I completely agree with this. However, I don’t know why anyone would waste time doing something that is low cost, low benefit.
And that brings me back to the meteor insurance I’ve offered you. This is low cost HIGH benefit for you, why wouldn’t you immediately take that offer? I mean, you are willing to engage in low cost, low benefit behaviors, why wouldn’t you jump at the chance for a low cost, HIGH benefit proposal?
I think you misunderstand the calculus. Meteor insurance is low benefit because the incidence rate is low. Supernova insurance would also fall into this category. Combine that with the fact that you are not subject to insurance requirements as promulgated by the state department of insurance and that makes the projected benefit even lower. I will decline your offer of meteor insurance. If you can beat my auto insurance rate we can talk.
As to why someone would do something that is low cost, low benefit - because the benefit outweighs the cost of course.
My buildings aren’t covered if a meteor hits them … but anyone hurt in such an event is … if my building is destroyed, I can afford to rebuild it … medical bills for any victim would bankrupt me … so I carry that coverage … $3m in fact.
I just raise prices on my services … doesn’t cost me a dime.
Maybe a better example is Title Insurance … when you buy a piece of real estate, you’re issued a deed … if later that deed is proven to be invalid … well … the insurance gives you your money back … an extremely rare event, but catastrophic if it should happen
I don’t know what you mean by this.
The insurance IS low cost for you. And the benefits are HIGH. Therefore, the benefits outweigh the costs, so why don’t you do it?
You do things that are low cost, low benefit, but you don’t do things that are low cost, HIGH benefit? I don’t understand that logic.
Because the benefit is measured in part by both the amount of the payout and the probability of payout. The probability of payout depends on the frequency of meteor strikes. Since meteor strikes are quite infrequent, the probability of payout is low. You are making a determination of the level of benefit in a way that doesn’t make sense.
To illustrate by way of example - if I agree to pay you infinite money in the event our sun goes supernova, that is a low benefit proposition. Not only is it infrequent, if it does happen I won’t be able to pay you. If you want to take me up on this offer I will accept at any premium amount. Infinite money would be high level of benefit in your calculus but it’s not because it will rarely happen.
Make sense?
The DOD comment is about your ability to pay, natch
Yes, I know the benefit is measured in part by both the amount of the payout and the probability of payout.
You say there is low cost and low benefit to carrying a gun around. The benefit would depend on the amount of the payout (using it to protect yourself) and the probability of payout (very, very low).
That’s my point. I say the probability of a meteor strike on your house is the same as you needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place. Benefits and costs are equal. In fact, the costs for my meteor insurance is less, yet you only do one and not the other. Why is that?
*And I assumed there would be some sort of contractual basis, or money in an escrow account for your meteor insurance, so take “ability to payout” out of your benefit calculations.
Provably wrong.
(my bold)
If this is your point, then I would have to conclude that your ability to calculate probabilities does not inspire confidence and I wouldn’t want to take out a policy with your organization. If we assume the average house size is approximately 2600 sqft, then the chance of a house getting struck by a meteor are approximately 1 in 2,111,797,726,946. Contrast that with the level of violent crime. To tease out your specific criteria of a “public place”, there is a bit of supposition required. From here we know the rate of violent crime is approximately 23 victimizations per 1000 in 2014. From here we can see from the years 2004 to 2008, the percent of violent crimes that occurred away from home is about 74%. Yes the time periods are different, and the blending of stats is crude, but if we apply the 74% to the rate of 23/1000, we get approximately 17 per 1000 violent crimes occurring away from home, that is significantly higher than your meteor strike example.
I’d say your statement that the probability of a meteor strike on your house is the same as you needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place is wrong.
I don’t see the point of endless back and forth based on a corollary to your claim that needing a gun for self defense is as likely as your house being hit by a meteorite (which in picky mode I believe it would be, a meteor burns up in the atmosphere), when that premise hasn’t been accepted, and is implausible. It’s been shown roughly but well enough that those things have orders of magnitude different probabilities, and the argument that orders of magnitude are irrelevant to the example is ridiculous.
People might reasonably carry guns around who reasonably perceive it there to be a low, not meteorite-like negligible, risk of needing one, as compared to a definitely low cost of having and carrying one, where it’s easy to get the appropriate permit or you don’t need one. I don’t carry a gun around and wouldn’t even if it was feasible for ordinary people to get carry permits where I live which it isn’t. If I owned a convenience store in a dodgy neighborhood I certainly would, have a gun outside the home that is, and carry it around when eg. depositing cash. It’s absurd to compare the probability of a gun being useful in deterrence or self defense for such a person to being hit by a meteorite.
That’s a great stat, thanks! Not sure how that relates to the odds of me needing a gun while I’m out.
Here’s a nice article, that includes a clip from NRA News that seems to place the odds of me needing a gun a lot lower, in fact, a great amount lower. Feel free to critique the clip from the NRA.
Is it? Any studies on the probability of me being in a situation where a gun is necessary to defend myself?
This depends entirely on the situations you put yourself. I think if one is reasonably prudent, then this probability goes way down.
I’m seriously interested in a study showing the odds of me being in a situation where I need a gun for defense. Most things I have read tell me the odds of needing one are very, very small, and that is even from some pro-gun rights sites.
I would say if you are the victim of a violent crime, you would have need of a gun. YMMV. Why don’t you lay out your parameters and we can continue down the rabbit hole. So far you have presented no evidence to support your claim that *the probability of a meteor strike on your house is the same as you needing your gun to defend yourself in a public place. * Do you have any? Do you think the odds of needing a gun while you’re out is greater than 1 in 2 trillion?
Remebering that “Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.” … I’ve found 1 in 5 chance from Homeowner Insurance [dot] gov … so call that a high-ball number … though hyperbole might be better suited.
For historical reference -
For historical reference -
(post shortened)
Hahahaha. You attempted to exclude self-defense from this conversation in post 103 accompanied by a threat of “mocking”. :rolleyes: That must be why you chose to refer to people who use “Because I can because of my rights” as too stupid or afraid to give other/better reasons YOU believe to be acceptable. While you’re entitled to your opinion, you do not control what other people can say. We The People have a right of self-defense and a freedom to speak out.
The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of (Individual) Rights is about an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense. If you’re attempting to keep self-defense (aka “Because I can because of my rights”) out of the conversation, you’ll need to abolish the 2nd Amendment. And you simply do not have the votes to abolish the 2nd Amendment.
I would say if you are NOT the victim of a violent crime, you **wouldn’t **have need of a gun - so what?
What parameters? Parameters for what? Is walking around with a gun statistically better than NOT walking around with a gun?
To be clear, if walking around with a gun makes you FEEL safe, then more power to you. As I said, you, of course, have the right to own a gun, as many guns as you want, and carry them wherever you may legally carry them. You FEEL safer with a gun? Then good, I’m glad you can do something to make you feel safer. Trying to tell me I actually AM safer with one? Doubtful at best.
Besides the fact that I’m not talking about keeping a gun at home, I hold statistics of home invasion from a web page of people who sell home invasion insurance in low regard.
The point isn’t that mass shooters use them or not, it’s that mass shooting are a VANISHINGLY TINY number of deaths a year. Space heater related fires kill something like 3 times the number of people who die in mass shootings each year, yet banning space heaters isn’t even an issue being discussed seriously
Why? Because space heater fires barely make the news, while mass shootings are front-page news for weeks.
Meanwhile, there are literally MILLIONS of recreational shooters, gun collectors and hunters buying various “assault rifle” variants for sporting and recreational reasons, without even a hint of issue.
But the “ban assault weapons” crowd wants to eliminate that activity and remove those millions (probably hundreds of millions) of dollars of commercial activity from the various state, local and Federal economies, just because a tiny handful of people got shot using one of those weapons.
As for the argument whether or not the government should have a monopoly on deadly force, it seems pretty obvious to me that the 2nd Amendment would have been worded differently if it was intended to ensure a government monopoly on power, and not to distribute it to the people.
At the time, there was a TINY standing army, and a whole lot of militias- typically local militias under the aegis of whatever state or territory they were part of. Think the Minutemen at Lexington/Concord- local guys with their own rifles who defended their settlements against hostile Indians, and when push came to shove, vs. the British Army. This remained the model up past the Civil War- most units were state regiments composed of companies from various localities.
The point of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government couldn’t do away with the local militias by revoking the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, since the men provided their own weapons, a right to keep and bear them, kept the local militias in business. Why, you may ask, did they care about the local militias? Because having local militias meant that any sort of tyranny from a central government could be resisted by the people, much like they’d recently done vs. Britain.
In today’s world, you may argue that the National Guard fills that role, and in some senses, it does. But it fundamentally does NOT provide that armed check against central tyranny, being armed BY the central government, and tightly integrated into its military. Hence the thinking that an individual right to keep and bear arms provides for a potential armed resistance against central tyranny that the NG does not provide. It’s a little bit out there, I realize, but that’s the thinking. And before someone says “Well, civilians armed with AR-15s can’t fight the US Army”, I’ll point out that the Viet Cong and Iraqi insurgents did so quite effectively with very similar levels of technology.
The real question then, comes down to whether or not a certain level of insurance against tyrannical government is a better choice than some level of gun-related violence.
Personally, I can’t think of any reason for you to own, carry, or use a firearm. Forget the probability study, I can’t imagine you every being in a situation where you would need to defend yourself from multiple attackers (man or animal), let alone a single attacker. Live long and prosper.