Twice as many people are carrrying...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Double Naught Spy

Double Naught Spy

Sus Venator
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
12,329
Location
Forestburg, Texas
UW study found that over a 4 year period, twice as many handgun owners are carrying handguns now than were carrying at the start of the study. "Carrying" is defined as carrying at least once in the last 30 days. With that said, 38% of those who did carry in the last 30 days were noted to be daily carriers. Overall, that means about 6 million people carry daily (as of 2019, study's conclusion). This is up from 3 million in 2015.

There are some other breakdowns in the study (such as by may carry, shall carry, permitless carry) that some of y'all may find interesting. I am a little disheartened by the overall low numbers, but very happy to see that they are changing for the better.

Here is the original citation:
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307094

Here is a recap without a bunch of the science jargon:
https://www.axios.com/local/seattle/2022/11/21/twice-as-many-carry-guns
 
I think the increase permit-less (Constitutional) carry states had a lot to do with the increase. It takes the hassle of getting a permit away and is a path to follow if you have a skeleton in your closet that would get a permi application denied.
 
As stated above I would suspect this reflects some changes in the law making it easy to carry plus some impact due to people being more willing to self report honestly with changes in those laws.

Important to note is that the doubling was 2015 to 2019, so it does not include the post covid/daddy joe era. I would suspect a record was set during 2020 due to the lawlessness and rioting that was happening. A study that captures this change would be of some interest.
 
I mean it’s probably partly laws but also after 2 years or crazy protests and riots and whatnot I think more people recognize the value in cary.

More value + less restrictions/easier = more people do it.

I know personally I never really saw much value in cary where I live, but after the 2020 riots getting a little too close for comfort to my normally very safe neighborhood I reevaluated my position.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Maybe for the overall total, but permitless carry states actually had less % of people carry than shall issue states.
Click to expand...
How would you know? In permitless states there's no documentation of how many people are actually carrying. Self-reporting is no indication because people aren't honest about such a sensitive subject.
 
AlexanderA said:
How would you know? In permitless states there's no documentation of how many people are actually carrying. Self-reporting is no indication because people aren't honest about such a sensitive subject.
Click to expand...

Although issues with self reporting are well known in the statistics field, the idea that it is no indication whatsoever is fallacious. Issues with self reporting can introduce bias or noise into survey results, but this phenomenon is also something that statisticians are aware of and try to correct for.

Further, to the above issue, we need to be very precise about what the data says and how we interpret it.
Let's first look at the graph title (italics mine)
Share of gun owners who say they have carried a loaded handgun in the past 30 days
Notice the percentage is taken of gun owners, ie. the denominator is all gun owners. There is a very good chance that ownership rates differ across states, particularly comparing a "may issue" state like NY with a permitless state like TX. However, according to the title of the article the double is as a percentage of owners, not raw number, so this may not be a major factor.
Second, to the extent that self reporting bias exists, it would only be an issue if it is differential across the categories being compared. While it is possible that people in one type of state may under report, logic dictates that those in May Issue states are the most likely to under report, while those in permit-less states are the most likely to answer honestly. Hence self reporting is unlikely to explain this difference.
 
wally said:
I forget you said it, but if you carry it should be 24/7 unless you think you are good at guessing when you'd need it, in which case why would you leave the house that day?
Click to expand...
I get the premise of this.
It doesn't show the entire picture.
View it as wading in the ocean vs going out on a fishing boat. Do you wear a life jacket for both?
Crime in my tiny town is very low. The odds of needing my firearm is so close to zero that it's comical. If I go to the auto parts or grocery store. I will only be carrying if I am on the way home from somewhere.
I carry when I go to surrounding cities. Or if I'm out driving around. This is more for when me or someone hits a deer. Than it is for people. But I still carry my little UL85 95 percent of the time.
 
The odds of needing my firearm is so close to zero that it's comical.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why carrying once in awhile is a nearly 100% successful strategy for insuring that you won't have a gun if you ever do need one. It's already unlikely that you will need one. If it's also unlikely that you will be carrying, trying to get those two unlikely events to line up is practically impossible.
 
Bfh_auto said:
I get the premise of this.
It doesn't show the entire picture.
View it as wading in the ocean vs going out on a fishing boat. Do you wear a life jacket for both?
Crime in my tiny town is very low. The odds of needing my firearm is so close to zero that it's comical. If I go to the auto parts or grocery store. I will only be carrying if I am on the way home from somewhere.
I carry when I go to surrounding cities. Or if I'm out driving around. This is more for when me or someone hits a deer. Than it is for people. But I still carry my little UL85 95 percent of the time.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most people have some sense of what areas are high crime or what situations are more dangerous.
Furthermore, there is a cost-benefit ratio when it comes to carry. There is an inconvenience cost to carry, for example when you have to go into a building where carry is not allowed, if you drive you might stow the firearm in a vehicle, but if you are on foot or public transit then you have a bigger issue.
So it makes sense to carry when and where benefits > costs. That is not everywhere. Going to the suburban grocery store for a bottle of milk at 3 PM in a good area, followed by a long wait in say, the post office? Yeah, maybe no need to carry.
Going to a bad part of town to buy a nice looking S-VHS VCR from some guy you met on Craigslist at 9:30 PM? Yeah, maybe worth packing on that one.
 
JohnKSa said:
Which is precisely why carrying once in awhile is a nearly 100% successful strategy for insuring that you won't have a gun if you ever do need one. It's already unlikely that you will need one. If it's also unlikely that you will be carrying, trying to get those two unlikely events to line up is practically impossible.
Click to expand...
So if I carry 95% of the time and I may need it 5 percent of the time. What are my odds of having it when I need it?
My needing it is more varmint eradication than people. I always seem to have a gun when I see them.
I have noticed in the last 5 years I carry more than I used to. I'm not worried about needing it. Just getting more into the routine of slipping the holster into my pocket now that I have the carry gun that suits me best.
 
So if I carry 95% of the time and I may need it 5 percent of the time. What are my odds of having it when I need it?
Click to expand...
Because you are carrying nearly all the time (95% of the time) the odds of having it when you need it are pretty good. About 4.75% of the time when you need the gun, you should have it on you. That assumes that the two events are independent of each other--that one being true doesn't affect the probability of the other.

The issue comes when people want to carry only once in awhile--let's say Bob wants to carry only about one day on average out of every 10 days. Let's also say that Bob is pretty unlucky and, on average, might need a gun for self-defense, on average, about one day out of every 10 years. Then Bob's chances of needing a gun and having one available at the same time would be about one time in 100 years.

That's pretty unlikely, and that's even though we made Bob so unlucky that he needed to defend himself with a gun several times in his adult lifetime. If we make it so Bob is only likely to need a gun for self-defense once or twice in his adult lifetime and he's carrying only about 1 day out of every 10, then his odds of having a gun when he needs it are only about 1 time in every 370 years. Pretty much a guarantee that the two events won't line up.
 
"Carrying" is defined as carrying at least once in the last 30 days. With that said, 38% of those who did carry in the last 30 days were noted to be daily carriers.

Carrying once in 30 days versus daily is a drastic difference.
Most of the 62% are likely of the mindset to carry when they "feel the need" as if threats are immobile and they have to go to them, which makes no sense.
Most of that 62% is willing to be a unarmed victim most of the time. Disclaimer I'm excluding work so if one was about to quote me and say but work, touché I remembered the disclaimer.

But, CDW4ME maybe some of those people work at the post office or a military base and firearms are not allowed; maybe, but its unlikely to be 62% ;) Didn't forget that exception either.
 
CDW4ME said:
But, CDW4ME maybe some of those people work at the post office or a military base and firearms are not allowed; maybe, but its unlikely to be 62% ;) Didn't forget that exception either.
Click to expand...

The top ten employers in my county all have zero firearm policies. Only one of them is a military base. None of them are the Post Office. None of the top ten are the schools districts in the county, which rate high on the chart, and also have a zero firearm policies.

Just sayin'.....
 
buck460XVR said:
The top ten employers in my county all have zero firearm policies. Only one of them is a military base. None of them are the Post Office. None of the top ten are the schools districts in the county, which rate high on the chart, and also have a zero firearm policies.

Just sayin'.....
Click to expand...

I had a work disclaimer: "Disclaimer I'm excluding work so if one was about to quote me and say but work, touché I remembered the disclaimer." dancing-banana-banana.gif

I worked for years where carry inside the building would have been illegal; that did not preclude me being armed running errands after work, just sayin'.
 
Question on 'Constitutional Carry'; if you are packing under CC, and are stopped by the authorities...would not that 'skeleton in the closet', that would have precluded a permit....wouldn't that show up, and make a problem?
Places where you can't carry, whether your job, or New York City, are another question. Suspect a lot of law abiding New Yorkers have an LCP tucked away on their person. A buddy who teaches at a University does this as well.
Moon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BigFatKen
  • Locked
Quora is an excellent source of RKBA facts
Replies
6
Views
481
BigFatKen
BigFatKen
hso
2022 Concealed Permit Holder Defensive Handgun Use Against Mass Shooting Compilation
Replies
2
Views
479
old lady new shooter
O
T
  • Locked
Michigan sees fewer gun deaths — with more permits
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Carl N. Brown
Carl N. Brown
W
  • Locked
Fewer Gun Deaths - with more permits
Replies
21
Views
1K
TexasRifleman
T
L
  • Locked
Great Article on the Effects of Gun Control
Replies
5
Views
603
MarcusWendt
M
Back
Top