Yes indeed.
Not really. If an attack does take place, what is needed to defend against it will not be related at all to the likelihood of its occurrence that existed beforehand
"If I'm going into a bad area..."
- Thread starter RetiredUSNChief
- Start date
- Status
I live in the bad area. A man got shot to death in the yard across the street. A woman driving by got shot & died when her car crashed at the end of the street. So I carry.
All gas stations are places of danger. About a mile away a woman died in a new well lighted gas station when a car jacker at the gas station ran over her with her own car.
There are not many grocery stores open after 8 o'clock.
There are no safe times.
Everywhere you go around here is the same day or night, nut cases everywhere.
Numbers help but to a nut case that needs money bad, numbers, areas, or time of day doesn't matter.
I carry for my protection just long enough for the cops to get there, or until I can get my truck gun & rear out of the area.
We shouldn't be talking about choosing to carry a different weapon or more ammunition. We should be talking about increasing situational awareness, conduct of people around you that may be a "tell" that an attack is about to happen. That would be a productive discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPbCw9pV90c
A good video on that:
Criminal Assault Pre-Incident Indicators
Old Dog
Member
Um, what? I'm still trying to digest this word salad, Kamala, er, Kleanbore.
Anyway, often, there are no "pre-incident indicators." Sometimes, stuff just happens suddenly, out of the blue as it were...
All well and good to exercise situational awareness, but I think we seriously need to rid ourselves of the notion that any one area is not as dangerous (therefore, we may be more prone to shop or seek entertainment there) as another area.
Random and sudden violence can strike anywhere, at any time. With zero warning.
This happened in an area not considered "bad" -- just a typical neighborhood in a smaller community.
https://komonews.com/news/local/pie...fit-investigation-shooting-body-camera-video#
And nearby, armed carjacking and shooting in a small-town WinCo parking lot, with the errant shot striking a driver (on the freeway) in the eye.
https://komonews.com/news/local/sum...hief-victim-passerby-thoroughfares-honda-crv#
8 a.m., guy walking on a park path, not in the worst of areas, attacked from behind, no warning...
https://komonews.com/news/local/fed...rborview-medical-center-police-investigation#
But, in keeping with the notion that nothing good happens after midnight, it's surely not a good idea to go out of your apartment, down to the parking lot, to check out folks arguing at 1 a.m.
https://komonews.com/news/local/sea...micide-investigation-72-king-county-violence#
Well, yep. This thread may have jumped the shark a few pages back... since some folks seem to postulate the notion that one doesn't need to be armed in their home or community, or that some places one goes, one must up-arm from a J-frame to an M-240B, or the silly notion that there are still "good areas" in any community...
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Correct but irrelevant to the point.
What’s is needed is not know before the incident. It could be infinitely more than one can carry.
So if the odds of an occurrence are going up, imo, it would logical for the “firepower” (for serious lack of a better word) to also go up.
mljdeckard
Member
I absolutely concur with the OP, and it was what I imparted to my concealed carry classes. If you're "going to the bad side of town", and you are compelled to take a gun because there is an elevated risk, the correct answer is DO NOT GO THERE. Not; "take a gun and go anyway."
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
I carry and avoid bad areas at all costs
Actually, it is a fundamental tenet of risk management that it would not be logical.
The likelihood of occurrence does not define the nature of the mitigation strategy needed.
Do not feel criticized. In a prior life, I had a central role in risk management for a major corporation. I should have understood this issue very well. Notwithstanding my supposed knowledge of the subject, I chose to carry a J-Frame when going to a nearby grocery in a "nice" area, and a double column 9mm S&W when going to other places.
When I mentioned that here on THR, a member asked me to explain my reasoning. Why would it make any difference, he asked. OOPS! I had to eat crow. And I changed my carry practice,
Now, if the nature of the risk differs, so might the mitigation strategy. One would probably not carry an Sig 365 if one were concerned about attacks by large anaimals. But for lawful self defense against humans, if a handgun is sufficient in one area, it should be sufficient in another.
I hope this helps.
Last edited:
Good work if you can get it but many people have to work in "bad places", many live in them, and many have other cogent reasons for doing otherwise.
.
You have no idea about the snarky, satirical post I’ve been wanting to make in these threads for years…….
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,211
I actually had jobs in bad areas too. I am retired now.
Old Dog
Member
Now you've got me curious, Jeff. As I know all you mods are aware, I have great difficulty restraining myself as well...
OP
OP
RetiredUSNChief
Member
All your responses are noted... but I never have, and never will, use the word "safe" as an absolute.
Because there is nothing that's absolutely "safe".
I qualify the term "safe" in reference to other risks one normally accepts in life. It is, in fact, "relative".
That's what risk assessment is all about.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I don’t disagree, not at all. It’s just that all concealed carry IS compromise. No one is carrying the right equipment for the worst case scenario, as the saying goes.
So sometimes if the unknown risk seems like it could be higher, one could reasonably carry better or more equipment and sacrifice some comfort they normally aren’t willing to sacrifice.
I carry a LCP (upgraded from my NAA) to church, not because a self defense encounter would be easier or less of a threat, it’s would likely be worse. However the likelihood of needing any defensive tool is incalculably small, combine that with given attire and increased personal contact…..well that compromise has come into play.
We all compromise, sometimes we decide to compromise more, not necessarily because of need but because of likelihood.
Old Dog
Member
And... lost in all the hyperbole and circular conversation is the very real argument that if we were truly serious about risk management and the "likelihood of occurrence," the central thesis should be that one really doesn't need to carry a firearm at all, as the likelihood of needing to defend oneself with lethal force is so statistically low as to be basically negligible.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree about the whole compromise thing, discount wholly the likelihood thing, and get back to the concept that it's not the odds, it's the stakes.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree about the whole compromise thing, discount wholly the likelihood thing, and get back to the concept that it's not the odds, it's the stakes.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I, for one, never claimed to be very serious about “risk management”. I’m really not, and I’m less so as time goes on.
And you can disagree with compromise all you want, but in reality you do compromise.
However you are right about hyperbole and circular conversation…. I’ll bow out.
You appear to be conflating likleihood with what you would need should the event occur. If so, you are misleading yourself.
Isn't risk management the entire reason for your carrying?
No one "needs" a defensive tool until the need presents itself. It has for me.
So it might appear on the surface, but when we look at crime statistics, we look at at average per capita likelihood that a person will be victimized in any one year--low indeed. But we should consider a longer period of exposure. Again using averages, which have their shortcomings, the likelihood of a person being victimized at least once in a pariod of a few decades is most certainly not "negligible".
The cumulative likelihood is much, much higher. For illustration, consider the likelihood of not rolling snake-eyes in any one throw of the dice; it is greater than 97%. But if we roll the dice 164 times, the likeihood of not rolling snake-eyes at least once is less than 1%. We roll the dice every time we put on our shoes.
Yes indeed.
luzyfuerza
Member
Risk, of course, is the combination of:
1) the consequence of an event happening (a little bad, medium bad, really bad),
and
2) the probability of an event happening (unlikely, somewhat likely, highly likely).
Highly likely events that have really bad consequences are known as "high risk". Professional risk managers take steps to control these "high probability-high consequence" events first.
Later, they may take steps to control "medium risk" or "low risk" events. They may also decide to take no actions at all to control "low consequence-low probability" risks.
Risk managers use teams to rate the probability and consequence of events. And to recommend control measures.
This is an 80,000 foot summary of the risk management process.
But individuals are lousy at managing risk by following only their personal intuition. We evaluate consequence and probability very differently (often wildly so) based on our individual life experiences.
Hence, the strong personal opinions and the wide variations in conclusions expressed here.
The truth is that there is no one universal answer to the question posed in this thread.
But seeing how members describe their personal intuition regarding risk and how they choose to control this risk IS entertaining. And sometimes thought-provoking.
1) the consequence of an event happening (a little bad, medium bad, really bad),
and
2) the probability of an event happening (unlikely, somewhat likely, highly likely).
Highly likely events that have really bad consequences are known as "high risk". Professional risk managers take steps to control these "high probability-high consequence" events first.
Later, they may take steps to control "medium risk" or "low risk" events. They may also decide to take no actions at all to control "low consequence-low probability" risks.
Risk managers use teams to rate the probability and consequence of events. And to recommend control measures.
This is an 80,000 foot summary of the risk management process.
But individuals are lousy at managing risk by following only their personal intuition. We evaluate consequence and probability very differently (often wildly so) based on our individual life experiences.
Hence, the strong personal opinions and the wide variations in conclusions expressed here.
The truth is that there is no one universal answer to the question posed in this thread.
But seeing how members describe their personal intuition regarding risk and how they choose to control this risk IS entertaining. And sometimes thought-provoking.
Last edited:
luzyfuerza
Member
While technically correct (it is true that probability, by itself, does not define mitigation strategy), this statement is misleading.
Instead, this version: "The likelihood of occurrence is an input used to determine an appropriate mitigation strategy" does describe the true relationship here.
As a result, a professional risk manager would say that "upgunning" when going to a "bad" area could be an appropriate mitigation strategy. However, a real pro would also look at other strategies (like don't go to the bad area, go only during the day when bad outcomes are less likely, take a buddy, etc.) that have a higher chance of success, and which don't have the problems associated with relying on the gun and getting into a gun fight.
Last edited:
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,133
if you really look at that statement it's illogical.
You may be more likely to be attacked in a certain place at a certain time.
But if you are attacked any place at any time the immediate physical danger will be the same if you're in Tullahassee Oklahoma (population 106) or Omaha Nebraska (population 487,300) which means probably more criminals than the entire population of Tullahassee.
I do not see how.
Not really. The likelihood of occurrence, the cost of an effective mitigation approach, and the severity of the potential loss will determine whether or not to mitigate the risk, However the action required to mitigate the risk should it occur is independent of the likelihood.
Well, no, and this was my professional wheelhouse.
This explains why:
So if I went into an area where an attack by multiple attackers was more likely, I should stick with the same mitigation strategy? Or bring a gun with more bullets?
- Status
Similar threads
