One problem with the very logical and sensible point that Obdi brings up about the degree of risk most people who feel the need for a gun for self defense are ACTUALLY exposed to is that it is irrelevant to pretty much all of them, and the counterarguments are already made into t-shirts. “You never need a gun until you REALLY, REALLY NEED it!”, for example.

The whole rational argument falls apart under the equivalent of Cheney’s ‘One Percent Doctrine’, whereby even if the chance of something horrible happening is only 1%, that 1% still justifies taking extreme action. Similarly, even if the chance that your home will be invaded is tiny, it’s still not zero, and the consequences are presumed to be SO AWFUL as to justify the increased risk of a gun in the house.

Mind you, most of these folks will assume there is NO INCREASED RISK for them, because they’re Responsible Gun Owners. It’s never Responsible Gun Owners whose children accidentally shoot themselves or their siblings or playmates, nor do Responsible Gun Owners ever accidentally shoot themselves, or get angry or drunk and do something stupid and kill someone.

No, THEY are immune to that risk.

As luck would have it, Mrs. J spent the mornings this weekend at a gun safety class, because her Gal Pals thought it might be fun. She enjoyed the class, and the shooting, but has no interest in following it up. (She enjoys classes of just about any kind, and always excels at the book larnin’ part). Neither of us feels particularly inclined to pursue firearms as a hobby.