Parenting writer blasts 'paranoia' of protecting our families with guns, says buying 'life insurance' is better idea — and gets hammered for it

4 Likes

Yup, we really have to stop asking how stupid can they get. The meme was right, they’re taking it as a challenge.

5 Likes

What a maroon!

2 Likes

Um wow…

Let’s start by remembering to take the high road here. No name calling.

She’s very lucky that she can have that opinion because hasn’t been exposed to the violence in the world on a first hand basis. I pray she - and everyone else - never has to experience the kind of life threatening encounter that we all carry to protect our families against. But I know that isn’t always reality.

People get attacked every day. Every 73 seconds someone in the US is sexually assaulted. 48% of them are assaulted when they’re at home. 1 out of 6 women will be raped in their lifetime… the numbers are real. The threat is real.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

I will continue to pray it never happens, but I will also continue to prepare to defend my loved ones.

4 Likes

And she “muted” her thread to prevent any opposing comments from being shown that were in opposition to her argument. I guess she didn’t want an actual discussion.

I agree with her from that aspect that there are more critical things to have in the home to protect your family before a firearm…e.g. I would argue that that if you don’t have a solid first aid kit/bag (and the skills to go along with) you should make that your next purchase instead of a new gun and/or more ammo. The rationale she has is right, statistically you’ll need that first aid skill set before you need your defensive gun skill set. Same with smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

However…a couple points…first…her argument for not owning a handgun because it’s statistically an improbable event. What she misses is that’s dependent on where you live. She also missed the point that although statistically improbable, there are dire results if it does occur and the homeowner is not capable of defending themselves and family.

I could make the same case that it’s statistically improbable that I’ll ever have a fire in my home so why bother with smoke detectors and/or fire extinguishers? Because if it ever does occur, not having them will have dire consequences.

Second, these safety precautions are not mutually exclusive…I can have a smoke detector AND a handgun AND a fire extinguisher AND a First Aid bag AND a shotgun, AND flood insurance AND candles if the lights go out, AND 3mo food/water supply for the family should some disaster occur. See how that works? It’s not “or”, it’s “and” it’s simply a matter of prioritizing and maximizing.

So she’s right and I agree with her…….but she’s also wrong and disagree with her (how’s that for looking at both sides. :slight_smile: )

5 Likes

The likelihood of of an intruder trying to kill me is statistically low. And as more people purchase guns for self defense the likelyhood will drop even more.
There is almost no crime where I live. Per capita I live in the safest city in the US. It’s because the VAST majority of the population has weapons. Criminals know that and just move on past. They know there are easier targets than here.

We are the militia.

2 Likes

That is an AMAZING response @JamesR! Love it!!

2 Likes

Hmm… I wonder if an argument could be made statistically showing buying more insurance protects someone more than enacting gun control. :smiley:

1 Like

First off… statistically more likely to be injured by your own gun… WRONG! That turnip has been used by everyone in gun control and the anti-gun media and it’s just wrong… I’ll dig out the Dr. John Lott evidence for it when I’m not on the road.

More importantly, in assessing risk you have to look at THREE factors when you calculate risk. Probability, Severity, and Mitigation Effectiveness. Without looking at all three you CANNOT make appropriate judgements about which risks to concern yourself with and what mitigations have value.

She looks only at probability… and that’s a foolish and ineffective way to assess risk. Anyone who has the responsibility for actually responding to risk would be fired as incompetent for doing it that way.

Just looking at in-home defense from a home invasion:

  1. Probability: where I live: low to very low. Where some folks live: moderate to low.
  2. Severity: High to critical (emotional trauma is the bare minimum consequence, rape, death, serious bodily harm, loss of family members are the maximum)

^^ If this were a medical device or pharmaceutical risk assessment, that combo would fall into the “Must Be Mitigated” level of harm.

  1. Effectiveness of Mitigation: for firearms self defense by someone who trains, excellent reduction of the resulting harm.

^^ might still need further mitigation by other things like an alarm system, a big dog, security film on the windows, deadbolts, etc.

Residual Risk After Mitigation: low

BTW: Mitigations only have value if they are PREVENTATIVE. That is, they reduce either the severity of the harm, or the likelihood of it happening.

Things like life insurance and arrival of the cops after the fact are NOT mitigations… they apply only after the harm has ALREADY occurred and therefore have no mitigating value.

Prevention of harm is what counts, patching things up after the fact with life insurance is the booby prize.

4 Likes

Doctor @Zee I presume…:face_with_monocle: :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

:nerd_face: Medical Device Engineer Zee…
@JamesR, is my career printing? :innocent:

1 Like

There it is!!! Thought I recognized that lingo…yep it’s printing, love it!! :slight_smile:

1 Like

If you put a monetary value on your loved ones deaths buy the insurance. If you want to stay alive and not live in Venezuela …Protect your Second Amendment…

1 Like