Security: the lottery versus insurance
In the debate over gun control, it becomes readily apparent that there are two schools of thought - those who advocate safety through chance and others who advocate safety through better planning. I'm sure you can guess which side is which.
The Brady Center and their ilk would have you believe that a safer society can be arranged if only more people are put at risk. Disarm the masses so that, in effect, the predators, the lunatics, and the sociopathic will have too many potential victims to choose from! Your chances of being victimized go down as the number of possible targets increases! Or so goes their logic.
Of course, they would never admit to such a grotesque equation even if it's what they feel and advocate. They spout endlessly about how protecting us from criminals is a job for the police, which brings us to yet another hideous little formula.
New York City, for example, has 8 million residents and roughly 35,000 police officers. Given an even distribution, you have roughly one police officer for roughly every 225 people. That means at any given moment, your chances of having a police officer present, given some very basic mathematics, is less than half of one percent.
Compare that to the statistic that says a rape has a fifty percent chance of escalating to murder if kidnap is involved.
In short, the gun grabbers are advocating a "lottery logic" for safety wherein your survival depends purely upon chance and the whim of fate.
Now let us take a look at the opposing view - that of those who support the 2nd Amendment.
If you choose to arm yourself and your state allows a CCW, your chances of being caught unarmed, and therefore defenseless, drop pretty close to zero on any given day (considering of course that you don't work at a school or federal property or anywhere else that bans concealed weapons).
And if a criminal decides to attack you, unless they do it from ambush with a sniper rifle, you stand at least some chance of fighting back - it may not be much, but resistance is still a possibility, however remote. Now, taking into account that most predators are not very well trained in the use of firearms, your chances for survival increase. If the predator intends to take you alive, as most rapists do, your chances increase exponentially.
In short, to arm yourself is not to go looking for trouble, but to prepare for the worst. We have health insurance and life insurance and car insurance, but it doesn't mean we all want to get sick in the car and crash and die. It means we have the foresight to know that sometimes bad things happen to good people and it's best to prepare.
This is the "insurance logic" of gun owners: live your life as normal, but be prepared for when life takes a decidedly abnormal turn.
Now of course we all want a world wherein the need for guns could be totally replaced by nothing more than a desire to sport shoot and maybe collect. No one looks forward to using a firearm in defense because I'd wager no one really wants to kill another human being.
But wanting something and having it are two different things.
We cannot legislate sanity. We cannot legislate evil away. We cannot legislate wishful thinking into happy reality. Where there are people, there will be evil. That's a given.
So we can either hope it doesn't happen to us or our loved ones or we can prepare. And just as any sane individual would tell you that investing in Powerball tickets over an IRA is rank insanity, so do I say that gun control over gun ownership represents a similar foolishness.
The Brady Center and their ilk would have you believe that a safer society can be arranged if only more people are put at risk. Disarm the masses so that, in effect, the predators, the lunatics, and the sociopathic will have too many potential victims to choose from! Your chances of being victimized go down as the number of possible targets increases! Or so goes their logic.
Of course, they would never admit to such a grotesque equation even if it's what they feel and advocate. They spout endlessly about how protecting us from criminals is a job for the police, which brings us to yet another hideous little formula.
New York City, for example, has 8 million residents and roughly 35,000 police officers. Given an even distribution, you have roughly one police officer for roughly every 225 people. That means at any given moment, your chances of having a police officer present, given some very basic mathematics, is less than half of one percent.
Compare that to the statistic that says a rape has a fifty percent chance of escalating to murder if kidnap is involved.
In short, the gun grabbers are advocating a "lottery logic" for safety wherein your survival depends purely upon chance and the whim of fate.
Now let us take a look at the opposing view - that of those who support the 2nd Amendment.
If you choose to arm yourself and your state allows a CCW, your chances of being caught unarmed, and therefore defenseless, drop pretty close to zero on any given day (considering of course that you don't work at a school or federal property or anywhere else that bans concealed weapons).
And if a criminal decides to attack you, unless they do it from ambush with a sniper rifle, you stand at least some chance of fighting back - it may not be much, but resistance is still a possibility, however remote. Now, taking into account that most predators are not very well trained in the use of firearms, your chances for survival increase. If the predator intends to take you alive, as most rapists do, your chances increase exponentially.
In short, to arm yourself is not to go looking for trouble, but to prepare for the worst. We have health insurance and life insurance and car insurance, but it doesn't mean we all want to get sick in the car and crash and die. It means we have the foresight to know that sometimes bad things happen to good people and it's best to prepare.
This is the "insurance logic" of gun owners: live your life as normal, but be prepared for when life takes a decidedly abnormal turn.
Now of course we all want a world wherein the need for guns could be totally replaced by nothing more than a desire to sport shoot and maybe collect. No one looks forward to using a firearm in defense because I'd wager no one really wants to kill another human being.
But wanting something and having it are two different things.
We cannot legislate sanity. We cannot legislate evil away. We cannot legislate wishful thinking into happy reality. Where there are people, there will be evil. That's a given.
So we can either hope it doesn't happen to us or our loved ones or we can prepare. And just as any sane individual would tell you that investing in Powerball tickets over an IRA is rank insanity, so do I say that gun control over gun ownership represents a similar foolishness.
0
-
Very true! 0 -
You go into too much depth, there EMM. You can cut to the chase a lot faster this way:
There are those who see the gun issue from an emotional viewpoint and those who see the gun issue from a logical viewpoint.0 -
That certainly makes a lot of sense. I'll add that if a person has a CCW and is in a bad situation, they would be more likely to intervene and help even though they are putting themselves at greater risk of injury/death.
They are now "equalized". So instead of jumping out a window and running, they would be more likely to confront the situation.0 -
Clear common sense, the problem is the Anti's do not operate from the
logical, common sense side of the issue.
Good read there EMM...0 -
Does this mean I shouldn't be buying power ball tickets?
Oh wait, I don't believe I ever have. [:o)]
It has been ruled in court that the police are NOT responsible for your personal safety. If not them, then who? It's up to each individual, of course. You can either be a victim, or prepared, your choice.0 -
I keep looking for the "but" in your post.
Very good.
Doug0 -
Explain to me again how I will be safer unarmed[?] 0 -
Doug,
No "buts" in this one - we can either be prepared or not.0 -
The problem with the antis is that they do not view the world as it is before squawking like a bunch of ducks.
"Get rid of the guns!"
How? There are millions of privately owned guns in America. Only a fraction are registered. Do they propose gestapo tactics to round them up? That would be a funny position for them to take since personal privacy is one of the liberal's sacred cows.
Let's say we do outlaw them and magically all guns are gone from the nation.
Then what?
Then anyone who is physically stronger than you has the right to do whatever they want to, to you.
They can take your possessions, your dignity, or your life. A society without guns operates according to the law of the jungle and I firmly believe that if Colt didn't make us all equal, he certainly levelled the field a lot more than Mother Nature did.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
You go into too much depth, there EMM. You can cut to the chase a lot faster this way:
There are those who see the gun issue from an emotional viewpoint and those who see the gun issue from a logical viewpoint.
Wrong dichotomy. I'm plenty emotional about my right to self defense.
The original analogy works great, but to restate it concisely: Would you rather insure your home with Powerball or State Farm?0 -
Our insurance turns their lifestyle into the lottery. "Am I going to get shot at this time when I try to steal a TV or radio?"
The trouble is that right now criminals see running into an armed response as an unlikely event in the course of their activities.
If one in every three or four criminals got shot at every time they broke into a home or committed some other crime, they would think real long and hard about doing it. Heck, they may even go and get jobs, figuring it's easier than getting shot at.0 -
Ba Sardo,
quote:Our insurance turns their lifestyle into the lottery. "Am I going to get shot at this time when I try to steal a TV or radio?"Exactly. For once I say let the bad guys and scumbags take their chances, not law-abiding citizens!0 -
I play the lottery from time to time.[:D] 0 -
nemesis,
I do, too... but only when it goes over $20 million.[8D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
14 comments