re: #20 Political Atheist

I totally get that decision for yourself. Taking your view as some kind of best national guideline is where we do part ways.

It’s not my view. It’s rational reality. Most people don’t need a gun to protect themselves. Few people live in an area where they likelihood of being attacked is higher than the likelihood of an accident with the gun, the gun being stolen, etc. Those that do live in those areas are still more likely to be attacked by a friend, and often guns never come into play in self-defense in those areas since it starts off as a regular fight.

There is a little flaw in your logic-By the time they take the class they own the gun. 99% of the time. I’m pissed at myself for not pointing this out long ago. Oh well.

Again, no clue what you’re talking about.

So who chooses exactly what crime level or threat level justifies the gun? And forecasts exactly where these people will travel or live? Go by zipcode and pretend bad guys don’t do harm in nice neighborhoods… much? Encino, no gun, but get one if you live in gangland areas?

There’s no exact answer. But most people buying don’t actually know the crime rate in their area at all. They’re not making a rational, informed decision that the gun will help them be safer. And most of the time, people are able to convince themselves they’ll be more diligent about safety than they actually will be.

If you need a metric, then it’d be the rate of violent attack by strangers in your neighborhood, compared to the rate of gun accidents among people who’ve had whatever level of training you’re really willing to do and keep up with.