Any Good Come Back Arguments when People Say You're Paranoid if you Carry Concealed?

1) anyone who carries a gun exagerates the threat of criminal attack;

2) Police, both on and off duty, are among those who carry guns;

3) anyone who exagerates the threat of criminal attack is paranoid;

4) therefore police are paranoid;

5) anyone who is paranoid is not fit to carry a gun;

6) and certainly anyone who is diagnosably paranoid is not fit to be on the police force;

7) therefore, anyone who carries a gun is not fit to carry a gun.

8) and no gun-carrying police are fit to be police.

The proper reply would be to dryly inquire, "Why do you think that all police are unfit for their jobs?"

His "argument" rides on confusing the difference between "all" and "some": "Anyone who" means "all people who".

It is of course perfectly true that some people (in fact most people) who prepare for emergencies will never need to use their preparations -- just as some police never draw their guns. That is, in fact, why the concept of insurance can exist and work.

If he bristles at the idea that he has declared that all police are unfit, then once the debate is back in the real catagory of rational risk-evaluation, then one can discuss whether he owns life insurance, fire insurance, or business insurance, and why people both own them and don't own them can still be rational and not paranoid.

If his argument was real, BTW, [IOW, if he actually believed it himself rather than using it to confuse people,] then all it would take to convince him that it was incorrect would be an example page from the NRA's "armed American" stories of people using guns to defend themselves -- since any example of successful gun defense would negate the "all". [Since if "all" gun carriers exagerate the threat of criminal attack, then "none" would ever be attacked, or need to successfully use a gun for defense.]

But since it's just a clever bit of rhetoric, that will never work.

Dex }:>=-
 
Hi there.

TBO, Someone here has this tag line and it goes something like this.

Never argue with a fool - others watching might not be able to tell the difference.

12-34hom.
 
TBO, Someone here has this tag line and it goes something like this.

Never argue with a fool - others watching might not be able to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
confused.gif
 
I think the essential problem with their premise was well-stated above - it's not the risk, but what's at stake that matters.

Your opponent thinks you're irrational because the risk is so low, but I suspect that they wouldn't play the Lotto if the prize, instead of millions of dollars, was a week-long torture session followed by a bullet to the brain.

While the risk of a criminal attack in states where defensive firearms are legal is lower, carrying a firearm doesn't mean that you're exaggerating or inflating those risks, but rather making a choice as to how you intend to respond if the unlikely should come to pass.

For me here in New Hampshire, I'm probably more likely to be struck by lighting on a golf course than be robbed or otherwise violently assaulted, given the places I frequent and the hours I frequent them, and the people with whom I associate.

I haven't been in a serious auto accident in my entire life, or a significant one in more than a decade, but I still buckle my seatbelt every time I drive, just like I holster my loaded Glock 30 every time I go out - because if that 0.0001% chance should happen to befall me, I want to be ready to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.
 
I use the seatbelt analogy whenever this comes up. It's something that everyone has experience with and understands. That said, if I'm in a bad mood or just don't care I'll tell them it's my right to do so and leave it there.

Chris
 
My personal problems, such as they might be, paranoia, bad breath or who knows what else are beside the point.

What is important is the following. If carrying a concealed weapon, being "authorized" to so do, makes me feel safer, who is to tell me that I'm less safe doing so?

I have yet to tell anyone that they should carry a concealed weapon. I will leave that decision to them. I expect the same courtesy in return.
 
I carry a fire extinguisher in the trunk of my car, and have done so for maybe five years, and on the way down to New York for Passover, I actually wound up using it when the car next to me on the freeway in Connecticut suddenly burst forth a plume of acrid smoke.

The head gasket had sprung a leak and sprayed oil across the drive belt, which then flung the oil in a fine mist through the engine compartment and on to the hot engine.

It's an unlikely occurance until you're there when it happens.
 
Some good routes above, but I remember the last time someone tired to argue about CCW with me...

Them: So why do you need to carry a gun anyway? Nothing's really going to happen, you're just paranoid.

Me: Baaa!!!

Them: What?

Me: Baaaa!!!

Them: A sheep? What's that got to do with it?

Me: Baaa!!!

Etc...

After several attempts to further the conversation he shut up about CCW and I told him my explanation just didn't translate very well into sheepese. He understood, being fluent in the language as I suspected. But he still didn't appreciate my logic I fear... :D
 
Strictly utilitarian analysis

It's a simple cost-benefit analysis, just like a spare tire or fire insurance, weighing a calculus of 3 things:

1. The chance of the contingency; here, a violent criminal attack. It's always low, but lower low or higher low depending on where you live and work.

2. The magnitude of harm should one be attacked with, versus without an effective defensive tool. The potential magnitude of the harm is ENORMOUS since many robbery victims get killed and if you don't have your life, you don't have much - to atheists, you have NOTHING left. Not to mention maiming and other serious injury from violent criminal attack. Much personal and societal cost is associated with not carrying a defensive tool, as Dr. Lott demonstrated so amply in More Guns, Less Crime.

3. The COST in time, money, and effort of employing the defensive tool...the cost of training, gun purchase, ammo, CCW license (if needed), etc. Is minimal and the fixed cost of the gun reaches a break even point and thus becomes negligible.

Now, in this calculus, let's apply the facts

1. Risk of attack ===> LOW - this weighs in favor of not carrying.
2. Magnitude of potential harm IF attacked ===> VERY HIGH, and potentially extraordinarily high; in fact, the highest possible magnitude, that being death - this weighs in favor of carrying.
3. Time, effort, cost of carrying ===> LOW (relatively). It's just not that much money in the big picture, and not that much time on a daily basis to grab your gat and go. Besides, you can make the time spent practicing be a hobby, which makes it enjoyable and even more worth the money.

So, 2 of the 3 factors weigh *in favor of* carrying, on a strictly numbers basis. When you weigh in the fact that the risk factor, though low, is not in fact negligible; it's merely simply *low*, versus the magnitude of harm factor which is notably NOT merely high, it's rather (potentially) extraordinarily high; in fact, the highest it can possibly be on the scale. Clearly, the harm factor's magnitude outweighs the risk factor's countervailing magnitude, with the cost of carrying factor being a wash at worst; at best weighing in favor of carrying.

This risk factor related to NDs is also a factor, but is virtually nil, as shown by Lott and gov't statistics on CCW.
 
Those kind of people don't know I'm packing. Shooters who know me well might suspect I'm packing. Only my wife and I know for sure.

When this kind of statement is made, I just smile inscrutibly. If a person makes statements like that there is nothing I can say to change their mind, so I don't even try. There is no point to it. I educate only those who will be educated. I don't waste my time with those who choose to wallow in ignorance.

Now if they want to discuss gun control, that's another issue altogether.....


edited to add: Paranoid? Perhaps they should take a look in the mirror, since they are so afraid of well intentioned people with inantimate objects.
 
Last edited:
I tell them I'm a woman living in Boston, and I dare them to show me how I'm exaggerating.

When that doesn't work (they usually just end up repeating their original problem/question, rather than answer my point), I use the seatbelt analogy.

When that doesn't work, I give up.
 
I usually tell them, "Sure it seems paranoid now, but if something were to ever happen, it would be called well-prepared.

Ed
 
I borrow some logic from Oleg Volk's site.

First premise--the right to self defense is the most basic human right. No one has ever told me human's don't have the right to defend themselves if attacked.

Next question--then what tools are appropriate for defending myself? Fists? Karate? Stick? Rock? Baseball bat? Knife? Gun?

I get some interesting answers in here. Usually they back down and end conversation.

Fact is, a gun is the best self-defense tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top