"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:51:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with
that.
Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?
How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In
other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?
Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.
Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights.
We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.
You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend
himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in
a
bad movie.
My point is, why are we talking about Dave's definition of reality?
Or your, or Andrew's, or anyone else's?
Because, if you read the thread, that's what Dave and Steve were talking
about, while they were disparaging Andrew's, and to which I objected. It was
an unnecessary and sarcastic put-down after Andrew was making a pretty good
effort to express incredulity without being insulting. On top of it, their
remarks are based on baloney.
Steve says, "Enjoy your Pollyannish Utopia... Don't ferget yer rose colored
glasses when you go out." Dave says, "Then why do you presume to inject your
irrelevant fantasy world into reality so frequently?" Who is living in the
pollyanish [sic], utopian, irrelevant fantasy world? Not Andrew.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.
Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that
I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.
It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you
do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?
It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.
It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.
Exactly. The "accuracy" depends entirely on one's circumstances and
experiences.
So, does Dave sell drugs and live in a crack alley? He says there have only
been a couple of murders in his area since the mid-'90s, so, much more
likely, Dave is inclined to get more emotionally upset over the very remote
chance he'll be threatened with a gun, while probably doing nothing
comparable to defend his life in potential car accidents. All accidents
together rank 5th among causes of death. Homicides, all causes, rank 15th.
Car accidents alone rank somewhere around 9th. Firearms homicides rank
around 18th.
In other words, the REALITY is that you should spend a great deal more
effort protecting yourself from car accidents, including such things as the
five-point harness and roll cages I mentioned before, if you are going to
deal with the REAL relative threats. And for God's sake, stay away from
motorcycles: the per-mile death rate riding those things is 20 times higher
than for cars (NHTSA, April, 2003).
As the man said, everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but he isn't
entitled to his own facts. The truth is that the extensive effort some gun
owners put into defending themselves with a gun is NOT based on "reality,"
but rather it's based on the very common, very intense anger and resentment
we feel about the prospects of having our lives threatened, or taken, by
some criminal who uses a gun to coerce and kill.
Sticking to reality, the real threat Andrew faces from armed criminals is
quite small, if you look at the figures for Australia. He faces a *much*
greater threat from a car accident and from many other kinds of avoidable
circumstances, including overeating. g So, as I said, he's living
rationally in the real world. Dave and Steve...well, they're entitled to
their emotional reactions. There are just enough gun threats and homicides
out there that one can carry a gun to defend himself and be within reason.
And that's their choice, as I've said repeatedly. This isn't a question of
rights. It's a question of what the more "reality" driven course of action
is.
Anyone who is honest about this issue has to realize that the whole carry
issue is based on at least 75% emotion and maybe 25% reality. In the case of
most threats of that order of magnitude most of us exercise some caution but
we don't engage any extreme measures -- certainly nothing like dry-firing
your pistol every night. We incorporate those levels of danger into our list
of acceptable risks and get on with it. Heck, some people even ride
motorcycles. They have a *big* risk tolerance. I used to race sports cars,
ride motorcycles, and do lots of things that require a lot of risk
tolerance.
So the "reality" argument is so much hogwash. The crime figures show that
the risk for almost all of us, except for those people who live or work in
seriously crime-infested areas, is much lower than for other kinds of risks
we face. This isn't really about risks, in other words. It's about emotions,
and they aren't usually rational. The disparaging remarks Dave and Steve
made about Andrew's take on all this are just so much insulting baloney.
snip
You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather
live
in a fantasy world, like them?
Neither. Your gross numbers may not be another's particular reality.
Dave told us he lives in a fairly murder-free area. That appears to be his
"reality," in his own words.
snip
No, reality is in specific individual reality, however improbable the
numbers may declare it to be. The numbers describe the realities
that many others in a wide variety of circumstances have experienced.
Consider the statistician that drowned in a river with a mean depth of
20 inches and standard deviation of 5 inches...
If an event has low probability but would have very high cost, it
has significant cost risk even though it is improbable.
So, do you wear five-point harness, a Nomex suit, and have a roll cage in
your car? If not, why not? The risk of dying in a car accident has low
probability but high cost. If we applied your logic here, anyone who makes a
claim about what is a real threat and what is not (Dave and Steve), who
don't go to lengths comparable to carrying and training with a gun, with all
that entails, isn't being very consistent, is he? That is, unless he also
has an emotional motive regarding defense against armed criminals, as well
as a reality-based motive to protect his life.
You and I and Andrew do not feel the need to carry. Lucky us! I
certainly can see how others might, and I certainly can imagine
situations and circumstances where I definitely would.
Sure. So can I. I seriously doubt if Dave or Steve have a "need" that
exceeds their reality-based need to go to at least equal lengths in regard
to much more likely threats they face, but that's their business. I just
don't see how Dave or Steve get off claiming that Andrew is living a
fantasy.
Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a
little
back at him.
Tit for tat, eh?
I don't care what you call it, Don, but the kind of disparaging sarcasm I
referred to above shouldn't go unanswered.
--
Ed Huntress