do you think someone like mugabe needs the excuse? if i get a glock and murder your family, and tell you i did it because your family was going to rob me, do you believe me? then why do you believe mugabe is doing what he is doing because of wikileaks? has mugabe cracked down on his opposition before wikileaks? of course. he uses any excuse he wants!
wikileaks is just his excuse now, and if wikileaks didn't exist, he'd invent some other bullshit reason to crack down. and yet, when he says his latest bullshit reason for why he is doing evil things, that mugabe always does, you believe his reason! why do you believe what mugabe says motivates him?!
you're very stubborn in your position. but not very intelligent
i'll tell you what: when mugabe tells you why he does something, you go right on believing mugabe. i won't. how's that for a deal?
because until wikileaks existed, mugabe didn't do anything wrong. clearly, wikileaks is to blame for the most recent thing mugabe did wrong
(oh, and since you have problem with the concept, i don't literally think mugabe didn't do anything wrong until wikileaks. it's called a rhetorical argument. you'll get it someday kid. less blind stubbornness, more intelligence. good luck on your path towards thinking)
i am certain that special interests like the NRA are buying politicians in washington, to betray the interests of their constituents, which is a problem in and of itself. we shall deal with that problem separately
the result of easier access to guns, and their concealment, is clearly more senseless violence like in arizona. this results in more shock and outrage, and the laws get tightened against easy access to guns
(i know, in your boy scout fantasies, every single person armed means that less violence will happen, because everyone will magically act heroically. for example, the 9 year old killed clearly should have been carrying an uzi, like any good american, and she would be alive today! carry and conceal in schools! no limits on type of gun! it's in the constitution!)
uk, canada, australia, countries not in the thrall of quasireligious dimwits who think the constitution is a totem religious object, rather than a living pact with the people it serves, have rightly limited guns. the usa will someday too, as more rational people understand that a passage having to do with muskets and native americans and red coats and the frontier, has nothing to do with concealed glocks on modern city streets. the second amendment does not mean what you think it means my friend
(yes, i know. telling you this like telling a wahabbi that muhammad was just a crazy dude or a devout catholic that jesus was just a nice hippie. its hard to deal with fundamentalists, whether of the religious, or originalist, variety: they have their INTERPRETATION, equally full of assumptions as any other interpretation of the "sacred text", but by golly, they'll ram their interpretation down the throats of everyone else. it's not about reason with people like you, its about force of conviction)
but like i said, don't worry your pretty little head. i'm sorry my rational words have got you frothing at the mouth, strange little tribal creature. i did not mean to call your religious tenets into doubt. we who understand logic and reason understand the constitution and will interpret it in a sane and rational way, as more people understand what easy access to guns really means
you don't want to get too upset. keep your temper. after all, you know, you get upset, you're heavily armed...
"The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power."
mugabe would still do what he wants to do, whether wikileaks gave him ammo or not
that's the point
if wikileaks never existed, mugabe would still be cracking down on the opposition, and he would be using some other lame excuse instead of wikileaks. do you understand that?
the problem is not me, the problem is people like you who actually believe the reasons mugabe gives for what he does are actually valid reasons! rather than lame excuses they obviously are. why do you believe mugabe? how naive are you?
if mugabe does something vile, mugabe is vile
what is not vile is the red herring lame excuse he makes
no one believes mugabe would be nice if wikileaks didn't exist, and i didn't think you thought so either. it's called making a rhetorical point, to say something so crazy that you can see the error in your own thinking
but apparently you can't do that. apparently, when mugabe gives you a stupid lame weak excuse for why he does something, you BELIEVE mugabe! why do you believe mugabe!? it makes you a moron if you believe anything that comes out of that asshole's mouth
i'm not arguing with you because you can't argue with a creationist. if i thought i could actually convince you with rationality, as has been done in canada, uk, australia, then i'd make a go of it. it's your children and grandchildren that will represent the triumph of reason over your quasireligious faith in the gun. you're just a lost cause. we just wait for you to do die, which, since you're a gun owner, will probably come sooner rather than later
it's for the sake of all the innocents who get caught in the crossfire of what you morons do with your totem religious object that's the problem
so don't worry your pretty little head about it, son. the future of guns in the usa is like canada, uk, australia. and every event like in the one in arizona wakes people up to what easy access to guns really means
but you do bring up one eugenics-related social darwinistic benefit of guns: gun owners are more likely to be victims of gun crimes
so if you are low enough iq to think a gun is a benefit in your life, you help clean up the gene pool by placing yourself at greater risk. it's a nice sort of eugenics: the morons take themselves out of the gene pool with their love of the killing machine which only serves to make their lives more dangerous
what the fuck ELSE can you do with a gun THAT YOU NEED TO DO IN CIVIL SOCIETY
i am not going to get in argument with you, because, like a creationist, it is a fruitless effort. that no matter how much common sense you are exposed to, you are merely going to dig in your heels and cover your ears. your children or grandchildren will think like me, as they will be more predisposed to reason and less predisposed to your irrational prejudice on the holy goodness of your precious gun. and your antiquated thinking will go into the historical dustbin, as it has in canada, uk, australia, etc.: any other rational country
we're # 4! we're number #4! mexico would like to give us a special shout out for making them #3, since the mexican mafia buys all their guns in arizona and texas to ship us all our drugs
woohoo! go usa! guns are instruments of god and good! yeehaw!
"the only way someone is going to Mars one way by themselves, is if they fund and build the rocket themselves, and not tell anyone else beforehand"
do you understand that? do you really?
by the same token, go ahead and smoke and drink and eat donuts all day. i don't care. because what i wrote never was about me forcing my morality on you
the issue is what A SOCIETY does, not what AN INDIVIDUAL does. do you understand that? do you really?
a trip to mars will be paid for by the GOVERNMENT OF THAT SOCIETY, which will reflect the values of THAT SOCIETY
how the fuck you interpolated that to mean i was coming into your house and take away your smokes and forcing my morality on you is utterly beyond my understanding. you are certainly a hyperspastic and extremely defensive brand of idiot, that's for sure
We can't send people one way, not because plenty of people wouldn't go, but because of our values about what we are as a society and as a people.
History is replete with individuals sacrificing their lives for the group. But that is only heroic when the individual makes that decision all on their own.
When ordered to make the sacrifice, or when the volunteer sacrifice is fully and cognizantly condoned before hand: that's simply amoral and wrong. Whether Japanese Kamikaze Zero pilots ordered to sacrifice themselves, Bomb laden Sunnis walking into processions of Shiites volunteering to sacrifice themselves, or sending volunteers on a one way trip to Mars: these are not actions that can be tolerated by a moral society.
So, the only way someone is going to Mars one way by themselves, is if they fund and build the rocket themselves, and not tell anyone else beforehand. Otherwise, its not happening, sorry.
"Guns can do neither good nor evil. They are inanimate machines."
That's right. And made freely available in society, they can do good and bad things. This is the part where you examine the universe of possible uses, and historical real world data, and realize that, mostly, guns wind up being used for bad.
Of course you won't believe that. You're too entrenched in your blind faith in guns to do only mostly good.
Some day, as with universal healthcare, the USA will join the list of rational countries in this world and crack down on guns. Until then, we must suffer fools like you. Your children or grandchildren will see the world as I do, you're too far gone.
Its simple demographics and history, playing itself out. Rationality needs time to sort itself out from the irrational prejudices of the antiquated past, and the living fossils who hold American society hostage, fools who think they are living in a Wild West movie.
the military does have overlap and redundancy built into the chain of command. they have to. its not even about civic responsibility, its about having a coherent responsive military when under attack
let us direct at our eyes at pakistan if you want to worry about such a scenario though. you can get a critical mass of sympathizers with frightening causes embedded in the system to cause a problem by counteracting the redundancy and overlap
and besides, you have it backwards: hollywood is always portraying one yahoo setting off nuclear bombs. think dr. strangelove, the hunt for red cotober, the dead zone, wargames, terminator, etc...
look at programs where there is a lot of technical activity and communication activity for time sensitive work
you can't have a nuclear missile system where one guy can invoke the bombs to go off. at the same time, the system has to be quick and responsive
so you need to engineer administrative systems where not less people are involved but MORE: you can't do this function or that function without also involving this guy over there turning a key, etc.: all admin functions invoke more than one person. that's the best way to have a system where power can't be abused. its about redundancy and layers of admins, not less admins
and if people are pursuing this question because they don't want to pay an admin or can't trust someone else with their system, then such idiots get the system they deserve: a broken one and no one willing to fix it at the money you want to pay
do you think easy access to guns won't result in another crazy person doing this again in the future?
do you think that as more events like this one happens, more won't come to think like me?
or do you believe that if everyone carries (like in gun happy arizona this weekend?) that future jared lee loughner's will be stopped, like in the movies?
you really believe that?!
if you do, that shows you have a boy scout's mentality, not an understanding of reality
the issue is not my supposed fear of guns. the issue is your irrational faith in guns to do "good", despite all the evidence to the contrary right before your eyes
I'm going to stand in front of your house with a megaphone, and tell anyone passing by your house for a year that someone should throw rocks through your window.
Then someone throws a rock through your window.
Then I'm going to say that the guy who did that is a crazy loner, and his actions have nothing to do with me and my megaphone for a year.
Thank you, Right Wing America, for your awesome sense of responsibility, and your awesome sense of integrity. Stay classy, Right Wing
admit the right has engaged in irresponsible violent rhetoric. your one example does not negate that fact. in fact, when obama said that, mccain accused him of... drum roll please... irresponsible violent rhetoric
the point is that obama's one moronic statement does not excuse the volumes of violent words the right has unleashed. the point is, obama was wrong, and the right is wrong
what i want to see is someone on the right saying their use of violent rhetoric is wrong, that crazy people are out there listening and it irresponsible for someone with a large audience to engage in the verbiage they do
the first amendment doesn't apply if you yell fire in a crowded theatre. there are limits on everything. and there are limits on the second amendment too
what happens next is events like the one in arizona convinces more people that there should be more limits on guns
gun advocates believe that what happens next is that events like the one in arizona means every one will be armed and a dirty harry vigilante will stop the next tragedy, because life is like the movies (wait, this was gun happy arizona, right? where was the magical vigilante gun advocates are always referring too?)
pfffffffffffft
gun advocates are crazy if they think easy access to guns won't result in more tragedies like the one in arizona. and tragedies line the one in arizona will inevitably turn public opinion against easy access
if someone is bringing a gun to your house, he could be a serial killer who is going to kill you. but 99% of the time he is fronting force to rob you. correct?
if you have no gun, say good bye to your valuables. absolutely
but if you fight back, i agree that it is most certainly can chase him away or bring him down, which i would agree you have a right to. but you could also raise the stakes: instead of merely pointing a gun at you, now the criminal has to fire back at you. are you awake at 3 am? you have your gun ready and waiting under all scenarios? now, instead of losing your computer, you're using your life. or maybe you mistake your son drunk, in a few years, coming home inthe middle of the night and he forgot his keys. feel good about your gun now?
see my point? the mere PRESENCE of a gun in these scenarios where you think the gun makes you safer, no: it simply changes what happens, the universe of possible outcomes. and it mostly raises the stakes to one of more deadly use of force, on either side, in your favor or against. i don't want ot play that game. i'd rathe rlos emy valuables. understand my point of view now?
what i am saying, is that with a gun, an analysis of probability and odds says that you raise the chance you will be dead
without a gun, with CERTAINTY i am losing valuables. but i'm still alive, and probability says that without a gun, i have abetter chance of staying alive than if i had a gun
that's the point
the mere presence of a gun chances the possible universe of scenarios in such a way that your death is more likely
understand that, and stop believing your gun is a virtue in your life. its a liability
Slashdot Mirror
do you think someone like mugabe needs the excuse? if i get a glock and murder your family, and tell you i did it because your family was going to rob me, do you believe me? then why do you believe mugabe is doing what he is doing because of wikileaks? has mugabe cracked down on his opposition before wikileaks? of course. he uses any excuse he wants!
wikileaks is just his excuse now, and if wikileaks didn't exist, he'd invent some other bullshit reason to crack down. and yet, when he says his latest bullshit reason for why he is doing evil things, that mugabe always does, you believe his reason! why do you believe what mugabe says motivates him?!
and yet you trust him 100% when he says he did what he did because of wikileaks
you're very stubborn in your position. but not very intelligent
i'll tell you what: when mugabe tells you why he does something, you go right on believing mugabe. i won't. how's that for a deal?
because until wikileaks existed, mugabe didn't do anything wrong. clearly, wikileaks is to blame for the most recent thing mugabe did wrong
(oh, and since you have problem with the concept, i don't literally think mugabe didn't do anything wrong until wikileaks. it's called a rhetorical argument. you'll get it someday kid. less blind stubbornness, more intelligence. good luck on your path towards thinking)
i am certain that special interests like the NRA are buying politicians in washington, to betray the interests of their constituents, which is a problem in and of itself. we shall deal with that problem separately
the result of easier access to guns, and their concealment, is clearly more senseless violence like in arizona. this results in more shock and outrage, and the laws get tightened against easy access to guns
(i know, in your boy scout fantasies, every single person armed means that less violence will happen, because everyone will magically act heroically. for example, the 9 year old killed clearly should have been carrying an uzi, like any good american, and she would be alive today! carry and conceal in schools! no limits on type of gun! it's in the constitution!)
uk, canada, australia, countries not in the thrall of quasireligious dimwits who think the constitution is a totem religious object, rather than a living pact with the people it serves, have rightly limited guns. the usa will someday too, as more rational people understand that a passage having to do with muskets and native americans and red coats and the frontier, has nothing to do with concealed glocks on modern city streets. the second amendment does not mean what you think it means my friend
(yes, i know. telling you this like telling a wahabbi that muhammad was just a crazy dude or a devout catholic that jesus was just a nice hippie. its hard to deal with fundamentalists, whether of the religious, or originalist, variety: they have their INTERPRETATION, equally full of assumptions as any other interpretation of the "sacred text", but by golly, they'll ram their interpretation down the throats of everyone else. it's not about reason with people like you, its about force of conviction)
but like i said, don't worry your pretty little head. i'm sorry my rational words have got you frothing at the mouth, strange little tribal creature. i did not mean to call your religious tenets into doubt. we who understand logic and reason understand the constitution and will interpret it in a sane and rational way, as more people understand what easy access to guns really means
you don't want to get too upset. keep your temper. after all, you know, you get upset, you're heavily armed...
"The problem comes when Wikileaks/The Guardian gives Mugabe political ammo by releasing the fact that his opponent feels that the sanctions are needed while Mugabe is in power."
mugabe would still do what he wants to do, whether wikileaks gave him ammo or not
that's the point
if wikileaks never existed, mugabe would still be cracking down on the opposition, and he would be using some other lame excuse instead of wikileaks. do you understand that?
the problem is not me, the problem is people like you who actually believe the reasons mugabe gives for what he does are actually valid reasons! rather than lame excuses they obviously are. why do you believe mugabe? how naive are you?
if mugabe does something vile, mugabe is vile
what is not vile is the red herring lame excuse he makes
no one believes mugabe would be nice if wikileaks didn't exist, and i didn't think you thought so either. it's called making a rhetorical point, to say something so crazy that you can see the error in your own thinking
but apparently you can't do that. apparently, when mugabe gives you a stupid lame weak excuse for why he does something, you BELIEVE mugabe! why do you believe mugabe!? it makes you a moron if you believe anything that comes out of that asshole's mouth
i'm not arguing with you because you can't argue with a creationist. if i thought i could actually convince you with rationality, as has been done in canada, uk, australia, then i'd make a go of it. it's your children and grandchildren that will represent the triumph of reason over your quasireligious faith in the gun. you're just a lost cause. we just wait for you to do die, which, since you're a gun owner, will probably come sooner rather than later
it's for the sake of all the innocents who get caught in the crossfire of what you morons do with your totem religious object that's the problem
so don't worry your pretty little head about it, son. the future of guns in the usa is like canada, uk, australia. and every event like in the one in arizona wakes people up to what easy access to guns really means
"Hey, I'm not a racist, "
could have fooled me
but you do bring up one eugenics-related social darwinistic benefit of guns: gun owners are more likely to be victims of gun crimes
so if you are low enough iq to think a gun is a benefit in your life, you help clean up the gene pool by placing yourself at greater risk. it's a nice sort of eugenics: the morons take themselves out of the gene pool with their love of the killing machine which only serves to make their lives more dangerous
suicide: sound of mind, unsound of body, ok
unsound of mind, sound of body, not ok
society will not condone what society does IN ITS OWN NAME
its not about imposing anything on anyone
now mod me into oblivion, scream at me invectives
society will not send people on a one way trip. they just won't
you can deal with that, scream at me, whatever
that's just the way it is, sorry
you use a car to DRIVE SOMEWHERE genius
what the fuck ELSE can you do with a gun THAT YOU NEED TO DO IN CIVIL SOCIETY
i am not going to get in argument with you, because, like a creationist, it is a fruitless effort. that no matter how much common sense you are exposed to, you are merely going to dig in your heels and cover your ears. your children or grandchildren will think like me, as they will be more predisposed to reason and less predisposed to your irrational prejudice on the holy goodness of your precious gun. and your antiquated thinking will go into the historical dustbin, as it has in canada, uk, australia, etc.: any other rational country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
we're # 4! we're number #4! mexico would like to give us a special shout out for making them #3, since the mexican mafia buys all their guns in arizona and texas to ship us all our drugs
woohoo! go usa! guns are instruments of god and good! yeehaw!
well then i'm saying there is no other solution than multiple admins if you are worried about an admin with too much power
that's the only answer, there are no other answers
because the idea of "no admin" is a joke, at best
read, think, then respond
i wrote:
"the only way someone is going to Mars one way by themselves, is if they fund and build the rocket themselves, and not tell anyone else beforehand"
do you understand that? do you really?
by the same token, go ahead and smoke and drink and eat donuts all day. i don't care. because what i wrote never was about me forcing my morality on you
the issue is what A SOCIETY does, not what AN INDIVIDUAL does. do you understand that? do you really?
a trip to mars will be paid for by the GOVERNMENT OF THAT SOCIETY, which will reflect the values of THAT SOCIETY
how the fuck you interpolated that to mean i was coming into your house and take away your smokes and forcing my morality on you is utterly beyond my understanding. you are certainly a hyperspastic and extremely defensive brand of idiot, that's for sure
We can't send people one way, not because plenty of people wouldn't go, but because of our values about what we are as a society and as a people.
History is replete with individuals sacrificing their lives for the group. But that is only heroic when the individual makes that decision all on their own.
When ordered to make the sacrifice, or when the volunteer sacrifice is fully and cognizantly condoned before hand: that's simply amoral and wrong. Whether Japanese Kamikaze Zero pilots ordered to sacrifice themselves, Bomb laden Sunnis walking into processions of Shiites volunteering to sacrifice themselves, or sending volunteers on a one way trip to Mars: these are not actions that can be tolerated by a moral society.
So, the only way someone is going to Mars one way by themselves, is if they fund and build the rocket themselves, and not tell anyone else beforehand. Otherwise, its not happening, sorry.
mugabe would be acting like mugabe no matter what. that he uses wikileaks as an excuse to abuse the opposition is just that: a convenient excuse
it's as if you believe mugabe would be a nice decent fellow if wikileaks never came along. do you believe that?
if no, don't blame wikileaks for what assholes do. blame the assholes!
"Guns can do neither good nor evil. They are inanimate machines."
That's right. And made freely available in society, they can do good and bad things. This is the part where you examine the universe of possible uses, and historical real world data, and realize that, mostly, guns wind up being used for bad.
Of course you won't believe that. You're too entrenched in your blind faith in guns to do only mostly good.
Some day, as with universal healthcare, the USA will join the list of rational countries in this world and crack down on guns. Until then, we must suffer fools like you. Your children or grandchildren will see the world as I do, you're too far gone.
Its simple demographics and history, playing itself out. Rationality needs time to sort itself out from the irrational prejudices of the antiquated past, and the living fossils who hold American society hostage, fools who think they are living in a Wild West movie.
the military does have overlap and redundancy built into the chain of command. they have to. its not even about civic responsibility, its about having a coherent responsive military when under attack
let us direct at our eyes at pakistan if you want to worry about such a scenario though. you can get a critical mass of sympathizers with frightening causes embedded in the system to cause a problem by counteracting the redundancy and overlap
and besides, you have it backwards: hollywood is always portraying one yahoo setting off nuclear bombs. think dr. strangelove, the hunt for red cotober, the dead zone, wargames, terminator, etc...
look at programs where there is a lot of technical activity and communication activity for time sensitive work
you can't have a nuclear missile system where one guy can invoke the bombs to go off. at the same time, the system has to be quick and responsive
so you need to engineer administrative systems where not less people are involved but MORE: you can't do this function or that function without also involving this guy over there turning a key, etc.: all admin functions invoke more than one person. that's the best way to have a system where power can't be abused. its about redundancy and layers of admins, not less admins
and if people are pursuing this question because they don't want to pay an admin or can't trust someone else with their system, then such idiots get the system they deserve: a broken one and no one willing to fix it at the money you want to pay
the only thing your post tells me is that a prerequisite for being a libertarian is having a persecution complex
NO ONE IS AFTER ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR BEING A LIBERTARIAN
(now i will get responses saying it is true, thus proving me correct about strange weirdos with persecution complexes calling themselves libertarians)
i don't understand what you are trying to say. all i see is someone who has grown ashamed and cowardly about their own views
real life tyrants depends upon the reaction you seem to have developed recently
do you think easy access to guns won't result in another crazy person doing this again in the future?
do you think that as more events like this one happens, more won't come to think like me?
or do you believe that if everyone carries (like in gun happy arizona this weekend?) that future jared lee loughner's will be stopped, like in the movies?
you really believe that?!
if you do, that shows you have a boy scout's mentality, not an understanding of reality
the issue is not my supposed fear of guns. the issue is your irrational faith in guns to do "good", despite all the evidence to the contrary right before your eyes
if i stand in front of your house for a year saying someone should throw a rock through your window, then someone does
are you going to let me get away with me saying i have nothing to do with it?
please try to apply the slightest bit of intellectual honesty in the bullshit you say next time, ok asshole?
I'm going to stand in front of your house with a megaphone, and tell anyone passing by your house for a year that someone should throw rocks through your window.
Then someone throws a rock through your window.
Then I'm going to say that the guy who did that is a crazy loner, and his actions have nothing to do with me and my megaphone for a year.
Thank you, Right Wing America, for your awesome sense of responsibility, and your awesome sense of integrity. Stay classy, Right Wing
pffffffffffft
no
admit the right has engaged in irresponsible violent rhetoric. your one example does not negate that fact. in fact, when obama said that, mccain accused him of... drum roll please... irresponsible violent rhetoric
the point is that obama's one moronic statement does not excuse the volumes of violent words the right has unleashed. the point is, obama was wrong, and the right is wrong
what i want to see is someone on the right saying their use of violent rhetoric is wrong, that crazy people are out there listening and it irresponsible for someone with a large audience to engage in the verbiage they do
i want to here that
the first amendment doesn't apply if you yell fire in a crowded theatre. there are limits on everything. and there are limits on the second amendment too
what happens next is events like the one in arizona convinces more people that there should be more limits on guns
gun advocates believe that what happens next is that events like the one in arizona means every one will be armed and a dirty harry vigilante will stop the next tragedy, because life is like the movies (wait, this was gun happy arizona, right? where was the magical vigilante gun advocates are always referring too?)
pfffffffffffft
gun advocates are crazy if they think easy access to guns won't result in more tragedies like the one in arizona. and tragedies line the one in arizona will inevitably turn public opinion against easy access
if someone is bringing a gun to your house, he could be a serial killer who is going to kill you. but 99% of the time he is fronting force to rob you. correct?
if you have no gun, say good bye to your valuables. absolutely
but if you fight back, i agree that it is most certainly can chase him away or bring him down, which i would agree you have a right to. but you could also raise the stakes: instead of merely pointing a gun at you, now the criminal has to fire back at you. are you awake at 3 am? you have your gun ready and waiting under all scenarios? now, instead of losing your computer, you're using your life. or maybe you mistake your son drunk, in a few years, coming home inthe middle of the night and he forgot his keys. feel good about your gun now?
see my point? the mere PRESENCE of a gun in these scenarios where you think the gun makes you safer, no: it simply changes what happens, the universe of possible outcomes. and it mostly raises the stakes to one of more deadly use of force, on either side, in your favor or against. i don't want ot play that game. i'd rathe rlos emy valuables. understand my point of view now?
what i am saying, is that with a gun, an analysis of probability and odds says that you raise the chance you will be dead
without a gun, with CERTAINTY i am losing valuables. but i'm still alive, and probability says that without a gun, i have abetter chance of staying alive than if i had a gun
that's the point
the mere presence of a gun chances the possible universe of scenarios in such a way that your death is more likely
understand that, and stop believing your gun is a virtue in your life. its a liability