Churchgoer Tries to Hide Gun After Accidentally Shooting It Mid-Prayer

[pudly]

I have a hard time lumping a handgun in with a smoker detector as it's sole purpose is to send an alarm out warning you of a fire and the other, when used, is most likely going to kill someone.

But I think most people follow your line of thinking in that the odds don't matter, as long as there is risk, it's getting carried. Which is hard for me to really come up with a counterpoint because how people weigh their odds of staying alive by carrying is subjective. Calculating odds of risk is appropriate anywhere, it's just how strongly you view correlation is where you get different standards of appropriateness.

The purpose of a handgun carry is not to kill someone, but to protect ourselves. If an attacker dies after confronting us or those under our protection, then it is a regrettable necessity, not something we are looking forward to. The choice to use a handgun is because it is the best tool to stop an attack. If it wasn't, then knives, pepper spray, tazers, or whatever would be the preferred tool.

 

[Kart29]

What could be more American than exercising one's right to freely assemble, freely exercise one's religion, and freely bear arms all at the same time. If we don't use our rights, we will lose them. Taking a gun to church feels quite patriotic to me.

I carry almost always carry a firearm to church. During the week there are a surprising number of shady looking characters that come to the church asking for money. On Sundays, I don't particularly feel the need to be packing heat during the worship service. But my family and I travel the highways and remote roads going to and from services. Who knows... while on my way to church I might want to stop and engage a stranger on the road who appears to have car trouble or need assistance. Maybe on the way home I'll have car trouble on the road and strangers will approach me. I mostly carry my pistol to church thinking there could be a need for it on the way to or from church instead of at church. And, I think it's safer to keep it with me in church than it is to leave it unattended in a car.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I have a hard time lumping a handgun in with a smoker detector as it's sole purpose is to send an alarm out warning you of a fire and the other, when used, is most likely going to kill someone.

But I think most people follow your line of thinking in that the odds don't matter, as long as there is risk, it's getting carried. Which is hard for me to really come up with a counterpoint because how people weigh their odds of staying alive by carrying is subjective. Calculating odds of risk is appropriate anywhere, it's just how strongly you view correlation is where you get different standards of appropriateness.

You should look up the statistics on self defense uses of firearms that don't result in a shot being fired. It is interesting stuff and would seem to support the exact opposite of what you stated.

 

[jbmayes2000]

You should look up the statistics on self defense uses of firearms that don't result in a shot being fired. It is interesting stuff and would seem to support the exact opposite of what you stated.

10 min google search didn't really come back with anything that specific. Would you happen to have a link or better keywords?

 

[SteveM4A1]

10 min google search didn't really come back with anything that specific. Would you happen to have a link or better keywords?

Read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime for an overview.

You could also check out Kleck and Gertz.

Gary Kleck, and Marc Gertz, Defensive Gun Use: Vengeful vigilante imagery versus reality: results from the National Self-Defense Survey
http://jthomasniu.org/class/Stuff/PDF/kleck3.pdf

Or you could check out the critics as well, such as McDowall

John R. Lott, Jr.?s Defensive Gun Brandishing Estimates

 

[BugI02]

I don't think you'll find many people - if any at all - at INGO who would not agree that training is beneficial. The disconnect is tying a requirement for training to the exercise of a natural right - or for judging the appropriateness of the exercise of a natural right on training. It would be akin to saying, "It's not appropriate for him to be voting; he hasn't studied the issues," or, "It's not appropriate for him to be blogging; he hasn't been trained in journalism."

In a free society, we should focus less on the prerequisites to exercising natural rights, and focus more on holding people accountable for the manner in which they use - or misuse - those rights.

EXTRAORDINARILY well said. Would rep you if I could

 

[BugI02]

jbMayes, I'm sure you've heard this before. The map is not the territory. Statistics are a SIMPLIFICATION of a complex reality and are most useful as a tool in trying to spot trends and similarities about the whole. The statistical risk is the median or average risk, not MY risk. By their nature statistics are pixelated and this should be kept in mind. Statistics show that the stock market has more than doubled since late2008/early 2009 by most any measure - does that mean you should invest your life savings now?

 

[jbmayes2000]

jbMayes, I'm sure you've heard this before. The map is not the territory. Statistics are a SIMPLIFICATION of a complex reality and are most useful as a tool in trying to spot trends and similarities about the whole. The statistical risk is the median or average risk, not MY risk. By their nature statistics are pixelated and this should be kept in mind. Statistics show that the stock market has more than doubled since late2008/early 2009 by most any measure - does that mean you should invest your life savings now?

Speaking to just this specific case, your risk versus the calculated risk isn't going to change enough to make a recognizable difference unless you are out to purposely be the outlier.
I agree it's simplifying a complex issue but it's our nature to try and make complex things simple.

Investing during boom years is typically going to yield you a lower ROI. It's actually one of the biggest investing bad decisions because people buy high and end up selling low. I understand the point you are making however!

 

[BugI02]

My tolerance for risk is what determines an acceptable risk to me. What level of risk someone else thinks should be acceptable is not germane. Any non-zero risk to myself, or most especially my loved ones, is unacceptable to me, especially if through my actions I can mitigate said risk. Hence I am almost always armed. Statistically improbable things still happen.
If you use statistics to shape your life may I assume you dont smoke, drink in moderation, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, have a BMI between 18 and 23, eschew saturated fats and excessive salt, wear your seat belt, drive the speed limit etc. etc. etc?

 

[BE Mike]

My tolerance for risk is what determines an acceptable risk to me. What level of risk someone else thinks should be acceptable is not germane. Any non-zero risk to myself, or most especially my loved ones, is unacceptable to me, especially if through my actions I can mitigate said risk. Hence I am almost always armed. Statistically improbable things still happen.
If you use statistics to shape your life may I assume you dont smoke, drink in moderation, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, have a BMI between 18 and 23, eschew saturated fats and excessive salt, wear your seat belt, drive the speed limit etc. etc. etc?

May I add don't ride motorcycles, especially without a helmet.

 

[jbmayes2000]

My tolerance for risk is what determines an acceptable risk to me. What level of risk someone else thinks should be acceptable is not germane. Any non-zero risk to myself, or most especially my loved ones, is unacceptable to me, especially if through my actions I can mitigate said risk. Hence I am almost always armed. Statistically improbable things still happen.
If you use statistics to shape your life may I assume you dont smoke, drink in moderation, eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, have a BMI between 18 and 23, eschew saturated fats and excessive salt, wear your seat belt, drive the speed limit etc. etc. etc?

Yeah I pretty much do most of those things! ha!! It's hard leading a boring life!

But I can understand why people can see a very small risk as unacceptable when it comes to life and death.

May I add don't ride motorcycles, especially without a helmet.

I don't do that either but after watching "Long Way Round" and "Long Way Down" several years ago there is a deep suppressed want for a motorcycle!

 

[BugI02]

Yeah I pretty much do most of those things! ha!! It's hard leading a boring life!

But I can understand why people can see a very small risk as unacceptable when it comes to life and death.



I don't do that either but after watching "Long Way Round" and "Long Way Down" several years ago there is a deep suppressed want for a motorcycle!

We have acheived understanding