So all my life, I've wanted to be a gun owner.  But when I lived at home, rules of the house were "no firearms allowed".  So finally when I moved out and settled in, I started to exercise my 2a right.

My parents are against firearms, but not the kind where they want to take actions against the 2a (write letters or contact reps).  They just don't see a need for it.

Well the other day, we met with an estate attorney and her backstory was when she was in San Diego, she was visiting her husband at work and some dude came in the office and shot it up.  Uyesugi style.  Her husband ended up getting killed.

So I told my dad, that the best chance her husband would have had is if he were armed and to fight back.  There is nothing you can do to stop a motivated person who has bad intentions.  A gun is just a tool.  And if say there were zero guns, he would have used a knife or created some other devise to kill.  I also had him think that if the attorney could go back in time and relive the same event, would she want a gun to protect herself...I guarantee the answer would be yes.

Also that we don't know when bad people will attack, so we always have to be prepared.  Because his thoughts are, the odds are low and it wont happen to him...I told him, tell the attorney that.  And he paused.

This actually made him go "hmmmm" and realize that there is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens and the 2a right and it's criminals who disregard the law.

So it's 1 step closer to having him accept the fact that in law abiding citizens hands, guns are fine. 

I was joking with my co-worker about building security and I suggested this.....

Or this...

Regarding probabilities... Ask your dad if he has a fire extinguisher in the house (usually near the kitchen), or, even if the government didn't "require" it, he would have smoke detectors or car insurance. Ask him how many times in his entire life he has needed to use any of the three.

In Hawaii the odds of being assaulted are approximately the same as being in a car accident. In one case the states demands, until penalty of imprisonment, that you take measures to protect yourself (liability auto insurance). In the case of assault the state demands, until penalty of imprisonment, that outside your home you may not have/use the most effective tool to protect yourself. And the reasoning behind those two seemingly opposing views of "risk management" is: because gunz.

Now, if someone in your dad's household starts kitchen fires every week, or crashes the car on a regular basis, these analogies would not be applicable. 

Regarding probabilities... Ask your dad if he has a fire extinguisher in the house (usually near the kitchen), or, even if the government didn't "require" it, he would have smoke detectors or car insurance. Ask him how many times in his entire life he has needed to use any of the three.

In Hawaii the odds of being assaulted are approximately the same as being in a car accident. In one case the states demands, until penalty of imprisonment, that you take measures to protect yourself (liability auto insurance). In the case of assault the state demands, until penalty of imprisonment, that outside your home you may not have/use the most effective tool to protect yourself. And the reasoning behind those two seemingly opposing views of "risk management" is: because gunz.

Now, if someone in your dad's household starts kitchen fires every week, or crashes the car on a regular basis, these analogies would not be applicable. 

The last part made my Friday.