"The proportion of negative incidences of an event is proportionate to the number of people doing the event".
Translation in this context:
The number of accidental shootings, misfires, etc, are going to go up simply by allowing more people to carry guns in public. If more people have guns in the general public (on their person AKA CCW), there will be more shooting, even if by accident.
This makes sense, similarly, the more people driving, the more accidents that occur. Even though drivers go through training, have a license, etc.. This is phenomenon that occurs in statistics when dealing with the human population, due mostly in part to human error
The question is, are the lives that could be saved by CCWs, more than the lives that will be lost, by the same CCWs?
Other than saying that there are no mishaps that occur, because they do and will, how would you counter such an argument that says CCW should not be allowed, due to the above the statement?
Translation in this context:
The number of accidental shootings, misfires, etc, are going to go up simply by allowing more people to carry guns in public. If more people have guns in the general public (on their person AKA CCW), there will be more shooting, even if by accident.
This makes sense, similarly, the more people driving, the more accidents that occur. Even though drivers go through training, have a license, etc.. This is phenomenon that occurs in statistics when dealing with the human population, due mostly in part to human error
The question is, are the lives that could be saved by CCWs, more than the lives that will be lost, by the same CCWs?
Other than saying that there are no mishaps that occur, because they do and will, how would you counter such an argument that says CCW should not be allowed, due to the above the statement?
