Bam. Spot on.
A little once-removed personal experience with this -- someone I know had a friend who was bragging about the pistol he was keeping for home protection. He was taking a strong stance about his 2A right to defend his property during a conversation. The person I know brought up the point that I did, mentioning that the statistics show that someone in the home is more likely to be injured with a gun in the house than it is to be used for protective measures. The person dismissed that as nonsense. Less than a year later, that person's teenage son got ahold of his poorly-secured handgun and accidentally shot himself in front of his friend.
Another kid I knew in middle school, a couple of years younger than me in my brother's class, accidentally shot and killed his friend in a similar circumstance.
Have at it if the pistol brings comfort, but the statistics show otherwise and I have no comfort with relying on one for protection when the greater chance is that someone I love or know gets shot instead. I'd rather have the security of knowing my kids will be safe and that my rifle & shotgun will be very secure until they're needed to put venison and turkey in my freezer.
At risk of putting words in MidwestRoadie's mouth, I think where the fire insurance analogy breaks down is the fact that you don't have to worry about accidentally shooting yourself or a family member with your fire insurance policy in a high stress situation, you don't have to worry that you'll forget to secure your fire insurance policy and have a child start playing with it and shoot himself or sibling/playmate, you don't have to worry about bad people learning you have a fire insurance policy in the home and seeking to break and in and steal it (the very thing people are worried about in this thread), and so on. The potential downside of a fire insurance policy is paying for it when you never end up having to use it. The downsides to a loaded weapon in the home are considerably different.
<<I don't want to be caught off guard, and being unable to defend my family and myself fills me with a special kind of horror all out of proportion with the actual likelihood of something bad happening.>>
Fair enough, and good on you for recognizing how your background and 'quirks' (to use your word) have shaped your perspective on this. I think MWR's point (and that of others) is that the horror is out of proportion to its likelihood of something happening, and the horror may actually manifest in a different way if someone you love gets hurt with the weapon that you've got at the ready to protect them.
In the end, to each his own, and I certainly won't tell others how they should protect their family in their own home. But the insurance and seatbelt analogies always seem significantly flawed to me in this kind of discussion.
A little once-removed personal experience with this -- someone I know had a friend who was bragging about the pistol he was keeping for home protection. He was taking a strong stance about his 2A right to defend his property during a conversation. The person I know brought up the point that I did, mentioning that the statistics show that someone in the home is more likely to be injured with a gun in the house than it is to be used for protective measures. The person dismissed that as nonsense. Less than a year later, that person's teenage son got ahold of his poorly-secured handgun and accidentally shot himself in front of his friend.
Another kid I knew in middle school, a couple of years younger than me in my brother's class, accidentally shot and killed his friend in a similar circumstance.
Have at it if the pistol brings comfort, but the statistics show otherwise and I have no comfort with relying on one for protection when the greater chance is that someone I love or know gets shot instead. I'd rather have the security of knowing my kids will be safe and that my rifle & shotgun will be very secure until they're needed to put venison and turkey in my freezer.
wimsey wrote:
<<To continue the fire insurance analogy, is paying for home insurance synonymous with "worrying about it"?>> At risk of putting words in MidwestRoadie's mouth, I think where the fire insurance analogy breaks down is the fact that you don't have to worry about accidentally shooting yourself or a family member with your fire insurance policy in a high stress situation, you don't have to worry that you'll forget to secure your fire insurance policy and have a child start playing with it and shoot himself or sibling/playmate, you don't have to worry about bad people learning you have a fire insurance policy in the home and seeking to break and in and steal it (the very thing people are worried about in this thread), and so on. The potential downside of a fire insurance policy is paying for it when you never end up having to use it. The downsides to a loaded weapon in the home are considerably different.
<<I don't want to be caught off guard, and being unable to defend my family and myself fills me with a special kind of horror all out of proportion with the actual likelihood of something bad happening.>>
Fair enough, and good on you for recognizing how your background and 'quirks' (to use your word) have shaped your perspective on this. I think MWR's point (and that of others) is that the horror is out of proportion to its likelihood of something happening, and the horror may actually manifest in a different way if someone you love gets hurt with the weapon that you've got at the ready to protect them.
In the end, to each his own, and I certainly won't tell others how they should protect their family in their own home. But the insurance and seatbelt analogies always seem significantly flawed to me in this kind of discussion.