[Vision2020] [more] Look See What Tri-State is Promoting . . .

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 8/12/2012 6:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> On 08/12/2012 03:34 PM, Kenneth Marcy wrote:
>> Training is one thing. Fear and psychological instabilities are 
>> another. If someone is so scared of indeterminate bad guys, bogey 
>> men, and actual neighborhood criminals, why are not these fears, and 
>> why are not these neighborhood criminals being addressed as the 
>> causes of the fears, rather than issuing an inexpensive legal placebo 
>> in the form of a long-term concealed carry permit?
>
> Do you use seat belts?

Yes.

> If so, do you do it because you are afraid of getting in an accident?

No. I am a careful driver because I don't want to be in an accident. I 
wear a seat belt because in WA state not wearing a seat belt is a 
primary offense with a $124 fine for a first violation, even though in 
Idaho it is a secondary offense (another violation must have been 
officer-observed) with a $10 fine.

> I would say that I wear them because I'd like more options open when 
> I've been in a collision.

Yes, seat belts worn during a collision may give you to exercise actions 
after a collision because you may still be alive after the collision, 
whereas had you not worn the belts, you might not be able to do any 
actions after the collision because you might be seriously injured or dead.

> Seat belts help keep you centered where the steering wheel and other 
> controls are so that you have more options during the accident.

As a practical matter, most accidents happen so quickly that nothing 
gives more options during the collision; a person simply can not think 
and act with sub-second response times. After a collision, having 
retained your life, seat belts won't give any more options because at 
that point they have completed their restraining job. The belts 
themselves have no more options to grant.

> I've been thinking about getting a conceal carry permit, not because I 
> fear that shifty-eyed fellow down the block, but because it can be a 
> handy tool to have around if something unexpected happens and you're 
> stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, it may be the case that 
a more appropriate tool would be a lever with which the rock might be 
moved. Just venting frustrations at the rock by blazing away at it with 
a firearm may not be as optimally productive as working with tools more 
appropriate for resolving the real problem.

> More options, in a situation where they dwindle rapidly.  Thus, a 
> narrow-focused permit would do me no good.  It would be like having to 
> pay to activate your seat belt harnesses for a short period of time, 
> only when you think you might be driving somewhere unsafe.

More options suggests more solution strategies with a greater number of 
implementation methodologies. As one works through various solution 
possibilities, one after another failing, one would hope that the 
solution of last resort is not simply to shoot with frustration at what 
ever unresolved problem remains vexing.

Don't confuse shortness of available solution time with a small number 
of solutions. Only one correct solution is necessary; it is the one that 
must be accomplished within the limited time available.

> Nobody expects the unexpected.  Therefore, you don't know when you 
> might need to rely on your weapon (or your seat belt) to survive.

A seat belt is required by law to be used to minimize various costs to 
society that likely otherwise would occur if seat belts were not used. 
Firearms are not required by law to be used because usually they cause 
significant harm in situations where alternative problem solutions 
methods, were they thoughtfully applied, might achieve an equal or 
better solution without the various damages weapons use may bring to 
primary and secondary victims, and the society within which they live.

> The hope would be that I would end up wasting all the money spent on 
> conceal carry permits because I had never ran into any kind of 
> situation where it was needed.

Comparing the firearms milieu with insurance coverage is problematic in 
that firearms are preventative only when other people or entities choose 
not to act, whereas insurance provides benefits after bad actions have 
occurred. The situations are different, and only problematically 
comparable. Insured by Smith & Wesson is a bumper sticker, not a risk 
management technique.


Ken
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120812/415c8aa3/attachment-0001.html>