Petition to eliminate armed protection for Pres, VP, and their families.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The whole point of my analogy is for it to be pathetic, in keeping with the original topic of conversation.



If the average citizen was in as much potential danger as the people you name, then I might agree with you. The average citizen isn't. I don't.

Where does the cutoff sit for the amount of potential danger someone has to face, both planned and random, before they protect themselves with a gun?

I choose to own guns and I choose not to carry. I like that I have the right to make those choices. I don't like the government arbitrarily deciding to make those choices for me.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Where does the cutoff sit for the amount of potential danger someone has to face, both planned and random, before they protect themselves with a gun?

I choose to own guns and I choose not to carry. I like that I have the right to make those choices. I don't like the government arbitrarily deciding to make those choices for me.

Mistake #1: Presuming that the need to protect exists, before it presents itself.

The cutoff is somewhere between the average person who never sees real violence in his entire life, and a major political figure who receives credible threats on a daily basis.

[Tmall]

I love it. If I were American, I'd definitely sign.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Mistake #1: Presuming that the need to protect exists, before it presents itself.

The cutoff is somewhere between the average person who never sees real violence in his entire life, and a major political figure who receives credible threats on a daily basis.

Waiting until the need presents itself called a lack of preparation. That is particularly since the average person often doesn't receive a warning in the form of a credible threat and is instead the victim of a crime of opportunity.

Around 1 out of every 300 Americans will be the victim of a reported violent crime this year. Around 1 out of every 30 will be the victim of a reported property crime. If a person decides those stats put it outside the realm of presumption and wants to do nothing about it, great. My issue is when a person decides those stats put it outside the realm of presumption and then imposes a mandate that nobody (except those with special permission) can do something about it.

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Mistake #1: Presuming that the need to protect exists, before it presents itself.

The need to protect exists the moment you step out your front door. If not sooner.

Even the average major political figure, who may receive threats on a daily basis, never sees real violence in his entire life. Problem is, for major political figures and for us normal slobs, if you don't prepare then the minute real violence pops up in your life you're pretty much screwed. That's why Dianne Feinstein carries a gun. That's why President Obama is protected by men armed with assault rifles. They do those things regardless of the fact that, even for the president, the odds of encountering real violence are incredibly long.

[Papa_Complex]

One in every one high level politician, without protection, would be the victim of violent crime or property crime without protection.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

One in every one high level politician, without protection, would be the victim of violent crime or property crime without protection.

Even if that were the case, so what? If it is simply a matter of using probability to determine who can have a gun to protect themselves then again, where does that cutoff lie?

[udman]

Originally Posted by goof2

Even if that were the case, so what? If it is simply a matter of using probability to determine who can have a gun to protect themselves then again, where does that cutoff lie?

Rich people who make a lot of enemies?

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

Even if that were the case, so what? If it is simply a matter of using probability to determine who can have a gun to protect themselves then again, where does that cutoff lie?

Everything is digital, when making self serving decisions. Zero or one. Yes or no. Life isn't like that.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Last time that I checked there were a whole lot more people gunning for him, than for the average citizen. When was the last time anyone here received a credible death threat?

Well it only takes one....so........not sure what you're getting at.