Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
You don't even understand your own argument.
Potential odds don't change with more dire consequences. If I have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being hit by lightning and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning a free iPod, it's still the same odds and they should reasonably receive the same preparation. That's what you two seem to be missing. It's very unlikely that I will ever be involved in a gun crime again, therefore making preparations for such an event would be a waste of time.
|
I don't have a position one way or the other on the issue, but potential consequences are bound to have an effect on decision-making. I think that most people understand the odds.
It seems that the argument from the gun side is: Yes, the odds are unlikely that I will need to use my gun, but I consider
1) the costs of carrying a gun to be sufficiently low and
2)the costs of not having the gun when I might need it to be sufficiently high.
Does anybody disagree about the odds? It seems like the argument is mostly about whether the costs/benefits of carrying are sufficient to justify carrying given the low odds.
EDIT: It doesn't have to be "guns". The same calculations are likely being done whichever method you may choose to employ to defend yourself.