Interesting discussion yesterday

[dburkhead]

When I took my daughter to daycare, After taking her to see the doctor about recent repeated nosebleeds, I discussed the situation (particularly what the doctor said to do in the event of more nosebleeds) with the director. This led to the director mentioning that they were all required to be CPR and first aid certified. I asked what that training runs these days because I needed to get my own certification again (mine has long long since expired). A bit of chit chat led to another and I mentioned the "trauma course" given via the Brown County Sheriff which covers gunshot wounds and, given the number of shootings in the news lately maybe something like that would be a good idea.

The director responded with wondering why anyone would want to get a gun. The odds of actually needing one were so long. While inside I smiled, I kept a very serious and attentive expression on my face and pointed out that there is one violent felony for every 200 people in this country every year--most of them not committed with guns so even if one magically made all of the guns disappear, most of them would still happed--and then explained that those kind of odds mean that there's about a one in three chance that a particular individual will be the victim of one of those violent felonies sometime during their lifetime, and when you think in terms of households, the chance that someone or someone in their immediate family will be the victim rises to about two in three.

Quick change on the director's part. "I can understand why someone would want a gun for safety, but too many of the wrong people get them." Well, says I, the wrong people, by law, are mostly people who've been in prison. And folk who have been in prison will have all the contacts they need to get guns illegally no matter what laws we pass. That's why gun control just doesn't work for keeping guns out of the hands of "the wrong people." On the other hand, about 10% or more of the adult population in Indiana has a license to carry. Those people have been checked to not be criminals and not have unresolved serious mental problems (a person who had a bout with depression ten years ago and is currently fine is one thing, someone who is currently schizophrenic is a whole other ballgame). They are the safest people you're likely to meet. Sure, with a large number of people in any group, you'll turn up the occassional "bad apple," but as a group, they're among the safest and most law abiding around.

You could see the wheels turning in her head, I'd apparently given her food for thought that she hadn't considered before.

Then, she mentioned one of the recent "mass shootings" and I asked if she'd noticed that all of these shootings seem to happen at "gun free zones." There's a reason for that. "Gun free" is simply another way of saying "disarmed and helpless."

Normally I have a tendency to get very . . . enthusiastic . . . about things I believe in strongly. I managed to keep that in check during this discussion and remain "calm and soft spoken." You could see the light dawning as the discussion progressed.

Whether that will have any long term effect, I don't know. It may be that the whole thing turned into a delayed "in one ear and out the other." But it may also be that there is one more person out there who is leaning a little more pro gun and a little less anti gun then they used to be.