because of my rights”. You simply do not have the votes to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
It’s simple: AKs and M16s/M4s/AR15s are butt ugly and should be banned. The M1 Carbine, regardless its magazine size (too a point: larger magazines destroy its lines) is as cute as a button, too cute to ban. This includes the (semi-/full-auto) M2. I mean, don’t you want to pinch its cheek? And lots were made by Rock-Ola, the jukebox company! Plus, I know a guy who was shot with one. Barely penetrated his buttock. The M1 has an effective range measured in inches. Ten thousand, eight hundred of them, but who’s counting?
If we’re saying ban all assault weapons then the former more than the latter.
Again, the chance of being killed in a mass shooting is massively higher in the US than the rest of the developed world. The chance of being shot (in general) too. Mass knifings (as mentioned by another poster as something that would take up the slack)…are basically not a thing in the developed world.
And naturally the homicide rate in general is much higher in the US than other developed countries.
So yeah, the data does appear to show if you take away the means to easily kill scores of people most wackos will just not attempt to do so. Who knew?
I should say at this point, that I’m not necessarily anti-gun. I’m still undecided on this issue.
But good pro-gun arguments are, IMO, libertarian arguments, or practical arguments (there are 10 million AR-15s out there…how can you confiscate them all)?
Trying to argue “Oh, they’ll find another way to spree kill” simply flies in the face of the data.
It’s not just the odds of occurrence, but also the relative cost on both sides. The odds of a mass shooting are generally pretty low - there’s a much higher incidence or ordinary homicide. If certain guns are banned, like assault weapons, if results are anything like the 1994 AWB the impact on crime will be negligible, while the impact on law abiding folks who want to acquire these items will be widespread. This is a low benefit, high cost proposition.
On the other hand, needing a firearm for self defense is also a low probability. But the costs involved are not very high either - minor inconvenience. This is a low benefit, low cost proposition. Much like how house fires are very rare, but having a fire extinguisher is a good idea. It’s a low cost, low benefit proposition. But when you need it, you really need it.
Keep in mind with statistics … they lie …
The probability of being killed in a mass shooting event for the 50 folks in Orlando is 1 … it is certain to have occurred …
Again, no argument there.
That doesn’t seem “exceedingly low” to me, as posted by **Airman Doors, USAF **up thread.
My guess are the odds are much lower.
This made me laugh. In a sad way
Of course there are better reasons. In my observation, people resort to “Because I can because of my rights” because they are too stupid or afraid to give their real reasons for it.
Who is “you” in this sentence? Me? Please show where I have ever advocated for abolishing the 2nd Amendment?
Well, good thing I’m not advocating banning guns. I more likely advocate publically ridiculing people who think it necessary to stockpile dozens of semi-automatic rifles and 30K rounds.
Having a fire extinguisher saves me money on homeowner’s insurance. In fact, I don’t even know if I still have one at home, since home fires is not something I worry about on a day to day basis. I also don’t carry bear repellant around, even though it is a high benefit, low cost proposition (which I think you meant to say) and more bears are showing up around here. Nor do I have flood insurance, nor do I play the lotto on a daily basis, which is definitely a high benefit, low cost proposition.
I tell you what, I’ll sell you meteor insurance for $100 a year. If a meteor hits your house and destroys it, I will pay for you to get a new house. That seems like a high benefit, low cost proposition for you. What do you say?
Sometimes ammo goes on sale. It’s cheaper to buy in bulk 
No - I meant to say low benefit, low cost. If the occurrence rate is low, the benefit is generally low over a population. Fire extinguishers aren’t a disclosure item on my home insurance that I know of, but I still own a few. General safety precaution and they cost relatively little. I also don’t worry about fires on a day to day basis, though my neighbors did have to evacuate recently due to a brush fire.
Since I don’t frequent areas with bears often, I also don’t carry bear repellant around. I did put my food in a bear locker when I went camping though - probably for raccoons as much as it was for bears.
In any case, there is a risk evaluation that people should engage in, but simply evaluating the risk of occurrence is not sufficient. That was my point - both the cost and the benefit should be evaluated.