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

[Old Dog]

There is a difference between acknowledging that you may be safer if somebody else is there to effectively respond,

How would one know if the others who may be packing are there to "effectively respond?"

I have no way of knowing, even if another guy pulls his concealed pistol out when a bad situation arises, what his training level is, whether he understands basic hand-signals, what his fitness level is, whether or not he's capable of "taking The Shot" or whether he's just gonna get in the way and muddle things up ... In a bad spot, all these variables come into play.

Unless a life is directly threatened, I'd feel safer knowing that most present are just gonna be good witnesses and call 911 asap.

In this shall-issue state (the original shall-issue state), with only about 5% of the population holding active CPLs, odd are that anyone packing a concealed pistol in public is just as likely to be a criminal who's packing illegally as he is to be a good citizen with a CPL ... And again, how does one identify the bad guy? Trust him when he says, "I'm a good guy?"

Do I feel better knowing that a lot of my fellow citizens walking around the mall may be legally carrying? Yes, of course. But do I feel SAFER?

Not necessarily.

 

[we are not amused]

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.

I think I must very strongly disagree!
Remember the rash of attacks on people driving rental cars in Florida, especially near airports, after Florida liberalized it's Concealed Carry Laws?

It made the National news, and prompted foreign Governments to issue travel advisories for their Nationals, and the Florida Legislature changed the way Rental License plates were issued to make them indistinguishable from non-rental plates.

Somebody in the criminal element was making damn sure they weren't likely to target concealed carry holders.

Also look at where by far the largest amount of mass shootings take place, in "Gun Free Zones". Again, somebody is paying attention.

In answer to the poll, I feel much safer in public, when I am in places that people are allowed to carry. I feel even safer when I am carrying.

 

[conw]

Accidental premature post. Please see succinct post after this one.

 

[buck460XVR]

I think belief probably has nothing to do with it.

Facts and causal relationships exist regardless of our beliefs. Our beliefs do not directly influence the world around us.

I disagree....especially since the OP asked for our belief, not actual fact.

do you believe that you are more safe

 

[we are not amused]

I think belief probably has nothing to do with it. Safety can be defined narrowly and according to that definition one can analyze statistics and facts to determine for a fact what the relative degree of safety is in various circumstances.

The gray areas come in when you look at causality, the relationship between a specific variable and the relative degree of safety. That's still got nothing to do with belief but rather the fact that statistics are just a poor way to determine causation. For that you need more in depth methods such as experimentation.

There are plausible reasons that have been offered as to why an environment permissive toward citizens carrying guns could be safer. We don't have definite answers and no one can say for sure without much better statistics and better methods to determine the existence effect and strength of such an effect.

Let's say for the sake of example that I'm not convinced that it increases safety. That the arguments given do not move me. That says *nothing* about whether or not I rely on others etc. If someone conducts proper studies and modeling and PROVES to me that other people carrying guns makes me safer, totally changes my opinion on the matter, that still says nothing about whether I rely on others, or about my belief systems.

Conversely if the fact is demonstrated well beyond conjecture and I simply choose to ignore evidence and to disbelieve it, that also says nothing about whether I feel I can count on others.

Facts and causal relationships exist regardless of our beliefs. Our beliefs do not directly influence the world around us.

I believe John Lott has done some work on that. More Guns Less Crime has been out for quite a while now, and gone through several updates. I would suggest every one read it.

 

[conw]

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.

Numerous possible mechanisms for increasing safety exist and not all of them rely on direct intervention. Some mechanisms have been proposed in this thread such as increased hesitation for criminals to predate within a certain area. Another easy one that comes to mind is that people who are armed and learn about gun safety may behave in ways favorable to safety e.g. avoiding breaking the law, drinking less, being more polite to strangers and avoiding arguments, etc.

No one has to "believe" that strangers will intervene or even use their guns at all for the above mechanisms to work. The most jaded cynic could potentially find them plausible.

More importantly the reality is either they (citizens carrying guns) DO or DO NOT have a positive influence on general safety. We don't know for sure but despite not knowing the reality itself still exists. That reality doesn't hinge on our beliefs and I can believe one thing today and another tomorrow. I could convince others of my view or play devil's advocate but it still won't change the underlying reality.

 

[conw]

I disagree....especially since the OP asked for our belief, not actual fact.

I actually didn't mean to post that in that form. I have a better post you can review now.

First off though no one will change reality solely with their thoughts, opinions, or beliefs.

And second rational people form educated opinion or accept facts, not believe things without any basis. For someone to find an argument such as "most people that carry guns are safer drivers, drink less, and are less likely to start fights, therefore the more people decide to carry, the safer I am" plausible, one does not need to consider any likelihood that someone will intervene.

In fact I would argue that any relationship with gun ownership and crime has virtually nothing to do with armed good Samaritans defending others. If there is a causal relationship it is almost certainly due to a lot of different small nuanced aspects of who gun owners are and how they behave and possibly the way the perception of gun ownership influences potential criminals.

 

[Sam1911]

Somebody in the criminal element was making damn sure they weren't likely to target concealed carry holders.

That's a a data point and a conclusion. Looking at the one, I can't quite make the leap across to the other (after all, I can think of several reasons tourists get targeted for crime. That they might not hold a carry permit is probably about as far down on that list as their preference in socks and sandals)
-- no matter how nice it would be to claim it for our purposes.

Also look at where by far the largest amount of mass shootings take place, in "Gun Free Zones". Again, somebody is paying attention.

Once more, I appreciate what a nifty press release talking point that makes, but there's no real substance to it. These guys choose their target areas for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the availability of distracted crowds. Some of those places have been gun free zones but there doesn't seem to be any credible direct evidence that any mass killer set out to avoid/exclude the possibility of an armed citizen.

 

[GEM]

With some people I know well - Yes!

With some people I know well - NO!

What more can I say.

 

[Ignition Override]

A primary question might be how that person with a CCL reacts to a sudden threat.
But at least there is a good probability that he/she is prepared to react in a controlled manner. Or is this an assumption?

Either way, look at what happened to that young soldier in London, who was run over, then murdered with a large blade.
Nobody on that street (or country) was Allowed to have a concealed-carry firearm, unless as in LEO.

 

[Bexar]

Here in Houston we have had several recent cases where CHL carriers have captured robbers who were robbing women in parking lots. In the most recent case the police simply told the guy thanks and cut him lose. There is a current situation circulating the Internet and I'm sure several of y'all have seen it where a CHL shot and killed a guy robbing a Waffle House. The robber's partner was captured. The reason it is circulating the Internet is because the dead guys parents are doing the "He was a choir boy." show.

Since many crimes are committed by the same people simply eliminating those people, either through capture or otherwise, has a greater effect than a one man one crime statistic.

I'm not advocating an untrained person intercede because even trained LEOs lose and an interceding person could cause a bad situation to go tragic because the CHL is simply not exposed to the Hogan's alley scenarios.

Yes...we used to travel to Florida every year from Texas for vacation and there were warning signs at the road stops advising out of state tourists to be cautious. I asked a Highway Patrolman and he mentioned another factor was that criminals know that most tourists won't return for prosecution of the robber.

We were in Florida and some guy attempted to snatch my Wife's diamond pendent necklace at the Orlando city park while we were getting out of the car. But that's another story for another day.

To answer the OP's original question...Yes...the more CHL's the merrier as far as I'm concerned. The only problem besides wounded by-standers would be whose going to lower their gun first if five guys come out with them and every body is covering every body. I'm not saying this to be funny but I'd sure hate to be a black guy in that situation. Again...not trying to be funny just a Hogan's alley scenario example.

 

[ACP]

not lately. too many stories lately about legal gun owners losing it and killing innocent people. plus, I rely only on my training and judgment to save my bacon, not anyone else's.

 

[we are not amused]

That's a a data point and a conclusion. Looking at the one, I can't quite make the leap across to the other (after all, I can think of several reasons tourists get targeted for crime. That they might not hold a carry permit is probably about as far down on that list as their preference in socks and sandals)
-- no matter how nice it would be to claim it for our purposes.

Once more, I appreciate what a nifty press release talking point that makes, but there's no real substance to it. These guys choose their target areas for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the availability of distracted crowds. Some of those places have been gun free zones but there doesn't seem to be any credible direct evidence that any mass killer set out to avoid/exclude the possibility of an armed citizen.

Right out of the Anti-Gunner's Handbook! And the equally anti-gun Mother Jones. I noticed in their article, while they pointed out many reasons that the killers may have chosen their victims, they never pointed out that they all occurred in a "Gun FreeZone".

John Lott and William Landes would disagree. In a Dec. 16, 2012 article, by John Fund in National Review on Line, Lott claims that with the single exception of the Kathy Giffords shooting in Tuscon, "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

That is not exactly "some".

Again, read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"

The link between Florida's passing of "shall Issue" Concealed Carry permits and the attacks on tourist was very unlikely to have been a coincidence, especially based upon the dramatic increase in such attacks, and I have never heard a convincing argument otherwise. Most, like yours, are simply denials that there is any link, not a reasoned argument against it.

Given the choice between believing you and the gun banners, or John Lott, the choice is easy. But we can always agree to disagree.


I feel comfortable with people other than myself being armed. I would not deny them, what I demand for myself, nor do I fear responsible, (and lets face it, most people are reasonably responsible, or Civil Society would not exist) law abiding people. Criminal wrongdoers are another matter.

 

[we are not amused]

not lately. too many stories lately about legal gun owners losing it and killing innocent people. plus, I rely only on my training and judgment to save my bacon, not anyone else's.

Any examples you would care to name? I can't think of any recent ones off hand, especially any that have made the news.

While it does happen from time to time, statistics show that armed private Citizens are less likely to shoot an innocent victim than Law Enforcement Officers.

I say that, not to disparage LE, but the person on the scene often has a much better idea of what's going on than an officer just arriving.

 

[mljdeckard]

I am responsible and trained to protect my own safety. Everything else is a maybe at best. The rare exception would be when I am out and about with the very short list of people I know who also carry and we have cross-trained with each others' weapons, (I'm talking, war buddies and lifelong friends,) and we have actually discussed and trained for group tactics.

Everything else is covering my escape route.

 

[orionengnr]

I've never stopped to look at it as a safety issue. It is a freedom issue.

So in a roundabout way, I guess you could say that I believe we are all more safe in a free society where people exercise their inalienable rights.

 

[HexHead]

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.

Well stated.

 

[buck460XVR]

I actually didn't mean to post that in that form. I have a better post you can review now.

Nah...that's okay.

First off though no one will change reality solely with their thoughts, opinions, or beliefs.

This isn't about reality or anyone tryin' to change reality with their thoughts. This is about one's belief that he is or is not safer when others around him carry concealed. The definition of belief is.....trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. No mention of reality. No mention of "Numerous possible mechanisms".

As for "Our beliefs do not directly influence the world around us.", again, I disagree. Religions are beliefs that are formed not from reality, but by faith. Science has yet to verify any religion, nor deny it. Still, religions are one of the biggest influences in the world and have been for eternity.

Regardless, my answer to the poll is still the same.....

c.) I don't think it makes a significant difference either way

 

[Sam1911]

Right out of the Anti-Gunner's Handbook! And the equally anti-gun Mother Jones.

Cute! Guilt by association, eh?

Ahhh, so be it. I don't support those folks views of gun rights or self-defense, I just happen to think that we're conflating commonality with causality in both instances because we so desperately want to be able to claim credit for a tangible gun rights benefit to society.

I don't mind that we use those as talking points -- sure beats anything the other side has to say -- I just personally find them more "truthy" than true.

John Lott and William Landes would disagree. In a Dec. 16, 2012 article, by John Fund in National Review on Line, Lott claims that with the single exception of the Kathy Giffords shooting in Tuscon, "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

And that might indeed be true! I don't claim any special knowledge that it isn't.

But again, that doesn't prove much. The sorts of places these nuts tend to target do happen to be the sorts of places that are commonly "prohibited" from lawful carrying of weapons. Does the GFZ factor ever enter into their strategy? I do not think there is any actual, factual reason to say so.

It seems possible, but there are plenty of reasons to choose malls, schools, workplaces, movie theaters, etc. for a mass killing. Deliberately considering that the (pretty darned rare anyway) armed citizen won't be present -- when s/he statistically isn't all that likely to be present at any specific location, GFZ or not -- seems like we're projecting something into these psychos' minds that we desperately WANT to find there. (i.e.: The fact that an armed citizen is a deterrent factor to them.)

Again, read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"

Right, right, I know. Pretty familiar with his good work. I've been around the RKBA fight for a while now, you know?

Just because I think the conclusions most of take away from his writings are a bit of a step too far doesn't mean I'm not on the side of God and the angels, have no fear.

The link between Florida's passing of "shall Issue" Concealed Carry permits and the attacks on tourist was very unlikely to have been a coincidence,

How do you, REALLY, figure that? Pretty unlikely? How so?

especially based upon the dramatic increase in such attacks, and I have never heard a convincing argument otherwise.

Never heard a convincing argument otherwise? Well, saying the tourists are targeted because they probably don't have carry permits is a pretty significant -- perhaps extraordinary -- claim. It would be incumbent upon one making that claim to support it. No-one can prove a negative, you know. If there is some direct proof that the targeting of tourists was because they probably wouldn't hold FLORIDA carry permits, the ones claiming that link must provide that direct proof. Otherwise the claim is, again, just one of commonality, not causality.

Most, like yours, are simply denials that there is any link, not a reasoned argument against it.

Like I said, you can't prove a negative. I can't prove to you that no criminal ever said, "let's rob tourists BECAUSE they might not have lawful gun carrying credentials." I can give you lots of other, quite compelling, reasons why tourists would be targeted. In fact, they ARE targeted all over the world in many, many places where guns cannot be lawfully carried by any civilian. Targeted for those other compelling reasons. Why would FL be a special case where the possible chance that they MIGHT not be lawfully carrying a firearm becomes the (or even A) primary reason to target them?

But we can always agree to disagree.

We can, certainly. But I'd sure be happy if you could provide convincing arguments for your position! I'd love to be able to trot those out in debates actually believing they are facts, not wishful thinking on our part.

 

[1911 guy]

Consider that many of these shooters plan on taking themselves out when met with resistance. They, then, obviously choose places where resistance is likely to be in the form of responding LE, not someone already on scene. This would mean planning to shoot up a "gun free" zone.

 

[RustyShackelford]

Wording....

The complex wording of the topic makes answering the poll hard.
If a trained & licensed person draws a gun then stops a threat, either with lethal force or a "show of force" then it's good. But if the CCW holder is unskilled or reckless then it's bad.
The point is without knowing the person, you do not know what they will do or how much lethal force/tactics they will use.
you can assess a situation or use your weapons/skills but you aren't accountable or responsible for others.
I don't wander around seeking out CCW holders or engage OCers they way some people do.
I don't see someone in a jungle/bush hat & think they are a "Vietnam Veteran". I don't walk up to guys wearing safari vests or 5.11 vests & ask if they have guns.

Rusty

 

[jrdolall]

I think the stats bear out that criminals avoid places where there is a high likelihood of people carrying guns. That's why virtually all of these mass murders occur in gun free zones. That's why the vast majority of burglars break in to houses that are not occupied or rob C-stores when there are no other customers present.
Most criminals want an easy target. Robbing the Piggly Wiggly in Columbus GA during normal business hours is a risky proposition because there is a good chance some customers are packing. For THIS reason I voted that I feel safer knowing others may be carrying.

 

[Bexar]

What I don't understand is that many of these shooters in the populated facilities that when confronted by either authorities or armed resistance don't engage the counter-aggressors but simply shoot themselves. The choice of a gun free zone might enter into "a very few some" shooters decision but I believe more it is the venues they choose by the nature of that venues environment are GFZs.

What I've also come to the conclusion from dealing with liberal gun control freaks is that they would flip and be packing sixty six guns and screaming for free government ammo if the democratic party platform went pro-gun because of a Women's Rights or similar issue.

The other thing is I have seen some go neutral or even lean slightly pro-gun but they are still going to vote the liberal, Uncle Sugar platform.

I have seen, and I'm not exaggerating two family members of friends nearly come to blows and not talk to each other for years over platform issues but the entire family still votes democratic.

I've also seen in my own Wife's family simple philosophy conservative differences, like Christian Right...Tea Party...Libertarian...old school Republican that wouldn't even be casually considered disruptive to family harmony still result in a different conservative vote candidate or worse no vote at all. God save you if you are on the wrong side of the den during college football season, however.

Both sides of my family are almost clinically psychotic conservatives but I've seen several members vote for different candidates.

I am also seeing a migration towards every one voting single party Republican because the concern is anything is better than the Democrats. Oh...if you ever come over for the holidays...don't ever mention LBJ in front of my F-I-L. The only time in 28 years I ever heard his voice even bump a notch in volume was when one of the younger members asked about LBJ during a holiday gathering.

 

[Bexar]

Right out of the Anti-Gunner's Handbook! And the equally anti-gun Mother Jones. I noticed in their article, while they pointed out many reasons that the killers may have chosen their victims, they never pointed out that they all occurred in a "Gun FreeZone".

John Lott and William Landes would disagree. In a Dec. 16, 2012 article, by John Fund in National Review on Line, Lott claims that with the single exception of the Kathy Giffords shooting in Tuscon, "every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

That is not exactly "some".

Again, read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime"

The link between Florida's passing of "shall Issue" Concealed Carry permits and the attacks on tourist was very unlikely to have been a coincidence, especially based upon the dramatic increase in such attacks, and I have never heard a convincing argument otherwise. Most, like yours, are simply denials that there is any link, not a reasoned argument against it.

Given the choice between believing you and the gun banners, or John Lott, the choice is easy. But we can always agree to disagree.


I feel comfortable with people other than myself being armed. I would not deny them, what I demand for myself, nor do I fear responsible, (and lets face it, most people are reasonably responsible, or Civil Society would not exist) law abiding people. Criminal wrongdoers are another matter.

What liberals don't understand is that historically it has been them that have thrown down against the Federal government on more than several occasions one time when Mother Jones was involved where over a million rounds were fired in a confrontation between unionizing coal minors and coal management supported by Federal troops. Never mind the other times the liberals have mounted armed insurrections against The man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Ibid:

The Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the largest civil uprisings in United States history and the largest armed rebellion since the American Civil War.[1] For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.[4]

Mother Jones was against Women's suffrage and abortion and wasn't afraid to at least stand behind armed coal miners during more than several regional armed insurrections of her generation.

I've pointed this out to liberals and it only made them temporarily catatonic before they started their gun-control chants again.

 

[buck460XVR]

Never mind the other times the liberals have mounted armed insurrections against The man.

yeah.....kinda like when Gov. Jim Rhodes ordered the troops to Kent State, eh?

C'mon guys....None of this has anything to do with one's perception of how safe they are when others around them are armed. Unless of course we are talkin' armed libbies and the difference in how safe one is between an armed Libby and an armed Servie