On Lott's work: I will point out he does say that the people most likely to be carrying guns (older white dudes) are the least likely to be targeted for violent crime and the people least likely to be carrying guns (younger minority females) are the least likely to carry a gun. If the gun would matter, since most of those are victimized by people they know, is a different discussion but does point out a major flaw in his work. It is an academic work for policy makers and social conversations. It is as useless for threat analysis for any given individual as knowing the average global temperature when selecting what to wear to work in your front yard for the day.
The dangerous people/dangerous weapons thing is catchy but takes it too far. "Dangerous weapons" give you more options, nothing more or less. In many instances the gun may not be a needed, or even useful, option. In others it very much is the only option. The 'food court hero' displays that. It's beyond intelligent debate that, regardless of how dangerous that young man turned out to be, his chances of prevailing were greatly increased due to his dangerous weapon. He was able to intervene sooner and from a greater distance due to having a projectile weapon and had he just been a 'dangerous person' more people would have died before he could intervene and his chances of successful intervention would plummet? Or that a careless fool carrying a pistol is not more dangerous for having it? Shooting your dick off is a danger, after all, and people accidentally shoot themselves and each other with a regularity I once would have found shocking.
I can't fault Duke's risk/reward calculation. I have actually found it interesting to see the barriers he finds and being grateful so few apply to me. I am expected to be armed, I have solid legal backup, I live in a state that shields me from civil liability if I'm not criminally charged (which would be more absolute were I not sworn LE), I don't find it burdensome to carry, etc. The only time I have to decide if I'm going to carry or not is during travel and while going in water. I'm not quite paranoid enough to have a waterproof NAA in one of those water-park cell phone totes while I'm swimming yet.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
@Duke.
Dude, you are one o my heros. We have conversed a bit.Your decision is yours, and I am a bit proud of you for it. When I can't carry, I don't sweat it. When I can I do. I will continue to carry off duty,and you would not believe the number of shitheads I am professionally acquainted with that I see quite a bit off duty. One dude, who bit me two years ago,, requiring a bunch of crappy meds to prevent infection lives three blocks from my home,, The threat is minor, but still there. Your choice is not mine, and I don't judge you because of it. If you get killed, though, I will be pissed. But you have to live your life and do what you need to do.
you are one of the best shooters I have watched.. Based on my experience, I would make diffent decisions, buy you are a better shot than I, so I ain't got room to talk. When I can't be armed, I am OK with that. My gat ain't part of my masculinity.
When I can be, I am. When I can't be. I ain't. And I don't worry about it. If shit goes down, I either will be up to the task, or I won't be. Equipment will probably not be the deciding factor. Mindset and willingness will be. There are SOOO many places, I can't carry (or choose not to) that I expect to find "problems".
That I have to consider...things, The ability to not be armed will not, for instance, keep me from going to the Wierd AL Yankovic concert in Santa Fe nextmonth... Priorities. Life should be what I want it to be, but likely won't be, and I can accept and adapt, or not...
pat
Last edited by UNM1136; 08-27-2022 at 03:50 PM.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
And not starting a kitchen fire is much better than having to reach for your fire extinguisher.
And not getting in a car accident is much better than hoping the seatbelt/airbag system works.
This completely ignores the fact that some people are just beyond anything you might avoid or de-escalate. One cannot remain perfectly alert 24/7 or predict the future, this is completely ridiculous... if that were the case nobody would need a gun because everybody could just 'see' it coming and just not be there. Sometimes shit just follows you home and ambushes, homie. Have you ever been hunting before? Isn't it incredible that wild deer in a place like Michigan are one of the most difficult to kill animals on earth (because they are so sneaky, careful and alert) yet thousands of people are successful killing them up close in the woods every year. They do their absolute best to avoid these traps and they are quite smart but the odds are truly not on their side. I've had deer come within a few feet of me because of an excellent hiding spot and be completely clueless to my presence. How can you explain this? I would say almost with certainty they are far more alert than you are at detecting human presence for the most part.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.