View Single Post
Old 06-28-2013, 06:19 AM   #53
Screaming Banshee
ObiJohn's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Seattle suburbia
Oddometer: 613
The risk is there. We can manage it, or mitigate it, whether we're discussing the risks of motorcycling or guns.

Managing risk means taking steps to reduce the chances of the risk/unwanted event occurring, mitigating risk means taking steps to reduce the negative impacts if the risk/unwanted event occurs.

Getting rid of your guns does not reduce the chances of getting shot with a gun if you and other household residents are otherwise sane and sober, and your guns are secured. You have increased your chances of getting shot by an armed intruder by some amount, depending on the nighttime burglary/home invasion rate in your area. Not having ready access to a gun can actually increase your chances of getting shot.

Similarly, not owning or riding a motorcycle eliminates the chances of injury or death from motorcycle riding... but what are the odds of crashing if some day you as an untrained or out of practice rider gets on a bike again?

I wouldn't ride a motorcycle if I didn't take active risk management and mitigation steps, like getting training, not riding impaired, riding within the limits of my skills and the environment, and wearing high quality protective gear. I wouldn't own guns and keep them in my home without appropriate risk management and mitigation strategies. We can choose to be at the correct side of the bell curve, and all the way to that side.

I'm curious about the pool story. It seems obvious that, if two children almost drowned in your pool, your risk management and mitigation strategies are deficient. Are you going to get rid of your pool, or are you going to implement more effective strategies? If the answer is the latter, then what makes your pool different from your guns, in terms of accessing the risk and dealing with it?
Everything is on its way to somewhere...
ObiJohn is offline   Reply With Quote