What we should have learned from Sandy Hook

[Balog]

It's not a single risk that is mitigated by carrying.

A mitigation that addresses multiple hazards is even easier to justify.

Again, someone who determines they don't need to carry because of "risk assessment" isn't doing a complete job of making a risk assessment.

Go take a look at any good CRM text (the army's manuals are quite good) and you'll see what I mean. risk management is a whole process, and discounting a mitigation on a single hazard's likelihood is a common mistake.

To continue the car analogy, it's a bit like saying "I won't wear a seatbelt because one of my hazards is 'losing traction due to a banana peel on a left turn at Isle of Man,' and that's just NOT gonna happen."

We are speciifically discussing fistful's argument, which is based on using a mass shooting as a motivation for carry.

[Balog]

And, hey, I can't resist a good script-flipping. 

The problem here is, you're actually furthering the Bloomberg narrative. You're taking an event so incredibly unlikely that it makes winning the lottery look commonplace, and you're screaming "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!!!!!!"

Now, some people will react to that by wanting to be armed. But most people will be made more open to the notion of gun control and "Something needs to be done!"