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
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:
- 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