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

[NoVA Shooter]

The question(s) posed in this thread never, in anyway, said nor implied ANYTHING about "trusting" anybody else to protect you.

The first two options in your poll do.
"...another person who can quickly respond to a threat or attack"
and
"...another person who can distract the threat by taking action while I flee"

Feeling safer for those reason implies a level of trust/reliance in another person.

Just them having a gun on their person does not make you safer, and this was the question asked.

Yes, that was (more or less) the question that was actually asked.

I agree that the physical act of carrying a gun does not make you safer. Events unfold around us independently of what we may or may not have on us (that person approaching you with the intent to rob you would be doing so regardless of your CCW status). While CCW cannot change circumstance, it can affect the overall environment that leads to that circumstance. Let’s look at the extreme; if every person was carrying a gun, and every criminal knew that, IMHO, you most certainly would be safer. Again, not saying that the fact you have a gun makes the bad guys go away, however, the knowledge that people are carrying can.

 

[Warp]

The first two options in your poll do.
"...another person who can quickly respond to a threat or attack"
and
"...another person who can distract the threat by taking action while I flee"

Feeling safer for those reason implies a level of trust/reliance in another person.

I want to note that I didn't use the word "feel".

I agree that the physical act of carrying a gun does not make you safer. Events unfold around us independently of what we may or may not have on us (that person approaching you with the intent to rob you would be doing so regardless of your CCW status). While CCW cannot change circumstance, it can affect the overall environment that leads to that circumstance.

I think I see reality as the exact opposite of this ^.

Having a concealed firearm on you, all else equal, does not really change the "overall environment" at all, especially with respect to other people's actions...that only happens if and when you let it be known that you have a firearm.

Let’s look at the extreme; if every person was carrying a gun, and every criminal knew that, IMHO, you most certainly would be safer. Again, not saying that the fact you have a gun makes the bad guys go away, however, the knowledge that people are carrying can.

I worded the OP and the questions the way I did because I am NOT asking about 'general deterrence'. What you just described is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question(s) posed.

 

[oneounceload]

The answer is no you are not. You have no idea who is carrying and who is not and even if you did, you have no idea what their intent is going to be towards you or others

 

[Warp]

The answer is no you are not. You have no idea who is carrying and who is not and even if you did, you have no idea what their intent is going to be towards you or others

You don't have to know somebody else is carrying to be safer.

Again, the question is about actual factual reality. Not simply how you feel at the time in the situation. Knowing that the other person is carrying is not a pre-requisite to answer the question

 

[heycods]

All of the above?

 

[Warp]

All of the above?

lol

Any of the above could apply, depending.

Which do you believe is most likely?

 

[heycods]

All could apply to me, but in reality, Its me I depend on for me and mine!

 

[Warp]

I think we have a serious reading comprehension issue on this forum.

 

[oneounceload]

Are you more or less safe with others (strangers) carrying in your vicinity?

You don't have to know somebody else is carrying to be safer.

Again, the question is about actual factual reality. Not simply how you feel at the time in the situation. Knowing that the other person is carrying is not a pre-requisite to answer the question

Wow, OK, maybe I am missing everything in its entirety; otherwise, you are way out of touch......if you do not know WHO is carrying WHY would you feel safer in any scenario? This makes NO sense at all

 

[Warp]

Wow, OK, maybe I am missing everything in its entirety; otherwise, you are way out of touch......if you do not know WHO is carrying WHY would you feel safer in any scenario? This makes NO sense at all

You are.

But you aren't the only one, don't worry.

I don't know how to explain it any more clearly, so I guess I need to work on that.

 

[Ignition Override]

One thing is well known among the criminals at the nearby (Memphis) Shelby Farms County prison and the separate, federal prison a half mile away:
the fact that citizens outside that prison have the right to carry a concealed handgun.

Many of the anti-gunners seem to be totally unaware that the criminals know about such laws, and that career thugs often wonder
whether a potential victim is armed.

One federal convict (elsewhere in the US) stated in a prison video that "It's no fun when the rabbits (people) can shoot back".

 

[sauer1911]

I think the idea of presence of an officer in uniform does alot to deter crime.

The same could be said of letting it be known that in certain areas CCW is in force. The more that people are informed, the better their decisions, but then up pops candidates for the Darwin awards.

In the end, not much difference. I protect me and mine, anywhere we go.
Keep you and yours as safe as possible.

be safe.

 

[skoro]

1. If there is an active/mass shooter, you may be better off not waiting until they are shooting you before you take action.

If they're active, that would indicate they're shooting. If they're not shooting, you can't reliably ID them as a mass shooter.

2. If the active/mass shooter goes for the other carrier before me/mine, and the other carrier neutralizes them or keeps them busy, even if just for a moment, me/mine are most likely better off as we now have more time to get away or find cover.

In that fantasy scenario as you've presented it, very true.

3. If I choose to intervene in a situation, that is my choice, and all available information would be factored into that decision. There are certainly plenty of real world scenarios where I believe it would be reasonable and prudent to act. See my sig line regarding good men doing nothing for thoughts on this matter.

And the available info would probably be very incomplete.

We can all imagine scenarios where we save the day. The more likely outcome is that a concealed carrier who engages in a 3rd party situation is going to be applying deadly force w/o full knowledge of what's unfolding.

 

[Warp]

If they're active, that would indicate they're shooting. If they're not shooting, you can't reliably ID them as a mass shooter.

Well, what I said was:

1. If there is an active/mass shooter, you may be better off not waiting until they are shooting you before you take action.

Note the phrase "shooting you", and note what I was responding to. Because you missed the point entirely.

In that fantasy scenario as you've presented it, very true.

Fantasy?

And the available info would probably be very incomplete.


We can all imagine scenarios where we save the day. The more likely outcome is that a concealed carrier who engages in a 3rd party situation is going to be applying deadly force w/o full knowledge of what's unfolding.

Do you think you would be able to identify the bad guy in this scenario?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbaREVdEQPI

BTW: That video is on YouTube, but viewer discretion is advised.

 

[buck460XVR]

I think we have a serious reading comprehension issue on this forum.

I think the comprehension problem is in understanding other folk's thought processes and accepting choices other than your own. Add to that, a question you have already admitted is ambiguous. In reality tho, folks have pretty much answered the question as to whether or not they believe they are more safe. You seem to want to tell folks that they are responding to the question incorrectly whenever their belief and reasoning doesn't mirror yours. This seems to be more common on this forum than the reading comprehension issue. Asking for an opinion and then criticizing folks for it when the reply is not the one you wanted.

Claiming "common sense" when what is being said completely disagrees with actual factual real life is pretty silly.

Whenever you ask for an opinion, you are not going to get facts....you are going to get an opinion. You asked folks if they "believed" they are safer and then tell them they are wrong because the facts show otherwise....but then you show no facts that relate to your question to prove your claim. Common sense while being subjective, is often obtained by individuals by the use of facts along with the use of personal experience. Facts tell us that a campfire is hot and will burn us, personal experience tells us how close we can sit without getting burnt, both of them together form the common sense as to where to place our stool.

 

[Warp]

I think the comprehension problem is in understanding other folk's thought processes and accepting choices other than your own.

I have no problem with other choices.

People are answering questions that were not asked.

Think of it like this...if you got in your car this morning, and, unbeknownst to you, your airbags had all been disabled...and would remain forever disabled...without you ever knowing...do you believe you would be more or less safe?

If you were to answer "I wouldn't feel less safe because I don't know they are disabled", well, that wouldn't be answering the question.

Get it?

 

[Sam1911]

People are answering questions that were not asked.

Ok, so the question was:

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)

Rephrasing: Do you, now, as a general thing, believe that having an unknown random someone carrying a weapon in a group situation makes the group safer?

So the actual answers are no, yes, and neither.

But everyone will try to answer the question with some reasoning, and that reasoning leads to questions and sharing the assumptions they make to come to a conclusion. And that leads to side discussions which really aren't directly applicable, I guess.

The question isn't if you WOULD feel you are safer if you KNEW someone near you was carrying a weapon in a given situation. But it is easy enough to see why folks interpret it that way. But that leads to the inevitable specific questions which aren't cogent. (Who is this guy, what's his training, what's the situation that's happening, etc.?)

Unfortunately, the poll choices introduce the more present-tense, personal element and the question of cognizance: "... if you knew..."

...

The much simpler way of stating the question, I think is simply, "do concealed carriers tend to reduce the instances of violent death in public?" Or something to that effect.

Or even, "do you make a positive, negative, or ambivalent assumption about the likely actions of a random gun-carrying stranger should a violent encounter arise at a location where you both happen to be?"

 

[Warp]

What I was really going for here was the comparison between the seemingly numerous (or at least rather vocal) segment of THR members and gun owners and gun carriers who think mandatory training is a good thing (that other thread spurred the idea, and also seems to have spurred another person to create a thread which is now closed). You know, the comments about the 'average shooter' and how some people think the 'average shooter is 'more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the threat', or whatever.

We have only 1.81% of respondents to this thread selecting the "Less safe, I worry they might negligently discharge and shoot me" option.

You could always set the poll up as a straight "should training be mandatory" but I think that would illicit different responses and really, this here seems, to me, to be the only thing related to training that might plausibly be improved and that could potentially directly effect others.

 

[fastbolt]

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

Since I'm not sure how accurate my "belief" might be relative to an unknown number of strangers in my vicinity at any given moment, I'll look at this from the perspective of another piece of equipment commonly possessed and used by many folks in public, meaning motor vehicles.

So ... Isn't this a bit like asking me if I'm safer (or believe I'm safer) on the roadways with everyone else around me having motor vehicles and driving at the same time? The more drivers around me the safer I am, right?

Do the odds another driver doing something which causes an accident (using poor judgment, being distracted, etc) that can adversely affect me increase or decrease with the number of other drivers on the road?

While I elect to drive on the roadways just about every day, I try to remain highly aware of the actions of other drivers when they're around me, as I've seen far too many "accidents" happen that have been caused by folks who didn't intend for them to happen.

FWIW, while I'd like to believe I'm safe with all those other drivers around me, I'm not going to assume that's the actual reality of the matter.

Why should I feel, believe or think differently when it comes to any and all strangers who are carrying firearms on their persons as dedicated deadly weapons?

I stopped going to public ranges some years ago for the express reason that I finally got tired of being frequently swept with both unloaded and loaded firearms, people mishandling & fumbling firearms because of not being familiar with them (or being distracted, or using "TV/Movie gunhandling", etc).

Have you watched the inattentive & careless manner in which many folks don't seem to mind using shopping carts?

 

[Warp]

So ... Isn't this a bit like asking me if I'm safer (or believe I'm safer) on the roadways with everyone else around me having motor vehicles and driving at the same time?

Not even close

 

[fastbolt]

Not even close

How isn't it?

Unless you're imbuing firearms being carried and operated by ordinary people with some special property that prevents them from being involved in mistakes, accidents, carelessness and simple bad judgment ... how are guns any different than another human-operated piece of equipment that's dangerous if misused, mishandled, etc?

Do motorcyclists believe they're safer when everyone around them are driving cars & trucks?

Are pedestrians safer because they're walking in & around sidewalks and along roadways where drivers are operating motor vehicles?

Are bicyclists safer amongst other people driving cars & trucks?

If you're trying to intimate that just because everyone might believe they're automatically safer from people of criminal intent because there are more guns in the hands of all the other "good guys", that doesn't alleviate concerns of accidents, bad judgment, improper handling & carry methods, etc, does it?

 

[dragon813gt]

I feel safer when I am armed. I don't ever wonder if someone else is armed. I look at them just like I do law enforcement. Meaning I do not rely on them to protect my family and myself. The lack of self reliance in this country is staggering.

The average shooter i see at the range is more likely to hit an innocent bystander. I don't think it makes a significant difference either way.

Really? Would you like me to start linking the articles about LEOs shooting innocent bystanders. One of the more recent ones had them standing in a circle and shooting each other. Do you hunt? Most hunters fire a few shots a year. Does this make you feel less safe in the woods while hunting? Most LEOs shoot the minimum to qualify and that's it. I feel safer around people who shoot because they want to then people that do it for a living and look at it as a burden. So many supposed "shooters and hunters" are the enemy of the cause. If you want to feel safe all the time then it would be wise to neve leave your house. Oh that's right, you can become sick from Chineese drywall and VOCs in everything in your house. You aren't safe anywhere.

 

[Warp]

How isn't it?

Because it isn't.

If you wanted a gun-example similar to driving on the road with a bunch of other people driving on the road, it would be "everyone else around you having guns and shooting them at the same time".

Or if you want to go the other direction, it would be something like...you are in a parking lot surrounded by other people who have (all) already parked their vehicles.

If you're trying to intimate that just because everyone might believe they're automatically safer from people of criminal intent because there are more guns in the hands of all the other "good guys", that doesn't alleviate concerns of accidents, bad judgment, improper handling & carry methods, etc, does it?

How many innocent bystanders are injured each year in the US by "good guys" carrying guns in public?

My guess is that it will be a number quite different from the number of people injured by automobile accidents.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, Warp, I thought about this for a long time before making a statement, but the truth is neither yours nor fastbolt's analogy is really apt.

No, it isn't that everyone around you is blazing away with guns, like everyone around you is driving their cars at the same time.

However, it really can't be the same that guns are simply present but universally hidden and untouched. If that's the real scenario, then no, it can't possibly be making anyone any safer because there is either a) no threat to be made safer FROM, or b) no one willing to use their weapon to stop whatever threat is present. Either way, if the guns are never drawn and used then the actual safety of all present is exactly the same as if there weren't any guns there at all.

(Unless you're going for the angle of the questionable "deterrent effect" that the bad guys might decide to worry about armed citizens and not act -- really unrelated to whether someone is actually armed there at that moment or not -- ... or you ascribe magical powers to the guns for warding off evil! )

So, the only way that the guns actually MAKE anyone safer is if something bad does happen and someone does use a gun to stop it.

It's almost more like, you're in a parking lot and SOMEONE is driving their car in an emergency maneuver for some reason ... -- are you safer? Still a pretty spacey analogy, to me.

...

Now, if the question really is about FEELING, rather than BEING safer, then sure, you may FEEL safer knowing that someone MIGHT/COULD use their weapon in some positive way, but you still get into the questions of who the gun carrier is, and what their proficiency might be.

 

[Sam1911]

How many innocent bystanders are injured each year in the US by "good guys" carrying guns in public?

My guess is that it will be a number quite different from the number of people injured by automobile accidents.

Eh, a few hundred thousand folks who MIGHT choose to carry weapons lawfully (but generally don't), vs. a few hundred MILLION who DO drive every day, all on the same roads at the same time? No surprise there.