Van Canna wrote:
So you were antigun at the time of your 'devil's arguments' years back…right?
And I remember you doing it with 'glee' while playing with fire. ...BS just to bust balls as you did ...
It's not about busting balls. Do I really have to explain the purpose of taking up a devil's advocate position for the sake of debate? Is it actually a foreign concept to you, or are you just taking a devil's advocate position yourself for the sake of irony?
The 'Gun control thing' is necessarily a highly emotionally charged matter,
Well, controlling one's emotions is an important life skill, imho.
You could at least be man enough to take the heat when it comes...knowing well enough it is bound to come in gun discussions.
Why are you so obsessed by 'insults' and 'strong reactions' in these discussions?
I don't actually care on a personal level if people try to insult me on the internet (honestly it kind of just makes laugh), but ad hominem attacks do tend to make a conversation degenerate into substance-free babbling. Since I like having substantive debates, I prefer to see insults kept out. Furthermore, it's supposed to be against the rules of the forum. I try to respect those rules, and I don't like double-standards (Which I called you out on on your forums, and you posted the rules explicitly saying that you're going to have a double standard if you want, so now I don't really debate there). I try hard to avoid namecalling or saying directly derogatory things about people (actions or views are fair game).
This may come as a shock to you, but I just don't care enough about gun ownership issues to go post about it on dedicated gun forums. If it comes up on a forum I already enjoy, then it's interesting enough to bother, but otherwise, it's not something that's worth any more time and effort than that.
OK…so you are a little less antigun now…but still antigun to some extent, right?
I don't know. Define anti-gun. I think people should be allowed to have various guns. There should be some strings attached (licenses, training requirements) but for the most part of someone wants a gun and has shown themselves to be minimally responsible then it's fine. Whether that's a pro-gun or anti-gun attitude depends on the perspective of the person asking. Given how upset you appear at my questioning the stats, it seems like I'm probably not quite pro-gun enough for you.
I did read them
I find that hard to believe. If you had you would already have known that I changed my views on gun ownership as a result of reading Lott (plus engaging in the debates on this forum) and not had to ask me how it changed. So pick one:
You didn't read it
You didn't understand it
You immediately forgot it
Because I was very clear in that post.
This is precisely the position that my cousin's wife took in denying her husband's possession of a house gun for family protection stating that since they lived in a nice area there was no such need…[low risk]
And maybe she was right to begin with, but even low risk is risk. All life is risk, and bad schit happens even in low-risk situations. What happened to your cousin's family is incredibly tragic, but it doesn't change whether having a gun is a good idea or a bad idea. The whole decision-making process goes like this:
1. Will a gun make your family more or less safe?
2. If yes, will it make them enough less safe to be worth the cost (in time and money)?
For 1, you have to ask questions like: how are you storing it? What are your risk factors? Are you the kind of person who can definitely keep it secured? Will you be capable of using it if you need to?
For 2 you have to ask: How does owning the gun affect your quality of life? How much time do you have to spend training with it? How much money do you have to spend buying and maintaining it (and relevant licenses)?
Compare it to medicine. It's easy to say "Every life is worth any expense saving" but when you have limited resources, you have to decide where you're going to put your resources. Quality of life is an important consideration, not just quantity of life. To bring it back to guns, doing all the training necessary to be really proficient is time-intensive and expensive. If you like doing it, that's not a problem, but if it's just an onerous chore, then even if there's some chance of it preventing an unlikely disaster, you aren't necessarily making the right choice by having one.
And yes, that means you're taking a chance but you're *always* taking chances in life. Every day what you eat, what you do, where you drive, there's always chance involved. It's not possible to eliminate chance from your life, and no person is totally in control of their own destiny. That's a hard fact for a lot of people to accept, but its reality.
Basically it comes down to this:
(Chance of bad things happening) X (severity of bad things happening)
(Cost of prevention) + (severity of bad things happening) X (chance of prevention failing)
And no, you can never truly know exact values for that. But what this tells you is that if the chances of bad things happening is low enough and the cost of prevention is high, then it's not worth trying to prevent it. You can try and take all the personal responsibility you want, and you'll still never eliminate chance. At the end of the day you have to accept that there are risks you're just going to have to live with.
That's not to say prevention and risk-reduction is worthless, but saying "I will always do maximum risk reduction" doesn't really make sense, and besides, nobody really does that (not even the most timid people).