My underlying assumption was that your moral equivalence related to leveling the playing field so as to give everyone an equal chance at surviving a potentially life terminating accident. If that is not what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and you can ignore what I said, though, like Pax, I am curious then, to know what the moral issue was. But if I was right and that was what you meant, then I can try to explain better:
In the example I gave, you have an instructor who will teach 100 classes. Let's say he fills each class with 10 students. If we assume none of the students repeats the class, then he will ultimately teach 1000 students.
Now let us postulate, for the sake of argument, that there will be one potentially hazardous accident in just one of those 100 classes, but we don't know in advance which of the 100 classes it will occur in. On that occasion, 10 of the 1000 students and the instructor will be present, but all 1000 students will not be present. So, if you are one of this instructor's 1000 future students, by virtue of the fact you only take one of the 100 classes, you have had an extra roll of the immunity dice that the instructor does not get. That roll is the extra 99 chances in 100 of not happening to be present in the particular fateful class. The instructor has to be there, that's why he has 100 times greater chance of being present when the accident rolls around. Therefore, in his teaching career, he has 100 times more chance of needing the vest than any particular one of his 1000 future students does.
This is same reason police officers wear vests and most civilians don't. It's not that civilians are never subjected to the risk of being shot. It's that the police have much more frequently repeated exposure to that risk than the average civilian does.
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Patron Member
Last edited by Unclenick; June 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM.