Your brother sounds like a very reasonable man, who understand the risks, and making a reasonable decision.
If someone has really chosen not to fight violence with violence, then quoting stats doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
That sounds utterly and completely bogus to me. It may not be fair, but crime - particularly violent crime is not uniformly distributed across gender, age, or socio-economic boundaries. Another thread on THR a couple of days ago claimed that a study (in Richmond as I recall) had found that 90% of the murder where a handgun was used had felony convictions. I believe that stat, just from reading my hometown paper.
In fact, from my point of view, I support RKBA as a social policy mostly so that innocent people in bad neighborhood have self-defense options. I am not all surprised that the CDC and NAS reports were unable to find a positive or negative effect of CCW laws on crime stats. Arming relative affluent law abiding middle class white males - who are statistically very unlikely to be either the perpetrators or victims of violent crime - would not have much effect.
Sounds reasonable to me - from a social policy position. That doesn't specify any conditions under which he would support gun control laws (other than the licensing that he mentions later).
Your brother absolutely on target with this one. That's part of why most people find stats-slinging so ineffective.
Wait a second - risk level may be the core point.
Think of it this way. If you try to sell me a shark bite proof suit ( I don't know if such a thing exists ), and I realize I never go into the water at the ocean, it may be perfectly reasonable for me to say that refusing to wear a shark bite proof suit won't change my risk of being killed by a shark at all. If you came back and say "I wouldn't presume to to answer for you whether your unwillingness to buy a shark bite suit effectively raises your risk of of being killed by a shark. But if you are are attacked by a shark, ..." That's silly.
I applaud him. He obviously understands the issues, had thought deeply about them, and has made a personal moral decision. Isn't that the goal of whole Constitution - that we are free men able to private moral decisions?
I would like to argue more strongly that the decision may be right for him. I have come to much the same conclusion. Each one of us needs to balance two risks:
It seems to me that these risks are different for different people. In my own analysis, the risk of #1 outweighs the risk of #2. Why?
The first two factors tend to increase risk #1, where the last 3 tend to decrease risk #2. In my case, risk #1 dominates risk #2 by a big margin. For me, the decision is not to carry for self-defense. My risks could change. I like shooting as a hobby.
Your risks may be different. I support RKBA because it might be the right decision for some people, not because it's the right decision for everyone.
Mike
I am 59. I have lived in a bad neighborhood for 34 years. I lived next door to a crack dealer for awhile. We have gang graffiti on fences. Someone could kill me in a drive-by, or break into my house. I have a dangerous job. Someone could shoot me after I walk out of the door of the courthouse. I still do not believe that being prepared to fight violence with violence is the answer. I’d rather not play.
If someone has really chosen not to fight violence with violence, then quoting stats doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
I have seen numbers (Again with the statistics?) indicating something like 87% of us will be the victim of a violent crime some time in our life.
That sounds utterly and completely bogus to me. It may not be fair, but crime - particularly violent crime is not uniformly distributed across gender, age, or socio-economic boundaries. Another thread on THR a couple of days ago claimed that a study (in Richmond as I recall) had found that 90% of the murder where a handgun was used had felony convictions. I believe that stat, just from reading my hometown paper.
In fact, from my point of view, I support RKBA as a social policy mostly so that innocent people in bad neighborhood have self-defense options. I am not all surprised that the CDC and NAS reports were unable to find a positive or negative effect of CCW laws on crime stats. Arming relative affluent law abiding middle class white males - who are statistically very unlikely to be either the perpetrators or victims of violent crime - would not have much effect.
The reason I don’t advocate gun control (now) is that I do not know enough to know whether that form of prohibition would be effective. I don’t plan on studying the pros and cons because I have other fish to fry in the social reform arena. I should mention that I do support limitations and restrictions on some forms of firearms.
Sounds reasonable to me - from a social policy position. That doesn't specify any conditions under which he would support gun control laws (other than the licensing that he mentions later).
I have no doubt that if we had the time, we could go on endlessly finding support for either side of this discussion.
..., but in this subject, any book that starts from the premise that gun control is right or wrong will likely find the statistics to shore up the preconception.
Your brother absolutely on target with this one. That's part of why most people find stats-slinging so ineffective.
The question is “Does voluntarily refusing to possess a gun increase my risk to an unacceptable level? You say yes—I say no. I believe that you and I can only answer that question with our gut.
I would not presume to answer for you whether your unwillingness to effectively counter a violent assault raises your risk to an unacceptable level.
Wait a second - risk level may be the core point.
Think of it this way. If you try to sell me a shark bite proof suit ( I don't know if such a thing exists ), and I realize I never go into the water at the ocean, it may be perfectly reasonable for me to say that refusing to wear a shark bite proof suit won't change my risk of being killed by a shark at all. If you came back and say "I wouldn't presume to to answer for you whether your unwillingness to buy a shark bite suit effectively raises your risk of of being killed by a shark. But if you are are attacked by a shark, ..." That's silly.
Ultimately, this is a personal moral decision and I have made mine.
I applaud him. He obviously understands the issues, had thought deeply about them, and has made a personal moral decision. Isn't that the goal of whole Constitution - that we are free men able to private moral decisions?
I would like to argue more strongly that the decision may be right for him. I have come to much the same conclusion. Each one of us needs to balance two risks:
- Risk that choosing to possessor carry a handgun will cause an accident/negligent incident where an innocent person is harmed.
- Risk that choosing not to possess or carry a handgun will mean that we will not be able to stop an violent attack against us or loved ones.
It seems to me that these risks are different for different people. In my own analysis, the risk of #1 outweighs the risk of #2. Why?
- I tend to sleep very deeply, and be groggy when awoken.
- My son is college age, and its would not be unexpected that he or his friends could come by the house at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.
- I live in a boring middle class neighborhood surrounded by other boring middle class people.
- I don't go to night clubs - at least in Raleigh, a lot of shootings happen in nightclubs or nightclub parking lots.
- I don't do illegal drugs, or hang around people do illegal drugs. At least in Raleigh, a lot of shootings are drug related.
- No violent ex's threatening me or my wife.
The first two factors tend to increase risk #1, where the last 3 tend to decrease risk #2. In my case, risk #1 dominates risk #2 by a big margin. For me, the decision is not to carry for self-defense. My risks could change. I like shooting as a hobby.
Your risks may be different. I support RKBA because it might be the right decision for some people, not because it's the right decision for everyone.
Mike