Concealed carry confusion

The unarmed person often becomes the statistic.

Unarmed

Armed

BTW ... I 100% respect your decision to not ccw or cary.  I have equal respect for ones choice to ccw or open cary where the law permits.  I also believe there are times, though unlawful, it is warranted.  Dont take my right away because a few dont believe in it.

To me, I understand carrying in the woods to defend against carnivores (and to some extent pot growers), but in everyday life It doesn't make any sense to me.  I value my safety (and my kiddo), if its an unsafe situation or location I avoid it.  there are plenty of places that are off limits for safety reasons, nuclear power reactors, gas turbine generator rooms, China Lake, North Korea, Oak Park Sacramento, Oakland after midnight.  Being there puts me at risk, having a handgun only marginally increases my safety if at all.


I don't care if you carry, but I do think its silly 99 percent of the time, and the extra confidence may just increase your risk.


As far as California law on the issue, stupid is as stupid does.  Buy a deer and bear tag (pig if you live on the coast) and open carry a 44mag for 4 months.  That's when mountain fishing is good anyway.  No CCW required and if you luck out, dinner is served.

When it comes to statistics everything I've ever read is pretty clear. You're risk of homicide,suicide and accidental death by gun is greatly increased by gun ownership. I'm not against having weapons but I have to take that into account when deciding if I'm making my family safer by carrying or not. I  know people who's family members have been killed by firearms accidents and suicides but I do not know anyone who was murdered for lack of a gun.

I  know people who's family members have been killed by firearms accidents and suicides but I do not know anyone who was murdered for lack of a gun.

That sounds like a statistically significant sample. I'm convinced.

What could be more significant than the people who you actually know? After all they're pretty much the only ones your going to concern yourselves with right? In the small town I'm from where gun ownership is off the charts high it's extremely common for Someone to accidentally shoot them self or someone else. Harvard has done some pretty good research on the subject if you're looking for a more objective academic approach.
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

I'm not against guns but to be realistic kids are dumb. Accidents happen everyday with adults also. Arguments  turn fatal with a far greater frequency when guns are accessible. These are just facts.

When it comes to statistics everything I've ever read is pretty clear. You're risk of homicide,suicide and accidental death by gun is greatly increased by gun ownership. I'm not against having weapons but I have to take that into account when deciding if I'm making my family safer by carrying or not. I  know people who's family members have been killed by firearms accidents and suicides but I do not know anyone who was murdered for lack of a gun.

Sorry for your loss.

Negligent discharge and suicide can't be blamed on the gun.
If someone has decided to take their own life the gun is just the tool they decided to use, same as a knife or bridge.

I bet anyone who has been murdered weather it be a mugger a firearm a bad beating whatever, would have wanted the means to defend themselves rather than be dead. So the point is if they were able to defend themselves maybe they wouldn't be dead.

That opinion Article is crap. I tried to read the Harvard article linked in the article you linked, but there was a charge for it and I'm not paying for it.

Is it really telling of anything that gun accidents are more common in homes with guns in them. No shit?  Next you're going to tell me that car accidents became more common after the invention of the automobile.

Statistics have limitations. Correlation does not imply causation. I can cherry pick statistics to say whatever I want them to say too, but someone has already done that I'm sure.

Like in Freakonomics. Swimming pools at home are 100 times more dangerous to children than guns at home.

http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

Does that mean that you shouldn't have a swimming pool? 

Does that mean that you shouldn't have a swimming pool?

Then where will my turtles swim?  I like turtles.

-Allen

Actually what that means is buying a swimming pool to keep your kids safe from drowning would be a questionable tactic.

As far as the increase risk of having a gun in the home it's not just accidents. It's all manners of gun deaths across the board. Accidents,suicides and homicides are all increased. You can make statistics say anything you want to some extent but I have yet to see a statistic that indicates where an individual is safer when there's a gun in the home. The best reason to have a gun in the home to me is because they're fun and I like to shoot shit. I don't fantasize about someday shooting a burglar or stopping a bank robbery but a big spider better think twice before sneaking up on me

The time has come for me to not look at this post anymore

Actually what that means is buying a swimming pool to keep your kids safe from drowning would be a questionable tactic.

Wouldn't do that, or would I buy a gun to keep my kids safe from gun accidents.

I don't know what this all has to do with the OP, and I really don't know why anyone would think it was a good idea to try to convince gun owners that it's a bad idea to own guns. I don't think you gonna change any minds.

The time has come for me to not look at this post anymore

Made you look.  Like a bad car accident.  How can you turn away.