Lion in Winter

Indeed.

The odd bear or mountain lion in the wilderness is one thing, but in most people's lives, most of the time, that is not the issue. This stuff, however, is.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/b...le-association

Apparently having a gun gets you shot more often and gets other innocent parties shot more often too. I can't see any training that will overcome that.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's called "gun control." The data suggests that it works. It's not perfect, of course, but it reduces the problem from what it otherwise would be without it.

RoadWarriorFromLP

People are generally pretty lousy at understanding risk and risk mitigation.

The best way to reduce the odds of a given problem is to reduce your exposure to the possibility of it arising, not to deliberately expose yourself to that problem after taking a training course.

lansbury

If you don't think training has any effect, they why you think gun control would prevent people from being idiots beggars belief. A total ban on ownership of firearms would remove the gun from the idiot, but how you think that is a possible solution and could remove all guns from private ownership isn't comprehensible. If you are gullible enough to think it is possible I still have that bridge for sale.

I am all for more stringent gun control, requiring checks for private sale and even mandatory training before being allowed to purchase a gun but there are so many guns in known and unknown hands that the thought of a total ban is living in cloud cuckoo land.

lansbury

So you think I take training on how to properly handle and use a firearm then deliberately go out carrying said firearm trying to put myself in a situation where I can use it.

If that is what you really are saying than that must be about the most stupid comment made on BE since I've been a member.

RoadWarriorFromLP

I've made a common sense point that is supported through data and research.

If you want to avoid being shot, then your odds are best if you stay away from guns.

Similarly, if you expose yourself to guns, then you increase the odds that you will be harmed by them.

The problem with training is that it often leads to more exposure to said risk, since people who get training will probably then proceed to increase the time that they spend around guns. And as I've just covered, that increases the odds of something going against you.

If you like guns, then that's your choice. But if you think that guns make you safer, then you're missing some very obvious arithmetic. It's just math(s).

scrubbedexpat099

I have cut myself many times with paper.

Yet to shoot myself with a gun.

Statistically we should ban paper.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's certainly true that you are more likely to get a paper cut from paper than from a gun.

But it's pretty difficult to murder someone or accidentally kill your three-year old sister with a sheet of paper. (Not impossible, but it would pose a bit of a challenge.)

scrubbedexpat099

My guess is that paper, or what is printed on it, would win comfortably.

lansbury

It is very glib to say stay away from guns, but most people never know if they are near a gun or not. Most shooting victims were themselves unarmed, supported by data and research, and the fact they stayed away from guns didn't work out well for them. The staying away part is beyond your control, and there are no practical means to bring it within your control.

Pulaski

FIFY!

RoadWarriorFromLP

It's not glib at all. You can minimize your exposure if you so choose, particularly if you elect to not own one. Again, the odds are that if you hurt by a gun that it will be your own.

As noted above, data shows that those who have guns are more likely to be harmed by them than those who don't. And that makes complete sense.

Here's an example of how this works: We can say with complete certainty that more people died in automobile accidents in 2013 than in 1613, because they had no automobiles in 1613. Of course, that doesn't mean that all forms of transport were safe in 1613 or that no one died in 1613, but we know for certain that cars didn't kill them.

That doesn't necessarily mean that we should avoid driving, either, or that driving doesn't offer any benefits that would justify at least some of it. But if someone tells you that the best way to reduce car fatalities is to drive more, then you are being lied to.

scrubbedexpat099

I would accept that if I was to be hurt by a knife, it will most likely be my own, cut myself enough times.

Pulaski

But by your own logic (#81, above), we should eliminate driving tests and outlaw drivers ed' because training is likely to increase exposure to the risk.

SultanOfSwing

Quite honestly there are more than a few days when I wonder if that hasn't already been done ...