Carry choices, such a hard decision

[roscoe]

Really? Why do you think that? How do you assess my need?

I see. It's business that you do not like.

Fear? I have not seen that. Nor have I seen much in the way of the kind of "misinformation" to which you are referring.

Okay.

Not I. My shield EZ holds 8, and I've seen nothing from "the gun industry" about its viability.

That's fine by me.

How do you decide when to do so?

What data?

Those data mean little or nothing to today's citizens. Why are you so hung up on data from yesteryear?

And one more time, do not rely upon averages for risk assessment or risk management--or for anything else in the way of personal decision-making.

I did not calculate any version of a statistical average. That is time-series analysis of the homicide rate (which is derived by direct calculation). But averages certainly can inform decision-making. In fact, they very much should if the variance of the sample is low. Who told you not to use averages in decision making? You just need to know how representative of your sample the average is. You certainly shouldn't be making decisions based on extremely rare statistical outliers. How many times a year do you want a colonoscopy?

Past data not useful? How else do you know not to grab a hot frying pan - by having access to past data (yours or someone else's). In this case, the past data on homicides are very informative as to your relative risk. Today, the homicide rate is about half what it was in the 80s, so as long as we think we understand how we survived in that time period, we have a decent idea of what would suffice today. Especially since the risk today is much less than in the past.

My point is that we can use real information to make our risk assessments - I am more likely to carry when in higher-crime neighborhoods (based on my casual examination of crime maps). We shouldn't be relying on information from businesses that have a vested interest in our making poorly informed decisions. And if someone wants to make an argument about risk increasing 'these days', then I need to see something more than a company shill shouting 'fire'.

I will leave this post with this image that communicates, I think, pretty well what I am talking about (since you say you are unfamiliar with this kind of ‘misinformation’):

 

[roscoe]

Anxiety is a good word for how I feel when changing from a gun with 8 rounds to 6. Or to a gun that reloads fast verses slow. The question is why? Is it because my choices aren't good enough? If I was surrounded by a mob, would any handgun be sufficient?

This is probably a general psychological phenomenon. If you know that, out there, a better choice (in anything) exists, then you (may) become dissatisfied with what you have. It is how marketing works. You see it in all kinds of areas - pickup trucks and SUVs, multitools, HAM radios, wristwatches, boots, fishing rods, hunting rifles, computers, cell phones, etc.. I used to hike with a guy that was constantly buying new backpacks and tents to try to find the perfect one, when what he had was completely sufficient for our non-epic backpacking trips. It cost him a fortune.

A mob attacking you is probably about as likely as lightning striking. Both situations are easy to avoid - don't walk into the angry crowd waving flags and sticks, and don't stand on a hill in a thunderstorm (I now know). The gun is entirely secondary to situational awareness. However, my observation on 'mobs' is that everybody ducks and runs for it after the first gunshot. Getting shot sucks, and not too many will press the issue.

 

[Kleanbore]

That is time-series analysis of the homicide rate (which is derived by direct calculation)

Those are averages

Who told you not to use averages in decision making?

Some of the finest professors of statistical analysis in the country.

Data analysis and risk management were my profession.

You just need to know how representative of your sample the average is.

Along with insight into the impact of the relevant variables--and therein lies the rub.

You certainly shouldn't be making decisions based on extremely rare statistical outliers.

Or on broad averages that do not provide insight into the different drivers. That's the real issue.

In this case, the past data on homicides are very informative as to your relative risk.

Relative to what?

Today, the homicide rate is about half what it was in the 80s, so as long as we think we understand how we survived in that time period, we have a decent idea of what would suffice today. Especially since the risk today is much less than in the past.

Hogwash.

We shouldn't be relying on information from businesses that have a vested interest in our making poorly informed decisions.

I do not. I look at crime reports, car-jacking stats, bail bond policy, interviews with convicts. 911 response time, police practices on not responding to certain types of crime, prosecution policies, and other factors.

I will leave this post with this image that communicates, I think, pretty well what I am talking about (since you say you are unfamiliar with this kind of ‘misinformation’):

You said "In the gun industry, because they are marketing a self-defense product, this means generating fear and anxiety about personal safety". Your Illustration is about a publication--the product is the publication.

The marketing is dramatic, but where inside the product is anything that you reasonably characterize as "misinformation"?

 

[Old Dog]

So to recap member roscoe's arguments: We are generally safer now than we were in the '80s, homicides are down, the risk today is much less than in the past, and thinking we need to upgrade what we carry in terms of personal firearms is simply succumbing to marketing by the firearms industry (to include firearms periodicals).

All righty then. I disagree with all.

 

[TomJ]

Do you have some evidence to support this? Three armed attackers is common? Unless you are involved in the narcotics distribution industry, or are employed by personal protection services in Papua New Guinea, I have a hard time believing this.

Take this as one person's experience, but in the "safe" suburban area of Chicago I lived in up until last May I walked into an armed robbery in front of my house with four thugs in the car robbing a middle school aged kid, two shootings over a couple of years conducted by four thugs each time and a car jacking conducted by - you guessed it four thugs. I'm sure this varies by area, but you don't need to be a drug dealer or provide personal protection services in foreign countries to have to defend yourself from multiple attackers.

 

[TomJ]

News break - the world is safer now than it has ever been in history.

That's a generalization that is absolutely false in parts of the country. Violent crime in many big cities such as Chicago and New York is up as criminals are allowed to run wild due to an unwillingness to prosecute them and changes in bail policies. It wasn't that long ago that New York City was a relatively safe city, with bad leadership destroying that.

In regards to the gun industry generating fear, they don't need to do that as we have politicians that are doing that for them with their war on police and allowing rioters to do what they want unopposed.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Homicides are down"....

One factor in that trend may well be the significant increase in the survival rates of gunshot victims brought about by medical advances. That's a good thing, but it would not lead me to consider the world to be "safer" today.

 

[roscoe]

Those are averages

Some of the finest professors of statistical analysis in the country.

Data analysis and risk management were my profession.

Along with insight into the impact of the relevant variables--and therein lies the rub.

Or on broad averages that do not provide insight into the different drivers. That's the real issue.

Relative to what?

Hogwash.

I do not. I look at crime reports, car-jacking stats, bail bond policy, interviews with convicts. 911 response time, police practices on not responding to certain types of crime, prosecution policies, and other factors.



You said "In the gun industry, because they are marketing a self-defense product, this means generating fear and anxiety about personal safety". Your Illustration is about a publication--the product is the publication.

The marketing is dramatic, but where inside the product is anything that you reasonably characterize as "misinformation"?

I am sorry, but you are wrong about the numbers. An average is a a single number representing the central tendency of a sample - mean, mode, or median generally speaking (but there are others). The numbers on the graph are actual raw numbers of murders plotted relative to numbers of people for each year. They are not averages. If you calculated a mean of those years, than you would have an average. Determining the drivers of those numbers is a whole different thing, but that wasn't the question. The question is whether risk is greater in some way that requires us to change behavior. Since risk is not greater, we don't.

Who do you think pays for the publication? Magazines make their money off advertising, not subscriptions. And who pays for the advertising? For the reader the 'product' is the magazine. For the magazine itself, the product is advertising revenue. And actually I think the whole thing is a form of misinformation.

My point still holds - there has not been some important increase in risk that requires us to reassess our self-defense strategies. In fact, the opposite. Nothing yo have said challenges that central point.

 

[roscoe]

"Homicides are down"....

One factor in that trend may well be the significant increase in the survival rates of gunshot victims brought about by medical advances. That's a good thing, but it would not lead me to consider the world to be "safer" today.

"Homicides are down"....

One factor in that trend may well be the significant increase in the survival rates of gunshot victims brought about by medical advances. That's a good thing, but it would not lead me to consider the world to be "safer" today.

A reasonable question. I don't doubt that it is a factor across large time scales.

However, aggravated assaults are down as well:

 

[roscoe]

That's a generalization that is absolutely false in parts of the country. Violent crime in many big cities such as Chicago and New York is up as criminals are allowed to run wild due to an unwillingness to prosecute them and changes in bail policies. It wasn't that long ago that New York City was a relatively safe city, with bad leadership destroying that.

In regards to the gun industry generating fear, they don't need to do that as we have politicians that are doing that for them with their war on police and allowing rioters to do what they want unopposed.

Now, this is true. If you drill down on your local crime data, you might well come across useful data on localized risk assessment. I do that when I look at crime maps, but there are more and more data available online for exactly this.

 

[Kleanbore]

An average is a a single number representing the central tendency of a sample - mean, mode, or median.

Each data point on your graphs is the mean for the population included, for each reporting period. It is an average, and it does not reflect the risk to me or to you or to Old Dog.

Determining the drivers of those numbers is a whole different thing, but that wasn't the question.

In data analysis, it is the central issue.

The question is whether risk is greater in some way that requires us to change behavior

That is one quesiton.

Since risk is not greater, we don't.

Not greater for whom? Where?

And actually I think the whole thing is a form of misinformation.

Your basis for that?

My point still holds - there has not been some important increase in risk that requires us to reassess our self-defense strategies

The thread was about neither increases nor changes.
However, there have been important increases in risk that are causing me to reassess my self-defense strategies. For one thing, changes in enforcement and prosecution policies have made one nearby urban area much more dangerous. For another, car-jackings are on the increase. Part of that has to do with enforcement, and part, with technology--the perps need the key fob to take the car.

However, aggravated assaults are down as well:

The graph says "assault"--which is it?
But nether necessarily involves injury.
And data from 1970 are irrelevant to me.

 

[roscoe]

Each data point on your graphs is the mean for the population included, for each reporting period. It is an average, and it does not reflect the risk to me or to you or to Old Dog.
In data analysis, it is the central issue.
That is one quesiton.
Not greater for whom? Where?
Your basis for that?
The thread was about neither increases nor changes.
However, there have been important increases in risk that are causing me to reassess my self-defense strategies. For one thing, changes in enforcement and prosecution policies have made one nearby urban area much more dangerous. For another, car-jackings are on the increase. Part of that has to do with enforcement, and part, with technology--the perps need the key fob to take the car.
The graph says "assault"--which is it?
But nether necessarily involves injury.
And data from 1970 are irrelevant to me.

Each data point is a total. It is a raw number. Literally it is the counted number of homicides.

If I count 9 eggs in my hen house this morning, it is a total, not an average. If there are 3 eggs tomorrow, that reflects a change for the eggs available. It is a decrease not related to any 'average'. Perhaps it is the result of coyote visitation, but maybe not - that is another question. But first you have to identify the decrease. And one thing can be determined without calculation - there is less food to eat.

In our case, the raw numbers of murders and assaults has gone down since peaking in the late 1980s. Simple, and no averages calculated. People should be aware of that important risk-related decrease because if they are changing their behavior to counter a perceived increased risk, they need to know that their perceptions may be swayed by anecdotal and non-representative data. It all depends on where they get their information.

 

[Kleanbore]

Each data point is a total. It is a raw number. Literally it is the counted number of homicides.

you showed the number of homicides per 100,000 people. That number is the mean for the entire population, for each reporting period.

In our case, the raw numbers of murders and assaults has gone down since peaking in the late 1980s.

Your data show that the average rate per 100,000 has declined.

[QUOTE="roscoe, post: 12130119, member: 1417"]Simple, and no averages calculated. People should be aware of that important risk-related decrease because....[/QUOTE]I cannot think of a single reason why I need to know it..

The ikelihood of any person's being victimized within a particular reporting period is extremely low. Over an extended period of exposure, it is much higher.

But that average rate is meaningless as it might relate to individuals. Individual risk exposure varies with where one lives and works; occupation; working hours; age; socio-economic level; how one gets to work; attire; and other things.

The average for the total population is a completely meaningless number, as are trends over the decades and centuries, insofar as they concern civilian defensive tools, strategies, skillsets, and mindsets.

 

[roscoe]

I cannot think of a single reason why I need to know it..

The ikelihood of any person's being victimized within a particular reporting period is extremely low. Over an extended period of exposure, it is much higher.

But that average rate is meaningless as it might relate to individuals. Individual risk exposure varies with where one lives and works; occupation; working hours; age; socio-economic level; how one gets to work; attire; and other things.

The average for the total population is a completely meaningless number, as are trends over the decades and centuries, insofar as they concern civilian defensive tools, strategies, skillsets, and mindsets.

Yes, it is a ratio, but not an average. Those are not the same. Think of it like a body-mass index. BMI is not an 'average' - it is just a raw number that gives you body mass scaled by height. An average must characterize a sample of similar things. You could calculate an average homicide rate over time, but not over a single instant (in this case we only have data by year). The 1990 number is not an average; it is just adjusted for population size, like a scaling factor. You could have a 90s average, and compare it to the 80s average with a significance test. Plotted this way, you can see the shifts without doing any real calculations.

Whether it relates to any one individual's risk in any one location is another matter, but if someone claims that there is an increase, it should be supported by the correct type of data, not just what they saw on the news that week.

 

[patmccoy]

No. you are saying the word 'now' carries no information content in that sentence. But that is incorrect. Compare:
"I walk to work."
"I now walk to work"

Those two sentences clearly have different meanings. The second implies a comparison of 'now' to 'then'.

No. That is your inference. The now could refer to future events, rather than past events.

 

[Kleanbore]

You could calculate an average homicide rate over time, but not over a single instant (in this case we only have data by year).

Of course you can .

The 1990 number is not an average; ....

Of course it is. It is average for all of the possible 100,000 person groupings among the total population.

it is just adjusted for population size, like a scaling factor.

Yes, that's why we look at pr capita data and thr like.

. You could have a 90s average, and compare it to the 80s average with a significance test.

Whoop de do.

....if someone claims that there is an increase, it should be supported by the correct type of data,

I see no such claim in the OP.

There have been significant increases in the murder rates in some major cities in the last couple of years. but that is not the subject of the thread.

 

[roscoe]

No. That is your inference. The now could refer to future events, rather than past events.

Uh, that would not make sense in the original post. but you made my point - the use of the word 'now' refers to a 'now' and a 'then' (whether it is past or future).

 

[roscoe]

Of course you can .

Of course it is. It is average for all of the possible 100,000 person groupings among the total population.

Yes, that's why we look at pr capita data and thr like.

Whoop de do.

I see no such claim in the OP.

There have been significant increases in the murder rates in some major cities in the last couple of years. but that is not the subject of the thread.

It would only be an average if it were parsed into 100,000 person groupings in a mathematical statement. You could say that there is an average of 5 murders per 100,000 people. But that is not how it is used in this context, where it is used as a scaling factor. It would be like stating that BMI is an average. A scaled variable like BMI or murder rate allows us to make further statistical statements, since we have now controlled for a confounding variable.

 

[roscoe]

It would only be an average if it were parsed into 100,000 person groupings in a mathematical statement. You could say that there is an average of 5 murders per 100,000 people. But that is not how it is used in this context, where it is used as a scaling factor. It would be like stating that BMI is an average. A scaled variable like BMI or murder rate allows us to make further statistical statements, since we have now controlled for a confounding variable.

Oh, and, you cannot calculate a rate for a single instant. A rate requires a delta, which is missing in an instant. Unless you already have the function, which we certainly do not here.

 

[MikeInOr]

I've been carrying for over a decade. I carried a smith 642, glock 22, and now a 1911 in 45 acp. Amoung a few others, including occasional carry of single action Rugers such as my flattop blackhawk in 44 special.

I dont go places that are considered "bad" and I generally stay away from all trouble. My lifestyle is such, that I'm not as likely to be involved in a self defense situation as a more active, more town dwelling person. I generally stay home, I work from home, so my needs are not the same as what others might be.

I am considering, switching from my 1911 to a revolver, such as the gp100. But I have a hard time with that because I perceive the 1911 as better because of capacity and reloadability.

When I switched from a Glock 22, to a 1911, I was somewhat uncomfortable because of the perceived lack of firepower. I primarily switched because I like the 1911 better. And because I am a believer in bigger bore is better.

And that's the reason I'm considering switching again. I like revolvers better. I practice with them more as a result.

I currently have a gp100 in 357 magnum. That is one consideration in the switch, the caliber, 357. I prefer big bore cartridges. But when I am able to acquire one in 44 special, that would be my new love.

Have I lost my mind?

Like said above it all comes down to what "you" are comfortable with.

My behavior and lifestyle is very similar to yours and I consider it quite low risk too. I work from home, I avoid bad and troublesome neighborhoods, I live in a rural area outside of a smallish city, I avoid trouble rather than seek it out like it seems many people do. My one rule is to always have a gun on me when I leave the house because I never know when trouble is going to find me. I can't imagine having your choice of carry weapons and always having a gun on me when I am out of the house. But if they work for you that is great! If you are looking for an excuse to purchase a GP100 you have my blessing. I think they are great revolvers.

Below shows my carry collection plus some others. My most carried piece is the DB9. The CM9 is a much nicer gun but the DB9 is more compact.

Personally I think too many people dwell too much on caliber and capacity, thinking more is better on both. The chances you will ever have to draw your defensive firearm is very, very slim. The chances you will fire more than 3 rounds in a defensive situation (unless you are employing the spray and pray method) is also slim. Add those two factors together and you see why I say people overthink what they carry. With that said, carry what YOU are comfortable with, period, the end.

I completely agree with this thinking. I carry the largest caliber pistol I can for a particular outfit without much thought to capacity. When I go to the big city it means that I mostly carry my XDS 3.3" in .45acp with a capacity of 6 including the one in the chamber. For "me" I am perfectly comfortable with 6 rounds of .45acp.

 

[Rexster]

All of this math is, well, interesting, but I do not carry weapons because of the calculable odds that a defensive incident will occur. “It is not about the odds; it is about the stakes.” I tried to find the one who coined the term, and ran into several variations, but found no clear original author.

When I decide to carry a .357 Magnum revolving pistol, it is not because I am calculating that five, six, or eight rounds will suffice. It is a matter of confidence in my ability to place those rounds where I want them to go. Shooting revolvers is, for me, more “stress-proof” than shooting any auto-loader. The only auto-loader that comes close to equivalent accuracy, over distance, anymore, is a full-sized, all-steel 1911, and that is only if I have recently trained.

I know that .357 Magnum has a high potential to STOP a fight. There are other cartridges that also stop fights, very well, too, of course.

I am not trying to convince or convert anyone. I know what works for me, because of some amount of high-pressure training, and, having fired a decisive defensive shot, in a real-world incident, with a GP100. A GP100 is not the only defensive handgun that I carry, but the GP100 was discussed in the original post, so is most relevant to this discussion.

 

[Bazoo]

Thanks for your input rexter.

 

[Kleanbore]

You could say that there is an average of 5 murders per 100,000 people.

Yes, you could.

But that is not how it is used in this context, where it is used as a scaling factor.

Yes, it is.

Oh, and, you cannot calculate a rate for a single instant. A rate requires a delta, which is missing in an instant

Hogwash.

I hate to put it quite this way, but this is clearly not your strong suit.

 

[TomJ]

One of the problems with these discussions is that we tend to look at things through the lens of our personal experiences. Over the past 15 years the number of murders annually in Chicago, where I lived until last May ranged between 400 and 700. That does not include the surrounding suburbs. Year to date there have been 4000 shootings and 1300 car jackings there. I'd call that significant. The small town in SE Wisconsin I moved to had no murders over that time frame except for one year about 10 years ago, where there were 10. I don't believe it's wise to try to predict where and when you'll be the victim of a violent crime, as that decision is not up to you but to your attacker and it could happen anywhere. That being said someone living on the south side or west side of Chicago is going to have a different view of the possibility of being a victim of a violent crime than someone in the small town I live in now. It doesn't mean I've changed anything in regards to what I carry, and I continue to carry daily, only that the odds of me needing to defend myself or my family have decreased significantly.

In regards to changes in violent crime, that's meaningless from the standpoint that I don't make decisions about anything based on the way things were 30 to 40 years ago, but on the way they are now.

 

[Kleanbore]

Over the past 15 years the number of murders annually in Chicago, where I lived until last May ranged between 400 and 700. That does not include the surrounding suburbs. Year to date there have been 4000 shootings and 1300 car jackings there. I'd call that significant.

I'll say!

In regards to changes in violent crime, that's meaningless from the standpoint that I don't make decisions about anything based on the way things were 30 to 40 years ago, but on the way they are now

Exactly!