Dealing with Risk

[Middle Age Russ]

Each of us deals with a series of risk vs. rewards decisions throughout our waking hours each day. I don't know why it didn't dawn on me sooner, but the recent discussions here regarding OC and newly posted signage may have played a role in me coming to a realization. One main difference between those of us who choose to carry a sidearm and those who are vehemently opposed to anyone carrying one is in how we view and deal with risk.

Sidearm carriers often prefer to limit risk by not going at all where carrying a sidearm is legally banned. The risk of some unknown person acting in a manner that makes us fear for our lives is undesirable, so we try to avoid places which bar us from carrying tools to help stop them. The key here is that we are basing our stance on our personal potential to mitigate this risk -- to stop the threat -- ourselves, with our personal tools -- hardware, knowledge, skill and behavior. In other words, as self-accountable adults we view risks as things OUR ACTIONS at the time of an event can affect in a favorable way so we go about our business prepared to act if the need arises.

Anti-gun activists also see the potential risk from bad actors as undesirable, but instead of empowering themselves to mitigate such risk, they focus not on the bad actor or their actions but on the tools sometimes used by them -- demonizing guns and those who choose to carry them regardless of the intent and proclivities of the person. This focus on the tool seems to deny them the ability to think about affecting events as they occur. Their arguments are often laced with statements like "only police should have guns" and "an untrained person doesn't stand a chance against a gun-man". These arguments speak to their own feelings of ineffectiveness in dealing with the world around them, and pushing for disarmament is their only recourse. In essence they are saying that it isn't fair for an attacker to have a gun so they want to change the playground rules rather than to prepare to stand up for themselves.

It really isn't fair for one person to use a tool of force on another but the playground of life doesn't guarantee or even favor fairness. A quick study of history shows that this sort of thing has been happening since Cain and Abel and people who want to exert their will over others will find a way or a tool. Since life isn't fair and there are bad men with large brains and opposable thumbs ready to use tools to harm others in their personal quests, adults must decide whether their life is important enough to protect or not. If so, they should go about acquiring tools (and even arms if so inclined) to that end. If not, their personally safety relies on the beneficence of others, which can hardly be counted on. Non-adults simply cry to the playground monitor.

[thetexan]

All true.

My main problem with posting .06 and .07 is that it clearly identifies a building full of defenseless people. It marks the patrons as a perfect target to someone who might want to attack the place.

This transcends guns or my desire to carry them for defense. Why would anyone including anti gun persons take their family to a theater that has advertised to the criminals that everyone inside is unarmed and defenseless.

The anti gun ilk does not understand that criminals do not observe signs or laws. The very signs they depend on for their supposed safety are the very signs that are meaningless to and unenforceable against the gunman who wishes to massacre the place. They are too intellectually shallow in their calculations on the subject to realize that it is the trained, licensed, vetted, law abiding patrons who do observe the signs that are being kept out as well as any hope of defense should a tragedy occur.

Just another defenseless patron zone.

tex

[Abraham]

Middle Age Russ & thetexan,

Both of you: Well said!

[Middle Age Russ]

The anti gun ilk does not understand that criminals do not observe signs or laws.

I get your point, but I think as a stand-alone statement is incorrect at least using one meaning of the word observe. Particularly in the cases of mass shootings, the criminals involved seem to have observed (as in taken notice of) the signs specifically to target people in otherwise gun-free areas. The criminals simply chose/choose to disobey the intent of the signs/laws. If observe means that they not only take notice of but also obey, then I agree totally.

As you point out, such signs are about as effective at preventing undesired behavior as a restraining order.