Help! Need evidence

[miamiboy]

What it sounds like you're trying to do is sell her on the idea that guns in the general populaces possession is not something to fret over. Well, to me, it sounds like you were taking the wrong approach to get your point across; throwing out random points won't change someone's conviction. That's because if it comes from your (or anyone else's) mouth, it's a lie, and if it comes from her mouth, it must be the truth.

If I were you I would invite her out for ohhhh let's say a "shopping trip". You know her best so you can either surprise her with a stop to the local range, or you can suggest it while you're out and see how she responds. If you can get her to fire a decent number of rounds, phase one is now complete. You've opened her mind up, and, being the informative, responsible owner that you are, you've shown her that a gun in the average person's possession (her own) does not incline them to behave recklessly like Yosemite Sam. I would then, over the course of some time, expose her to bits of media that are self defense friendly (preferably sources that she relates with)- this shows her that the issue really is about sd rather than the guns themselves. To cut it short, keep taking little steps from here. Let me know what you think.

 

[sarduy]

ask her if she become a criminal for defending herself with a gun from a rapist....

 

[oldfool]

quit arguing with Mom

but.. if you simply must, forget statistics, forget NRA "armed citizens"
try this..

anybody who pays hard earned dollars out of their own well worn pocket
to deliberately apply for a CCW permit
does it on purpose
voluntarily asking to be checked (and paying for the cost of doing so)
against a nationwide law enforcement database
and more specifically, by the FBI
(hint = people with arrest records need not apply, nor even people accused of being "problem children")

and those people who do that, have to voluntarily choose to do that again every few years.... voluntary CHOICE, voluntarily paid money out of pocket,
and any street cop who ever pulls them over for making a turn out of the wrong lane is virtually certain to know that they have that "FBI approved" plastic card in their wallet, and might very well have what the FBI says it is ok for them to have along with that card

"How many criminals might do you suppose would do that on purpose ?"
"Just how many people who are inclined to do violence to others do you suppose would voluntarily do that on purpose, and pay money on purpose to do exactly that ?"
"WHY would anybody do THAT ?"

"Because they are people whom you should be frightened of ???"
("like ME ?")

PS
If she says "YES" to that last one, quit arguing with your Mom
there is no shortage of other people you can argue with, but only one Mom

 

[labhound]

A robbery occurs by gunpoint. An anti gun person would say that if people didn't have guns the robbery wouldn't have occurred. A gun person would say if all people carried guns the robbery could have been averted. You're not likely to change anyone's opinion by trying to convince them differently than what they already believe. They have to make up their own minds and pressuring them to change only hardens their beliefs. If they seek information, provide it. If they don't seek info, then don't try to push your beliefs off on them.

 

[General Geoff]

She says that there is no difference in the mindset of a criminal with a gun, and your everyday law abiding citizen with a gun for SD purposes.

This statement is unintelligible, and either attributes guns with mind-control capabilities, or assumes that everyone has a criminal mind, and that possession of a gun while outside of one's home somehow removes their inhibitions to commit crime.

Incredible.

 

[navyretired 1]

When I was in the Navy I had an XO who was vehemently against private ownership and concealed carry. For about a month before he transfered and was already releaved, he worked right beside me in my office. We had many discusions about concealed carry. The one that finally stopped the arguement cold was. I ask him if he trusted me (I was the senior enlisted at command), His answer was of course he trusted me, I then ask him if he would still trust me if I always carried concealed while not on base. He spent most of the day mulling that over then tried the old yeh but your different. I explained to him that That was the problem I was no different than any other law abiding citizen with the right to own and bare arms. That I had always carried concealed when we were of the base and he had never known or suspected I was ready to protect his or my life if necessary.
On his last day before he shook my hand and said goodby we had a long discussion about what we each was aiming to accomplish in our careers and futures. He said " You've given me much to think about guns and gun ownership" and if people who carry are as responsable as you I might have to adjust my thinking and my stand on guns. Then he said " Thank you for always being ready to protect us when we've be offbase I never even suspected you were armed".
He Then explained to me that His father had went out to the barn when he (the XO) was eleven years old and shot himself with a shotgun and nobody had ever known why. This had caused him to feel that the gun was the cause. I had used the argument many times that guns are not evil and don't kill people.
I'm glad he didn't tell me before about his dad because I wouldn't have tried so hard to convense him. I'm glad that I did try though as I think I got through to him and he was and is one of the good guy's.

 

[KarenTOC]

Texas, stop trying to convert your mother. You won’t convince her, and you’ll only drive a wedge between you. And no matter how gentle and persuasive you try to be, it will feel like "brow-beating" to her.

Drop the gun talk, and just be the most responsible, mature, even-tempered man in her life. That will be more convincing than any statistics you can come up with.

Oh, and be patient. It took my son 30 years to facilitate my conversion

 

[Zip7]

it's not okay to carry them in public unless you are a LEO or trained (as in military) for the use of one.

Your Mother's statement above is the real issue. I am a statistician by trade, and I will be the first to tell you that you can argue both sides of any issue using statistics.

For example... here's a nice statistic: I am 44 years old, and have never needed to use a gun for SD. I have been in many situations where I would have felt more comfortable carrying, and God knows I have been in some mighty rough places. I have even seen a situation where a gun was drawn on a friend in a bar fight and it was diffused by an unarmed person. I've seen people stabbed, have seen crimes in progress on many occasions, but I am still alive, and have never been harmed despite having been in many situations where it was fairly likely to happen. And, I have never used a gun in SD. That is a statistic. In 44 years, it's never been strictly necessary for me to have a gun for SD. Zero necessity in my lifetime thus far means that it in my case, carrying every day borders on paranoia, statistically speaking.

Statistics are bare facts. There is often much more to the story, as there is in this case. I sincerely do not wish to ever use a gun in SD - I hope I never have to. I love guns as much as anyone, but I have no desire to use one against another person, and I won't unless my life is in immmediate danger. There are many people on this earth who fantasize about being in a situation where they would need to use their weapons. I have personally met many people like this, including people in the military and LEOs. They are on this forum (zombie threads).

You and your mother have a philosophical disagreement in that she has faith in a "system" (formal firearms training). Very common for even gun folks to feel this way, but it's a false belief. There are people in the military and LE that have been through the training, but are still just plain idiots and shouldn't be trusted with a toaster. Training teaches you how to use a firearm - not so much how to be mature and responsible - that is more a matter of responsible personal decision making. And responsible gun ownership is more about personal responsibility and less about knowing how the thing works. If you are a loose cannon who believes that a Zombie scenario is plausible, or that in the event of a natural disaster you should hit the streets in full commando mode, then maybe your Mother has a point in your case. However, if you are well grounded in reality, and are responsible, then it's possible you may by all measures be more qualified to carry a firearm around than many LEO's are.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Zip7:

Which (your "44 years" scenario) still doesn't mean you'd drive a car without insurance, or keep empty fire extinguishers around the house....

It's really impossible to prove that something is not needed except after the fact. Unless it's just plain silly, like those little badges on the front of European cars .... (Come to think of it, a lot of Cadillacs have 'em, but mine doesn't....)

(It's actually mom's car. I drive it for her. She's 94.... My car's a slightly younger Lincoln. The Caddy's a '98, and the Town Boat is a '99. Nothing like new cars.... )

(Maybe I should buy it a badge?)

Anyway, back to topic, if you've been someplace where you might have needed one, chances are it would have been potentially better to have one, even it wasn't needed.

Don't forget Murphy's law: "If anything can possibly go wrong, it will." And Farely's corollary: "If nothing went wrong, nothing possibly could have." Art's Grammaw will be all over me if I post Farley's full name.... But Murphy, like Tueller was an optimist....

I've been carrying for about 42 years. I've been in situations (semi-retired rent-a-cop among other things) where being armed was very important, but have never had to unholster. This includes when some idiot tried to run me down with a Ford convertible during a riot....

(Ever the politician, it was a clear case of "please park over there, sir".... Taking ANY action would have been a disaster in that situation. I hope he realized how close he came, but I sure did. Sometimes you just have to get out of the way and try to calm the situation down. The guy was trying to get his brother out of the area. He wasn't in custody, so.... BTW, what we called a riot that night wouldn't have made the six-o'clock news v.s. what happened that night in places like Cleveland.)

And, finally, I was going through Canton one afternoon with my boss from the former day job. We ended up in a rather bad area, and he said: "Stu, I hope you have your gun with you." I just smiled....

Regards,

 

[brassdog]

Family is a tricky thing when dealing with controversial issues.

I have SIL that is absolutely deadset in her mind that all guns are evil. I won't even began to step in that direction because she's using emotions to base her decisions.

Some folks can be a little more objective and listen/read the facts but it's still an individual's choice.

Just remember that she's your Mom and that you both are entitled to your choices.

 

[divemedic]

And, I have never used a gun in SD. That is a statistic. In 44 years, it's never been strictly necessary for me to have a gun for SD. Zero necessity in my lifetime thus far means that it in my case, carrying every day borders on paranoia, statistically speaking.

Since 80-something percent of all police officers will never fire a shot in any situation other than training, statistically speaking, police do not need weapons, either. According to your theory, anyway.

ETA: you say that you are a statistician. What statistician believes that a sample size of one is useful for anything? Using your own anecdotes and extrapolating that into statistical evidence will get you an 'F' in Statistics 101.

 

[andrewstorm]

moms gonna stick to her guns

just to spite u,ifin u saved her from some crazed criminal she might change her mind ,but i doubt it,my wife was complaining about my big ugly gun,and how i allways carried it,later that night,2 escaped convits from death row attemped to abduct her ,pregnant and all,after they seen my big ugly gun,they bolted,but were caught at the state line,troopers shot one to death,thank god!

 

[Zip7]

ETA: you say that you are a statistician. What statistician believes that a sample size of one is useful for anything? Using your own anecdotes and extrapolating that into statistical evidence will get you an 'F' in Statistics 101.

It's not a sample size of 1. The data is every situation I have ever been in in my life. There have been many thousands of different situations, everything from making substitutions in a T-Ball Game to going through the McDonalds drive thru, to sleeping a few hours at an interstate rest area.

The question is, do I need to carry a gun to protect myself? It makes the most sense to examine data from my own life. Thus far, I have never needed a gun to protect myself, so the answer from a purely statistical view is... NO.

The OP was looking for statistics to argue with and I was trying to point out that statistics don't tell the whole story, and they can be used to argue either side of many issues. People know this subconsciously because they see it happen all the time. Therefore statistics may not be the best way to convince someone.

Here's the rest of MY story that statistics won't tell you. When I have caught naps at an interstate rest area, I did so with a pistol under my pillow. When I was younger I worked for my father at a business that was in a pretty bad neighborhood. My father and I were in and out of there often late at night. Every business around us was burglarized more than once, but in the 30 years my Father owned the place, we never were. Bums came in occasionally asking for money or a job so they could buy more liquor or whatever, but they always did so with the utmost respect, because every time my father drove up and got out of his truck, he had a pistol on his side, and everyone who lived around there very much expected both of us to be packing all the time. I often went hunting before work, and would come in toting a shotgun lots of times.

So, the fact that I am alive and have never needed to use a gun for self defense is one way of looking at it - the statistical way. If you choose to take that side, you could argue that statistical evidence from my own life suggests that for me carrying a gun is pretty unnecessary. But, how many situations might I (or my Dad) have been in that never developed because the potential bad guys expected us to be well armed? There are no statistics for that.

In the end, I am almost always within arms reach of a gun. I don't have a CCW, but on occasion I have carried when I deemed it prudent. I'm not taking about going to the grocery store - I mean stopping for gas late at night in a bad part of a strange town. When I go out to see what my dogs are barking at, I go with gun in hand.

And, SMM - If I could drive a car without insurance I would. Nothing hacks me off worse than talking about car insurance. For what I pay I could buy a car every year, and I have never been at fault in an accident in my life. At times I have driven over 100,00 miles a year. So I hate car insurance with a passion. All of you folks who have ever collected on auto insurance can thank me, because I'm the reason they are still in business. This is a totally subjective view, but still.... I get mad every time I see the Geico lizard.

 

[divemedic]

It's not a sample size of 1. The data is every situation I have ever been in in my life. There have been many thousands of different situations, everything from making substitutions in a T-Ball Game to going through the McDonalds drive thru, to sleeping a few hours at an interstate rest area.

No. That is faulty and you know it. That would be like saying that I have weighed myself twice a day for 15 years, and each time I weighed over 200 pounds, and thus having weighed myself over 10,000 times, statistically anyone who weighs under 200 pounds is underweight.

You cannot use one person as a complete dataset to determine any sort of statistical data, no matter how many times you query that person. If I had tried that in any one of my statistics classes, I would have (rightly) received an 'F'.

 

[SMMAssociates]

Zip7:

Gotta agree with divemedic on the sample size thing.... Although my grasp of statistics is kinda minimal. It seems the same as Zogby calling nobody but me with their surveys for a dozen or more years....

Sorry about the insurance thing.... I own three cars, and do the paperwork on a fourth for my mom. I understand....

However, you did bring something up. The NRA always says: "The mere presence of a weapon....", which I agree with. But one of the things we here on various firearms-related forums is: "licensees tend to be more law abiding and do our best to avoid problems of the nature you mentioned, or at least be damn careful anywhere near 'em."

In short, we don't go looking for trouble, avoid having it find us, and have a plan to kill everybody we meet. (Well, not really, but you get the idea.)

Regards,

 

[Zip7]

No. That is faulty and you know it. That would be like saying that I have weighed myself twice a day for 15 years, and each time I weighed over 200 pounds, and thus having weighed myself over 10,000 times, statistically anyone who weighs under 200 pounds is underweight.

You cannot use one person as a complete dataset to determine any sort of statistical data, no matter how many times you query that person. If I had tried that in any one of my statistics classes, I would have (rightly) received an 'F'.

I'm not trying to pass a statistics class. I am using statistics to answer one question about my own life. Not pass judgement on other people. I am not saying that because I never needed a gun, no one else ever will. I'm just saying it's statistically unlikely that I will on any given day based on every other day I ever lived. That is a valid assumption backed up by real statistics from my own life - which is highly applicable to ME.

There is no law that says statistics have to be shoehorned into some form that someone has found in a textbook somewhere. I work with them all the time, and with pretty large samples. You have to apply real common sense to your work, or it's liable to be very wrong or very misleading. I see people in politics argue both sides of issues - both using statistics that are pretty suspect. My hypothetical data set of all the situations from my whole life is crude, and not well formed, but it doesn't have to be for the question I have in mind.

You say you can't use one person "to determine any sort of statistical data" I think what you mean is to come to any sort of useful conclusion. Yes you can. I also don't carry an asthma inhaler (which in theory could save my life) because.... you guessed it. Never had asthma attack. Ever. If I looked at data from everyone, Asthma is not all that uncommon, so I might conclude that carrying an inhaler might be worthwhile, when the reality is - it doesn't apply to me. YMMV.

 

[KarenTOC]

I think Zip7's point was that the same statistics that prove that something IS can be used to prove that the same something IS NOT. I believe he made his point.

 

[divemedic]

I am not saying that because I never needed a gun, no one else ever will. I'm just saying it's statistically unlikely that I will on any given day based on every other day I ever lived. That is a valid assumption backed up by real statistics from my own life - which is highly applicable to ME.

By that logic, you should then:

cancel your homeowner's insurance- after all, you never had a fire. For that matter, throw away your fire extinguisher and smoke detectors.
cancel your life insurance. After all, you have still not died.
stop wearing a seatbelt. After all, you have not been in a serious car crash.
Stop locking your doors. After all, no one has ever burglarized your home.

And, I have never used a gun in SD. That is a statistic. In 44 years, it's never been strictly necessary for me to have a gun for SD. Zero necessity in my lifetime thus far means that it in my case, carrying every day borders on paranoia, statistically speaking.

You are insinuating that anyone who has not yet needed a gun, but carries a gun anyway is paranoid. I reject that notion, and tell you that you are WRONG and you have no idea how to properly apply statistics to analyze anything.

 

[Zip7]

By that logic, you should then:

cancel your homeowner's insurance- after all, you never had a fire. For that matter, throw away your fire extinguisher and smoke detectors.
cancel your life insurance. After all, you have still not died.
stop wearing a seatbelt. After all, you have not been in a serious car crash.
Stop locking your doors. After all, no one has ever burglarized your home.

Yes - now you understand!

You are insinuating that anyone who has not yet needed a gun, but carries a gun anyway is paranoid. I reject that notion, and tell you that you are WRONG and you have no idea how to properly apply statistics to analyze anything.

Oops - no you don't. I didn't make any statement nor did I insinuate anything about anyone other than MYSELF

You're missing the point. The point is: The OP should argue against his Mother's faulty assumption that some formal training = personal responsibility and competency rather than using statistics BECAUSE statistics can be used and are commonly used to argue for every angle of every debate, and people tend to dismiss them by reflex. Particularly when the person in question is older and has more life experience than you. Particularly when you are arguing with a female, because females do not place a high value on making sense. His Mother needs to have faith in him - not to be reassured that he is acting logically. Acting logically is not high on the priority list when it comes to women - no offense to any logic loving females out there...