Do you believe you are more safe (in public) when others are carrying?

[Warp]

In a publicly accessible location, in a shall-issue state, do you believe that you are more safe if at least one other person at your location is carrying a firearm? (most likely a concealed pistol).

For purposes of this question ignore the outside chance that something happens and you both end up with guns drawn, not sure if the other is a threat or not.

 

[HexHead]

I don't rely on others to protect me, just as they shouldn't rely on me to protect them. I carry a gun to protect me and mine. Period. If unarmed people become targets, they've made poor choices.

 

[1911 guy]

I think the effect is more one of "herd immunity", to purloin and misuse a phrase, than it is a specific effect in a specific circumstance. I'm not more safe because the fellow in the next aisle of the Piggly Wiggly is carrying a .490 LoudenBoomer and has real world experience fighting mutant ninja zombie bears. However, I AM slightly more safe when more people are armed. It has been proven again and again by annual statistics that crime in general is reduced when CCW becomes widely available and practiced.

 

[Warp]

I think the effect is more one of "herd immunity", to purloin and misuse a phrase, than it is a specific effect in a specific circumstance. I'm not more safe because the fellow in the next aisle of the Piggly Wiggly is carrying a .490 LoudenBoomer and has real world experience fighting mutant ninja zombie bears. However, I AM slightly more safe when more people are armed. It has been proven again and again by annual statistics that crime in general is reduced when CCW becomes widely available and practiced.

There are two things here.

One is the 'general deterrence' of potential attackers not knowing, for sure, who is armed and who is not.

There is also the 'specific deterrent' fact that crimes are stopped by licensed carriers reaching for, gripping, drawing, or presenting firearms.

One is pretty much always a factor when a state is shall issue, especially when it has been for longer, has no training requirements, has inexpensive permits, etc (which is to say, when a higher % of the population gets a license).

The other actually requires a person with a gun to be there in order to be a factor.

The reduction in crime after shall-issue carry laws can be attributed to both.

 

[AlexanderA]

Potential wrongdoers (at least the rational ones) will think twice if there is a probability that victims or bystanders are armed. It's like a shell game. Therefore, what matters is the legal ability for the law-abiding to be armed, not the actual fact that they are armed. (For this to work, there has to be a minimum number of actual carriers.) Bottom line: even if I don't carry, I'm probably safer if my state allows it.

 

[buck460XVR]

I too am more confident with my ability to protect myself than trusting some other, random, unknown person with a gun. While half of those folks may make me safer, there's the other half that are probably putting me at more risk because of their lack of skill or gun handling safety. IMHO tho, the more folks criminals perceive are carrying concealed, the safer I am.

 

[Warp]

The only variable up for consideration is the actual physical presence of a stranger lawfully carrying a firearm in your vicinity.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

I didn't vote as there's no appropriate choice that fits my perspective. I do feel safer knowing more and more people are carrying but not for the reasons given in the poll.

I don't rely on, nor want, someone else protecting me but I do believe that when more people carry, criminals begin to think twice about their actions, and therefore I am safer.

 

[horsemen61]

I carry for my own protection

 

[22-rimfire]

I don't think about it one way or the other in terms of being more or less safe. I depend on myself. But your poll certainly might be of interest to Hillary Clinton if it was posted in USA Today rather than a gun forum where you can pretty much predict the results.

 

[tarosean]

In a state of 26m + inhabitants and 708k + licensed CHL holders. I'm statically not likely to be in the same location as another holder (LGS's excluded).

 

[Ryanxia]

I usually don't notice but feel safer in general even if it's a stranger. I carry 100% myself as well but 2 is 1, 1 is none.

I go out every Friday night with a group of usually 5-10 friends. At least half of us are always carrying and we all definitely feel like the safest group where ever we are.
Sometimes we take a (quiet) poll of who's carrying what, the Sig 938 usually wins (which is mine as well).

 

[Sam1911]

I don't truly believe that criminals take the -- relatively tiny -- possibility that there MIGHT be a citizen lawfully carrying a weapon into account when they plan crimes. In the best of states, far less than 10 percent even hold a permit and far fewer than that carry even occasionally, so being shot by an armed citizen who happens to be present (and close enough) when an act of violence is committed probably is about as worrisome as being hit by a bus or having a heart attack while robbing someone. In other words, not likely enough to be planned for.

To answer the poll: No real difference.

 

[WestKentucky]

I feel more safe in that people are less likely to pull such a stunt where they end up shot and dead if more people are able to make them shot and dead. However we all know that the people who pull such stunts are not reasonable for the most part, and those who are simply isolate the crime they intend to do into a 1 on 1 or better (for them) situation to protect them self, so realistically the crime rate drops very slightly by increase of armed citizens. To look at the aftermath you have to consider what happens. Most people now want to carry heavy hitter caliber in tiny gun that they shoot like crap on a good normal day. Add panic and confusion to the mix and bystanders/people fleeing are probably catching lead.

So where does this trade off actually sit? Who knows but I THINK that realistically it is a wash. People are scared to use their weapons because of heavily publicized self defense cases gone wrong so they aren't as likely to use as they could be. People who are willing probably aren't going to be our first pick for shooting to defend us. The trade off may be slightly negative or slightly positive. Probably about the same.

Do I feel better when I carry a gun, yes but I know my strengths and weaknesses (weaknesses more important than strengths) and feel like my actions at the time I have to deploy lethal force will protect me. I absolutely cannot speak for others, but the trends in the "masses" scare the hell out of me.

 

[Sam1911]

However we all know that the people who pull such stunts are not reasonable for the most part

Reasonable? Not sure how to define that. In the classic sense, though, criminal acts are almost always rational. The factors influencing the decision to take those actions are simply not the same ones (or are weighted differently) from what you or I find compelling. Criminals are not any more stupid or irrational than the average person, by and large.

 

[MtnCreek]

No real difference if they keep them holstered, but the little show & tells some people like to do makes me nervous.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

I attended a highly charged political function last month where the Governor of Georgia signed a pro-firearms bill into law. The crowd was estimated at between 200 and 250 people (some said 250-300 but I'll go with the lesser number).
At least half the attendees were armed with a third being openly armed.

As the first speaker on the dais said, "As I look out upon the crowd, I don't think I've ever been in a safer place in Georgia."

 

[km101]

Safer if:

1. They are in fact in my immediate vicinity. And there is some real doubt since the percentage of the population that is licensed is so low.

2. They are trained and conditioned well enough to use their firearm safely and effectively.
Again, how do I know?

So I feel that the only safety in concealed carry is that which I provide me and mine. I cant depend on anyone else.

 

[ATLDave]

Very, very slightly more safe. I'm already pretty safe. Realistically, unless you're involved in criminal enterprises, you're generally pretty darn safe. So any improvement in safety is at the margins and small. I think there are offsetting benefits and costs. The guy carrying could have an ND. He could mistake me for a threat when I'm not. Or he could stop someone who is about to do me harm. I think when it's all netted out, it's a very, very small gain in safety. But not a big deal either way.

 

[jbrown50]

Do I feel more safe? No.

Would I feel better having another responsibly armed citizen there? Yes, because it's another person who can help thwart a criminal attack. I wouldn't assume though that a criminal attack would be less likely simply because there's multiple responsibly armed citizens there.

 

[Warp]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "relying" or "depending" or "counting" on anybody else. I don't know where you guys are getting that.

 

[buck460XVR]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "relying" or "depending" or "counting" on anybody else. I don't know where you guys are getting that.

I'd assume that believing you are safer just because someone other than you is carrying is somehow dependent on one of those three things. If not, then they're carrying is a moot point. If one could not rely, depend or count on that person, then them even being there is irrelevant.

 

[cat_IT_guy]

I do feel safer. I dont feel endangered now, and generally only the 'bad guys' have guns (or such was the case before IL passed concealed carry). Good guys with guns at least in my mind helps level the playing field.

 

[huntsman]

I don't rely on others to protect me, just as they shouldn't rely on me to protect them. I carry a gun to protect me and mine. Period. If unarmed people become targets, they've made poor choices.

+100 we (family) all carry and think everyone else should also, no significant difference.

 

[Warp]

I'd assume that believing you are safer just because someone other than you is carrying is somehow dependent on one of those three things. If not, then they're carrying is a moot point. If one could not rely, depend or count on that person, then them even being there is irrelevant.

There is a difference between acknowledging that you may be safer if somebody else is there to effectively respond, and relying on somebody else for your safety.