Wildalaska
Moderator
Like that's a bad thing...
You just don't want to admit you have an ankle hoslter in YOUR Dr. Denton's .
WildminehavelittleS&WsalloverquitecuteAlaska TM
Like that's a bad thing...
Stage2, read post 106 on this thread, paying special attention to assertion 2 and the response to it.
Yes and no.And like I said, the people who use the stats as a justification likely don't take the same precautions with things that are much more likely to happen. For example, if someone is going to tell me that they wear at home because there is a XYZ% chance of a home invasion, but then drive everywhere without jumper cables then it makes me wonder.
I like it--in the sense that I like being prepared. I like carrying a flashlight even though the chances of a power outage here aren't significantly higher than elsewhere--and I find it useful for other things besides power outages. I like carrying a pocket knife although there's really not a higher chance that I'll need to trim or cut something in my neighborhood than in anyone elses--but it's handy to have one when you need it and not have to go looking.In fact I'm inclined to believe that in most cases (barring those who live in really bad neighborhoods), folks aren't really being honest when they say they carry at home for "protection". They, for some inexplicable reason, aren't comfortable with just saying they do it cause they like it. My guess is because most people would look that them funny if they did because you really don't need to carry at home.
First, you are almost ridiculing the average citizen for carrying a gun because they have never been in a true combat scenario.
My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it.
Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.
This same behavior can be seen in reverse in lotteries. There are people who are willing to pay good money to play the lottery in the face of astronomical odds because the potential payoff is so huge and yet who wouldn't stoop to pick up a penny. We all know that the odds of seeing a penny on the ground are pretty good while the odds of winning the lottery are really bad. So if the object of the game is free money, a person should spend his time looking for pennies on the ground rather than buying lottery tickets--right? WHY would someone pick the FAR less likely event (lottery win) to focus on instead of the much more likely one (free pennies)? I don't really think it's necessary to spend a lot of time explaining this "phenomenon".
A gun is just one more useful tool that I carry when it's practical. One that's come in handy--although (and this is sort of important to note for the purposes of the argument) not for self-defense in my case.
In other words, it's not JUST about criminals and home invasions, guns have other useful purposes.
My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it.
Then again, maybe you just don't see it as a practical option and I do... I think the biggest problem with this topic is that people on both sides of the issue are unwilling to take either side's comments at face value for various reasons. Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.
Exactly the point of my tongue-in-cheek example. I think that it's really hard to have a discussion when one side or the other is basing arguments on suppositions about what the other side is thinking rather than about what is actually being said.Ha! projection!
I don't see the relevance nor do I follow your reasoning. Is there some principle that you're aware of which states that if one doesn't carry every single moment of his existence then that entitles others to define what "practical" means for him? Or perhaps there's a natural law that indicates that if a person doesn't carry while showering then it means he's being disengenuous about the reasons why he does carry the rest of the time? Sorry, that statement simply doesn't make sense at all...Bolded the important part. Unless you plan on showering with your pistol, sleeping with it, and carrying it while you do other things that are done in the home, then you aren't going to have it on all the time because its not practical.
The statement you're responding to wasn't intended to be limited in its scope to only home carry, but here's one example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home.Ok, I give. What other useful purpose is there in carrying in your home?
Yes, you've explained why you don't and I've explained why the reasoning behind why you say you believe that way is flawed.I just don't buy in to the "I do it for protection" reason.
Huh? Who said that?Those arguing in favor of home carry are doing so from the perspective that its either that or nothing.
Wow, I'm not following this at all. It's been shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year to prevent crime. How does that cut anything "in half or even more", and how is that infinitesimal?You see the other factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is how many crimes can be stopped by a person having a loaded gun readily available. The already infinitesimally small number that we are already dealing with is once again, cut in half, or even more.
Pax (who has children) posted that she finds it practical and explained why. Dunno what else to say other than you can't keep pretending that this is a discussion if you're going to resort to "non-tactics" such as blatant contradiction without justification or logical support.For someone with kids its definately not. For someone with a significant other its not. A glock just isn't conducive to cuddling. Even with a single guy I don't think its all that practical either.
Is there some principle that you're aware of which states that if one doesn't carry every single moment of his existence then that entitles others to define what "practical" means for him? Or perhaps there's a natural law that indicates that if a person doesn't carry while showering then it means he's being disengenuous about the reasons why he does carry the rest of the time? Sorry, that statement simply doesn't make sense at all...
Wow, I'm not following this at all. It's been shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year to prevent crime. How does that cut anything "in half or even more", and how is that infinitesimal?
Pax (who has children) posted that she finds it practical and explained why.
I don't use a bunch of numbers to decide if I carry or not. I carry because of my experiences in the real world...period. Stats are just that, and you can crunch numbers to suit any needs, political polls do this all the time, as do antis to try and make a point.Its not that the person is disingenuous for carrying, its that they are disingenuous for their use of statistics to support why they carry.
Bottom line is, I carry because my over 1/2 century life on this planet has taught me a lot. One of those things is the fact you better be prepared for unexpected things, and anyone who doesn't know home invasion is on the rise, must be living on a much better planet than we live on. Silent out...
I will say this I always have a weapon on my person.
Please rephrase that statement for my peace of mind. I know "woobie" is a word you northerners sometimes use to refer to a childhood blanket or comforting item...but to many southerners a "woobie" is something totally different. That different meaning makes your statement very disturbing to some of us.I frequently wake up when my pajama holster gets tangled in my woobie.....
Please rephrase that statement for my peace of mind. I know "woobie" is a word you northerners sometimes use to refer to a childhood blanket or comforting item...but to many southerners a "woobie" is something totally different. That different meaning makes your statement very disturbing to some of us.