Originally Posted By utahjosh <You should. One of them could be secretly seething, ready to go postal any day now and dreaming of using his "secret weapon" to go to town on the rest of you.> Nah, I know them pretty well.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I was responding to tashajilek, who said: " I will say that there really should be a ban on guns."<< Well, what do you expect? She lives in a civilized country: Canada. She is accustomed to not having to deal with nearly daily occurrences of mass shootings.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>And I never said that my coworkers were being trained as vigilantes by the NRA. How in the world did you make that leap?<< We were discussing how private citizens were not trained to play cops (AKA vigilantes) and you responded that your coworkers had special training. It sounded like you were saying that with the right training that private citizens could become vigilantes.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Nah, I know them pretty well.<< Isn't that what friends and relative of the guy who goes postal often say? "He was such a nice guy. I still can't believe he killed all those people. It just isn't him."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Josh is feeling rather smug, but yet again it comes across as foolish to everyone else. I'm still trying to get over why they feel the need to pack heat. Faith in God not enough?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I'm still trying to get over why they feel the need to pack heat. Faith in God not enough?> Pray like it all depends on God, act like it all depends on you.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Smug? If it's smug to feel safe around your friends (with guns, knives, bats, cars, etc.), then I guess I'm smug.
Originally Posted By ecdc Josh, here's the analogy I think is apt. Choosing to carry a gun with you for protection and safety is a lot like choosing to drive across country instead of flying because you're afraid of plane crashes. Statistically, flying is by far the safer choice. With driving, the odds are significantly higher you will be in an accident, hurting or killing yourself or others. You might *feel* safer, and you definitely will feel more in control driving the car than letting a pilot fly you, but that feeling is a false illusion. Now, the odds are very good that if you choose to drive, you'll arrive at your destination safely. But if your concern is not dying in an accident, flying is definitely the smarter, more rational choice. It's the exact same thing here with your coworkers. They may feel safer and more in control, but they've actually just put themselves and you at more risk. Of course, the odds of you or them being a victim of an accident or deliberate violence remain low, and chances are you'll be just fine around them at work. But, statistically, rationally speaking, you unquestionably are less safe—not more—being around them and their guns, and are far more likely to be the victim of one of their guns than that of a criminal.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Thank you for your feedback. But I'm not less safe with them nearby. They are responsible and not crazy. Statistics be what they may, I am not any less safe around these men.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I do not deny the danger that guns pose. If I were to handle one, the risk would go WAY up! But in years of being close to these guys, they are responsible. They are safe. They are careful. I'm in more danger in my drive home everyday than I am around them.
Originally Posted By utahjosh It would be an irrational fear to worry about my safety at work everyday. Completely irrational.
Originally Posted By ecdc You may feel safe, and I agree, it would be an irrational fear to feel constantly threatened. I'm not trying to overstate the case: the odds of you being a victim of an accident or violence by one of their guns remains low. However, the fact remains, take away those guns, and your odds of being the victim of gun violence is significantly lower still. There's no changing that fact. I don't care how safe or responsible or intelligent these people are, walking around with a gun increases danger, it doesn't decrease it.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck It would seem we are a nation in denial. From evolution and climate change, to gun statistics, many of us simply refuse to accept the facts. But who needs facts when you have the Republican Party spoon feeding you everything you need to know?
Originally Posted By utahjosh Yes, ecdc, being around guns increases my risk of gun violence. Being around tigers at the zoo increases my risk of tiger attack. But in both cases, it's an insignificant risk and insignificant increase.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Small, to be sure, as ecdc said. I don't know that I'd say insignificant. How many zoo tiger maulings have there been lately? Now how many shootings by a "he seemed so normal" guy?
Originally Posted By ecdc Two things, Josh. 1) How many tiger attacks in zoos can you find reported daily in newspapers across the country? Now, how many reports of gun accidents or violence can we find where easy accessibility to a gun (such as a domestic violence situation) resulted in a death? 2) My mom has a swimming pool. My family is less safe because of it than a family without a swimming pool. I understand that. However, the swimming pool isn't designed to kill anyone. It has an altogether different purpose. Ditto cars and tigers at zoos. However, the SOLE purpose of conceal and carry is to protect oneself from danger, or others from danger. That's it, the end. So if the gun doesn't do that, but in fact increases the danger to oneself or others, it is pointless to carry it. Put more simply, if your chances of being the victim of a violent offender is .01%, but your chances of being the victim of a gun accident or the perpetrator of violence in a heated situation with your own gun (a far, far more likely scenario), you shouldn't carry the gun.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes, ecdc, being around guns increases my risk of gun violence. Being around tigers at the zoo increases my risk of tiger attack. But in both cases, it's an insignificant risk and insignificant increase." And he says he's not smug. josh- your pistol packin' buddies- have any of them ever had to put their "training" to use in a real life situation? Do they go back for refresher courses?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 We'll let you have the right to own the gun, it's just that you can't have the gun.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Why resort to name calling? Plus, your'e using the word wrong: smug: having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements. <josh- your pistol packin' buddies- have any of them ever had to put their "training" to use in a real life situation? Do they go back for refresher courses?> No, thank goodness. And yes, they have gone back for refresher courses. Last time he brought his sister who used to be super frightened of guns.
