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

[Warp]

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.

How many (estimated) defensive gun uses are there each year in the US? Hundreds of thousands? More?

How many of those by people carrying? Enough to be able to make quite a list of examples. We read about them and see videos of them fairly frequently, it seems.

And how many of those result in injury to an innocent bystander? Zero? I'm thinking it must be as I have asked this question of many people over the years and never seem to get a straight response or an example given. This thread as an example.

 

[Sam1911]

And how many of those result in injury to an innocent bystander? Zero? I'm thinking it must be as I have asked this question of many people over the years and never seem to get a straight response or an example given. This thread as an example.

Undoubtedly quite low, of course!

 

[Warp]

Undoubtedly quite low, of course!

It makes me wonder how even 2% can respond that they worry about being shot, or how people can honestly say they support training being mandatory...when it just plain doesn't happen.

The disconnect between what people think and what reality is extends beyond antis who think making schools "gun free" will stop people from bringing guns there.

I just...don't get it I guess.

 

[Sam1911]

There is a fundamental inability of human beings to really apply accurate statistical likelihoods in personally relevant ways. So you're always going to find yourself arguing against, "Well, it COULD happen..."

 

[jrdolall]

My answer is predicated on the belief that the POSSIBLE presence of CCW holders can deter would be criminals.
Does it stop all criminal behavior? Of course not. But I do believe, as I stated earlier, that MOST criminals want easy targets and targets that may shoot back are not easy. That's why the majority of burglaries happen when people are not at home. Burglars quite simply do not want to be confronted.

I don't necessarily feel safer because I think others may be qualified marksmen, highly trained SWAT members or Wyatt Earp. As a matter of fact I don't "feel safe" just because I see an armed LEO in the area. I just think that the possible presence of guns in the hands of the "sheep" is enough to make most criminals look elsewhere.

 

[Joe Demko]

The type of criminals one might randomly encounter where having a concealed weapon might make a difference (e.g. muggers, robbers, and such) are, almost by definition, a group of people who have poor impulse control and poor decision-making skills. It seems likely to me that they pay scant attention, if any, to the possible presence of armed citizens. If they give it any thought at all, which I strongly doubt, I suspect they shrug it off as part of "thug life."

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

No. I don't believe I am safer. The criminal element most likely to be a danger don't, IMO, take armed citizens into account and so they are undeterred. The possibility of my being saved by an armed citizen after such a situation has already begun is so vanishingly small that my safety is increased the same amount by the chance that the criminal might be smote by lightning before he harms me.

 

[Sam1911]

Well said, Joe. That sums up my feelings on the deterrent effect pretty well.

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be part of the accounting or not in answering the question, though.

 

[Warp]

It was a fine post/point, but no, general deterrence isn't a factor for purposes of the question...it exists whether or not one person or every person there is carrying (or none of them)

 

[Joe Demko]

general deterrence isn't a factor for purposes of the question...it exists whether or not one person or every person there is carrying (or none of them)

Could you expand on this, please? I don't think I understand your question enough to answer it properly. If general deterrence isn't one of the factors that you are including, then on what factors are you asking us to judge the impact, if any, on our level of safety? If you clarify that, maybe I can address your question properly.

 

[jrdolall]

I don't know that I would agree that most criminals (muggers,etc) are not mindful of the possibility of an armed target. I agree that they normally have poor self control and poor decision making skills but I think they definitely try to avoid taking on people that may be armed or capable in the eyes of the thug. Most muggings and robberies are not really "spur of the moment" acts but involve some sort of planning on the part of the criminal. You should never underestimate the intelligence of criminals. Many of them are extremely intelligent and knowledgeable about their victims.

 

[Sam1911]

Oh, that certainly is true. You do want to "fail the criminal interview" if at all possible.

However, that's a different thing from the general knowledge that 1 in 20 citizens possess a carry permit and some of those might maybe be carrying a firearm acting as a sort of depressor of violent crime in general.

 

[Joe Demko]

I agree that they normally have poor self control and poor decision making skills but I think they definitely try to avoid taking on people that may be armed or capable in the eyes of the thug. Most muggings and robberies are not really "spur of the moment" acts but involve some sort of planning on the part of the criminal. You should never underestimate the intelligence of criminals. Many of them are extremely intelligent and knowledgeable about their victims

I disagree. I have some experience with the demographic in question. They rather frequently choose people just like themselves as their victims. The only real thought they devote to the whole enterprise is whether or not the target has what they want. Typically, this translates to money and/or drugs.
I've personally known a depressingly large number of people who were killed by criminals. The thing is, most of the dead were, themselves, engaged in the exact same criminal enterprises as their slayers. Of the rest, they were killed by accident or due to mistaken identity, for the most part. This doesn't include the ones who were killed by abusive spouses or in crimes of passion, or the poor kid who was killed by Richard Baumhammers (a local mass murder).
The element in question will willingly prey on a group they know to be armed, their own kind. I remain confident that if they target you or me, the last thing on their minds is whether or not we have a gun. They are too busy thinking about what we have that they want.

 

[Warp]

Could you expand on this, please? I don't think I understand your question enough to answer it properly. If general deterrence isn't one of the factors that you are including, then on what factors are you asking us to judge the impact, if any, on our level of safety? If you clarify that, maybe I can address your question properly.

How could general deterrence be a factor?

I'm not asking about one happening in D.C. or a tough may issue state and another happening in a shall issue state...and I'm not asking about one happening in an off limits location and the other not...how could there even be a difference in 'general deterrence'?

I think reading the possible answers should give you the major factor(s) to judge the impact of.

 

[buck460XVR]

After 137 posts, and all the explanations of what is really meant by the question asked and how I should correctly come to my conclusion, I've still come to the same conclusion.....I don't think it makes a significant difference either way.

Has anyone else here been swayed to change theirs?


This thread has made me think tho.

 

[Warp]

After 137 posts, and all the explanations of what is really meant by the question asked and how I should correctly come to my conclusion, I've still come to the same conclusion.....I don't think it makes a significant difference either way.

Has anyone else here been swayed to change theirs?


This thread has made me think tho.

Not an unreasonable selection at all.

 

[Joe Demko]

In that case, I have already answered your question. No, I am not safer to any degree that could possibly matter.

Safer knowing there is another person who can quickly respond to a threat or attack

Safer knowing there is another person who can distract the threat by taking action while I flee

Neither of these is likely enough to even bother taking into account.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

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

Fair enough. But you did use the word 'believe'. A person's belief is based on feelings and opinions. In lieu of facts and hard evidence, feelings are the only thing to go on.

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.

I think you may have misread what I said (or I didn't state it well). I completely agree that as an individual, a person carrying a firearm will not change the overall environment. As a society, if we all carried, that is when the overall environment would change. The more people who carry, the more the environment changes. You don't have to know who has a firearm for it to be a deterrent. All that is required is that a criminal believes that it is probable that an intended victim has a gun to be a deterrent.

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.

You question, "Do you believe you are more safe (in public) when others are carrying?" is very direct but speaks nothing to context. Your poll choices may have given more context to what you were really trying to ask, but that's why I didn't vote; because, for me, none of your choices correctly answered the question. My answer to the direct question is YES, but that was not a choice. In the context of your choices, my answer would be no (I do not believe I am more safe for any of the reasons you give).

 

[fastbolt]

The type of criminals one might randomly encounter where having a concealed weapon might make a difference (e.g. muggers, robbers, and such) are, almost by definition, a group of people who have poor impulse control and poor decision-making skills. It seems likely to me that they pay scant attention, if any, to the possible presence of armed citizens. If they give it any thought at all, which I strongly doubt, I suspect they shrug it off as part of "thug life."

Interesting comments. Very similar to what I heard during a LEOKA (law enforcement officers killed and assaulted) class a couple years ago. Convicted armed criminals interviewed pretty much said they expected and knew other criminals were going to be armed and a danger to them, but all that did was compel them to arm themselves so they could protect themselves. It didn't stop their other criminal activities. Armed LE didn't intimidate them, either.

Another observation made was that armed criminals had a different mindset that armed LE, as they knew LE had to comply with the laws involved in the use of force, while criminals didn't. I'd suspect they wouldn't view lawful armed citizens much differently in that respect.

 

[Warp]

Fair enough. But you did use the word 'believe'. A person's belief is based on feelings and opinions. In lieu of facts and hard evidence, feelings are the only thing to go on.

I propose that we have facts and hard evidence.

It's not like people carrying guns in public is a new thing.

I think you may have misread what I said (or I didn't state it well). I completely agree that as an individual, a person carrying a firearm will not change the overall environment. As a society, if we all carried, that is when the overall environment would change. The more people who carry, the more the environment changes. You don't have to know who has a firearm for it to be a deterrent. All that is required is that a criminal believes that it is probable that an intended victim has a gun to be a deterrent.

This idea is what I have been referring to as general deterrence.

You question, "Do you believe you are more safe (in public) when others are carrying?" is very direct but speaks nothing to context. Your poll choices may have given more context to what you were really trying to ask, but that's why I didn't vote; because, for me, none of your choices correctly answered the question. My answer to the direct question is YES, but that was not a choice. In the context of your choices, my answer would be no (I do not believe I am more safe for any of the reasons you give).

For what reasons do you believe you are more safe?

Remember that the only thing that changes is the presence of another person actually carrying. There is no change in general deterrence. That exists all the same, all else equal, no matter whether zero people or every person at the location is carrying.

 

[fastbolt]

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.
...

Reasonable.

I didn't expect my loose analogy would withstand close scrutiny, nor did I really expect it to do so.

I did want it to serve to remind (or introduce) another perspective, though, which is that we can't separate the equipment from the equipment user when it comes to the potential effect - desired or otherwise - of what we might have to consider. In other words, not all well-intentioned drivers may make the roadways safer, as the human factor will eventually assert itself.

The same can be said of chainsaws, table saws and any other inherently useful, but dangerous, power tool that can be bought and used by ordinary folks, of course. Useful, even necessary for many tasks, but inherently dangerous and capable of causing serious injury or death if the user makes a mistake.

It's not exactly rare to come across an article, or online video clip, of some lawfully armed person who experienced a mistake while carrying a handgun in public (restaurant, public restroom, gun store, etc), or using it at a range, where that mistake caused unintended injury.

Also, there's the tragic potential for suicides by otherwise lawful gun owners, both LE and non-LE private citizens. Some have occurred at public ranges (several come to mind), in an occasional gun store (one comes to mind), and some have occurred in other public places (like a secluded parking area or park).

I'm just saying that when I think of everyone carrying guns in the greater public, I think about everything that could - might - happen at some point ... and being saved by another armed citizen (LE or non-LE) isn't exactly high on my own list of things I consider likely. That's all.

That being the case, I finally chose the "I don't think it makes a significant difference either way" option.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

That's why the majority of burglaries happen when people are not at home. Burglars quite simply do not want to be confronted.

That's in the U.S. where a large sample of incarcerated felons agreed that burglars avoided occupied homes out of fear of being shot (Wright & Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous"). Burglary of occupied residences is a higher percentage of burglars in the UK, known for the well-known 1996-1997 handgun bans.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

I propose that we have facts and hard evidence.

It's not like people carrying guns in public is a new thing.

From the perspective of general deterrence, I agree and believe it supports general deterrence. For the narrow perspective of being more safe because "there is another person who can quickly respond to a threat or attack" or "there is another person who can distract the threat by taking action while I flee", no, i don't think there is any evidence to support or dispute that claim.

For what reasons do you believe you are more safe?

Remember that the only thing that changes is the presence of another person actually carrying. There is no change in general deterrence. That exists all the same, all else equal, no matter whether zero people or every person at the location is carrying.

In that narrow context with those assumptions, then, as I said before, I don't believe safety (mine or others) is affected in any significant way.

 

[Warp]

In other words, not all well-intentioned drivers may make the roadways safer, as the human factor will eventually assert itself.

What well-intentioned drivers would make the roadways safer?

It's not exactly rare to come across an article, or online video clip, of some lawfully armed person who experienced a mistake while carrying a handgun in public (restaurant, public restroom, gun store, etc), or using it at a range, where that mistake caused unintended injury.

Please, by all means, give us examples of a carrier experiencing a mistake that lead to unintended injury of an innocent bystander.

 

[silicosys4]

Please, by all means, give us examples of a carrier experiencing a mistake that lead to unintended injury of an innocent bystander.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21983216/two-injured-when-cu-staffer-concealed-carry-permit

http://www.khou.com/news/Walmart-shopper-fires-gun-in-pants-in-checkout-line-163573226.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/walmart_employee_accidentally.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-shoots-7-year-old-son-outside-penn-gun-shop/

 

[NoVA Shooter]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21983216/two-injured-when-cu-staffer-concealed-carry-permit

http://www.khou.com/news/Walmart-shopper-fires-gun-in-pants-in-checkout-line-163573226.html

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/walmart_employee_accidentally.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-shoots-7-year-old-son-outside-penn-gun-shop/

While these are unfortunate (and one very tragic), any number of examples you find will still only amount to a negligible percentage when compared to the number of carrying events that happen every day (i.e. there are tens of thousands of people that carry every day that are not involved in an accident). On any given day, about 10 people drown, but that does not mean it's a common occurrence or that any individual person is at any significant risk of drowning when in or near water.