Look, you guys who want to dispute the choices I've made and the way I judge the risks and benefits in my life are free to proselytize elsewhere.
Not attempting to convince, just to educate.
OldMarksman: You better hope your confidence in your perception of the legal stuff isn't just the product of arrogant suppositions, which I suspect is the case.
I am highly confident in my "perception". I know the letter of the relevant laws in my state and several others; I've read all of the available relevant case law here; I spend a fair amount of time each week discussing the subject with attorneys and current and former police officers; I've taken CCW training; and I've read very carefully a number of books on the subject written by experts.
Here's the most recent, and I recommend it; It's called Lesson from Armed America, by Mark Walters and Kathy Jackson, and I got it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Armed-America-Mark-Walters/dp/0982248768/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261160913&sr=1-1
I see no credentials or proof of your credibility that leads me to believe you have any elevated knowledge or prescience that validates your lecture about such issues in my life- it's just pompous pontification.
Well, no, I am not Massad Ayoob; I'm not Kathy Jackson; I'm not Cosmoline or Fiddletown; I've never been called in as an expert witness in a firearms case and never will be.
I did work directly for a chief attorney for two years and directly with attorneys for the better part of two decades. I also co-authored the risk management process used in a major Fortune 500 corporation, and it has stood the test of time.
Also, I am addressing the general subject. I do not know enough about your life to advise you.
...there's too much paranoia about being attacked and too little recognition of the risks of carrying a gun in your lecture for it to be considered "objective", or of any use to me.
Paranoia? How's that? Here's the definition:
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Attacks happen. Infrequently, yes, but they do happen, the consequences can be extremely severe. There is more than one mitigation method available; for example, after having looked at the crime stats map in our metropolitan area, I avoid many areas completely and others at night, and we do not go to a number of restaurants and shops that we used to frequent.
However, the perps are out there, and they are mobile; in our "good neighborhood" we've had two armed robberies and two car jackings just since Thanksgiving; add the adjacent suburbs and the total jumps to a dozen or more. By the way, this represents a significant increase over prior periods, and several of us find it alarming. That's not counting muggings, burglaries, and strong-arm robberies.
I don't see how recognizing those facts in risk management can be called paranoia.
On the risks of carrying a gun: first, and foremost, I presume that one would do so lawfully
and conduct himself prudently and lawfully while doing so. That means, among other things, that
your gun does not come out until the sky is about to come down on you. You have alluded to the possibility of being subjected to adverse legal action for carrying a gun; if the gun has not come out, there is no basis for concern; if it has, it is because you have
much bigger problems than what the DA might say.
But one might take it further. For both cases--carrying a gun, and avoiding and defending against attack, one would first identify all of the significant risks, and then analyze them; consider possible mitigation techniques; and finally, make a decision on whether and how to mitigate the risks or to accept them without mitigation.
Analyzing the risks involves
both (1) assessing the likelihood of occurrence--a very difficult process, which often requires a lot of subjectivity, and (2) assessing the potential consequences.
I submit that there are more risks attendant to carrying a gun than the legal ones--consider the possibility of accident or loss, for example. How likely? Hard to judge. How serious? Can they be mitigated? And finally, how does the potential outcome compare to what could happen if one is not carrying when the need materializes?
Of course, if the initial assumption--that of lawful and prudent conduct--is wrong, that moves the whole discussion to another subject, and that is not about "justifying the gun."
It's rampant paranoia to assume that the odds are even between needing a gun and not needing a gun, which is, of course, preposterous.
Agree that it's an entirely unrealistic assessment, but I would not try to ascribe a psychological reason for it.
However, it "ain't just the odds, it's the stakes", as they say, and the same thing applies to seat belts, air bags, fire extinguishers, selection of fire resistant fabrics, locking up poisons, and carrying pepper sprays. Very low odds, and very high stakes, in each case.
Each person's assessment and decision may vary. I try to mitigate the risks to which you allude by understanding the laws, training, the use of safe holsters, education, and more training.
I try to mitigate the risks of being attacked the same way, and by constant alertness, thinking ahead, and by recognizing that non-attendance is the best way to survive any violent confrontation.
I keep my firearms secure, I have several fire extinguishers in the house, cell phones, and an automatic emergency generator. I do not bungee jump or ride a motorcycle, I no longer own and will never own a muzzle loading weapon (ever try to identify the risks on that?), I do not go up on the roof, and I do not have a chain saw and never will again. Perhaps some people would consider some of these to border on "paranoia."
I hope you find this helpful.
