Twice as many people are carrrying...

[Will Munny]

Because you are carrying nearly all the time (95% of the time) the odds of having it when you need it are pretty good. About 4.75% of the time when you need the gun, you should have it on you. That assumes that the two events are independent of each other--that one being true doesn't affect the probability of the other.

The issue comes when people want to carry only once in awhile--let's say Bob wants to carry only about one day on average out of every 10 days. Let's also say that Bob is pretty unlucky and, on average, might need a gun for self-defense, on average, about one day out of every 10 years. Then Bob's chances of needing a gun and having one available at the same time would be about one time in 100 years.

That's pretty unlikely, and that's even though we made Bob so unlucky that he needed to defend himself with a gun several times in his adult lifetime. If we make it so Bob is only likely to need a gun for self-defense once or twice in his adult lifetime and he's carrying only about 1 day out of every 10, then his odds of having a gun when he needs it are only about 1 time in every 370 years. Pretty much a guarantee that the two events won't line up.

That is playing pretty fast and loose with probability. The independence assumption is highly questionable. Bob's example is unrealistic, it assumes uniform risk distribution and uniform carry distribution. While some people do carry that way, a more reasonable set of assumptions is going to consider more realistic distributions of risk and carry behavior.

For example. If someone has a lifetime 10 instances where they need the firearm, and 9 of those are in "the big city" while only one is "down on the farm" and said man carries only "in the city" than he will have the gun 90% of the time that he needs it. It may be that his time is divided between the two locales 50/50, or 99/1, or 1/99, and that second assumption can allow cases where someone carries only rarely but nevertheless is likely to have the firearm when needed.

I'm not saying that second pathological case is really more realistic, but it illustrates that there can be a disconnect between % time carried and % time available when needed.

 

[plainsdrifter]

Question on 'Constitutional Carry'; if you are packing under CC, and are stopped by the authorities...would not that 'skeleton in the closet', that would have precluded a permit....wouldn't that show up, and make a problem?
Places where you can't carry, whether your job, or New York City, are another question. Suspect a lot of law abiding New Yorkers have an LCP tucked away on their person. A buddy who teaches at a University does this as well.
Moon

N ot sure what you meant by "if you are packing under CC, and are stopped by the authorities...would not that 'skeleton in the closet', that would have precluded a permit....wouldn't that show up, and make a problem?"

There's this in AZ It is long so scroll down. Plus you have to be 21 years old to CC. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/az-gun-laws/
DUTY TO INFORM OFFICER YOU'RE CARRYING?
Do you have a duty to notify a police officer that you're carrying a concealed firearm in Arizona?

No. You have no duty to inform a law enforcement officer that you are carrying a concealed weapon unless the officer asks.

[Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3102]

 

[jar]

While there might not be a DUTY to inform an officer that you are carrying (and if you have a LTC/CCW permit the officer most likely already knows) I have always felt it wisest and smartest to keep both hands on the steering wheel and politely inform the officer that I am carrying and where it is located.

 

[Will Munny]

Question on 'Constitutional Carry'; if you are packing under CC, and are stopped by the authorities...would not that 'skeleton in the closet', that would have precluded a permit....wouldn't that show up, and make a problem?
Places where you can't carry, whether your job, or New York City, are another question. Suspect a lot of law abiding New Yorkers have an LCP tucked away on their person. A buddy who teaches at a University does this as well.
Moon

I've known quite a few people from New York over the years, and only one of them even knew how to shoot. The sense in which even otherwise reasonable people in that part of the country are afraid of/do not understand firearms is appalling. Keep in mind it would be difficult for someone who is law abiding to even buy a handgun in NY in the first place.
On top of that, NYC is relatively safe as far as big cities go, and is so densely populated that defending yourself with a firearm carries very significant legal risks from collateral damage and a hostile legal environment.
I suspect it is quite uncommon.

 

[halfmoonclip]

"Duty to inform" varies from state to state; it is a requirement in some locations. Something like "A Guide to the Gun Laws of the 50 States" is a useful reference when you're traveling.
Pennsylvania is not a 'shall inform' state, and I've had that conversation with some local cops. Years back, both a Statie and city cop said they didn't want to know, unless it was germane to their reason for stopping you.
Since then, another State Cop, and the cops teaching a gun safety class, advised handing over your carry permit, along with your license and registration, and then keep your hands on the wheel. In any case, you don't want the officer to have to find your gun by accident.
'Constitutional Carry'; I'm willing to be wrong about this, but it is my understanding that anything that would disqualify you for a conventional permit will also disqualify you for Constitutional Carry.
Moon

 

[plainsdrifter]

While there might not be a DUTY to inform an officer that you are carrying (and if you have a LTC/CCW permit the officer most likely already knows) I have always felt it wisest and smartest to keep both hands on the steering wheel and politely inform the officer that I am carrying and where it is located.

The AZ drivers license is not connected to the CCW permit if you elected to get one in AZ. Which you don't have too, again for reference its a Constitutional Carry state. So I doubt they can find out just by running your plate.

 

[CapnMac]

Besides, who even answers surveys like this?

From the details it was an online survey completed by about 2400 people.

Academically, online surveys are becoming hugely popular, particularly for not being phone surveys with their attendant huge "reject" rate. This is not without controversy, as online surveys have a sense of being anonymous, and run the risk of having "fish stories" instead of facts. But, this is noting new, as the bias in phone surveys--of telling the surveyor what it's presumed the surveyor wants to hear, or sounds politically appropriate--is well known.

The very real problem is projecting limited survey results across a nation as vast as the US, and with as much variation in population density as our Nation has. So, projecting 2400 responses over 352 million people is as complicated as one can imagine.

 

[Will Munny]

From the details it was an online survey completed by about 2400 people.

Academically, online surveys are becoming hugely popular, particularly for not being phone surveys with their attendant huge "reject" rate. This is not without controversy, as online surveys have a sense of being anonymous, and run the risk of having "fish stories" instead of facts. But, this is noting new, as the bias in phone surveys--of telling the surveyor what it's presumed the surveyor wants to hear, or sounds politically appropriate--is well known.

The very real problem is projecting limited survey results across a nation as vast as the US, and with as much variation in population density as our Nation has. So, projecting 2400 responses over 352 million people is as complicated as one can imagine.

Projecting 2400 over the ~331 million people in the US is not particularly problematic by itself when doing a survey. What becomes an issue is when the sample is drastically different from the population in various ways, and weighting has to be used to correct for that. With a small enough sample size weighing can be quite large on a small number of responses leading to wide confidence intervals on the results.

 

[JohnKSa]

That is playing pretty fast and loose with probability. The independence assumption is highly questionable. Bob's example is unrealistic, it assumes uniform risk distribution and uniform carry distribution. While some people do carry that way, a more reasonable set of assumptions is going to consider more realistic distributions of risk and carry behavior.

I assumed statistical independence and uniform distribution because if you don't make that assumption, you have to some how assess the variable risk of when a gun will be needed as well as the ability of someone to accurately predict when they need a gun, and either somehow come up with an average value for both of those assessments, or run multiple calculations based on the range of prediction accuracy and variable risk. If you want to do that, I'd be interested to see how you work it out and what kind of assumptions you have to make in order to get the calculations to work.

The value of making assumptions is that even if they are not rigorously justifiable the results can still often provide useful insight. For example, in the second case I ran for Bob, we can see that getting two unlikely events to line up is far more unlikely than just either one of the events by itself even though we don't get exact answers. Obviously the real answer won't be exactly once every 370 years--it might be once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, but it is clear it will be quite unlikely. The problem with making assumptions is that someone can always pick them apart and justify doing so--because they're assumptions and not reality. The problem with not making assumptions is that you can't get any answers at all if the problem is complex--and that provides no useful insight.

If someone has a lifetime 10 instances where they need the firearm...

There are LEOs that don't need their firearms that many times in their lifetime. If either the likelihood of having the gun or the likelihood of needing it is significantly inflated, the results will not be remotely realistic, even if you work hard to come up with better assumptions than statistical independence and uniform distribution.

 

[Will Munny]

I assumed statistical independence and uniform distribution because if you don't make that assumption, you have to some how assess the variable risk of when a gun will be needed as well as the ability of someone to accurately predict when they need a gun, and either somehow come up with an average value for both of those assessments, or run multiple calculations based on the range of prediction accuracy and variable risk. If you want to do that, I'd be interested to see how you work it out and what kind of assumptions you have to make in order to get the calculations to work.

The value of making assumptions is that even if they are not rigorously justifiable the results can still often provide useful insight. For example, in the second case I ran for Bob, we can see that getting two unlikely events to line up is far more unlikely than just either one of the events by itself even though we don't get exact answers. Obviously the real answer won't be exactly once every 370 years--it might be once in 100 years or once in 1000 years, but it is clear it will be quite unlikely. The problem with making assumptions is that someone can always pick them apart and justify doing so--because they're assumptions and not reality. The problem with not making assumptions is that you can't get any answers at all if the problem is complex--and that provides no useful insight. There are LEOs that don't need their firearms that many times in their lifetime. If either the likelihood of having the gun or the likelihood of needing it is significantly inflated, the results will not be remotely realistic, even if you work hard to come up with better assumptions than statistical independence and uniform distribution.

I chose 10 to make the math easy. If you like, think of a normalized number of 1, with 0.9 and 0.1 in place of 9 and 1 respectively. It does not actually change the end result at all in this case (a consequence of using percentages as the result).
My above example details a case of exactly what you refereed to. I built a simple model with 2 locales and 2 rates of carry. Its assumptions are simplistic, but sufficient to demonstrate that one could carry a small percentage of the time and yet have a high probability of carrying when needed.
To what extent this happens for people is of course another question, and few people are going to sit at either extreme we have postulated (uniform risk/highly asymmetric risk).
I have nothing against assumptions, they are required in any problem solving, but there are reasonable and unreasonable assumptions. For some people in some situations risk may in fact be approximately uniform. However for others the risk will be decidedly non-uniform.
All of this is to say that I am not quick to condemn someone for carrying on an infrequent basis without knowing the circumstances they are in. Yes programme compliance is important, but so is the thoughtful design of the programme in the first place.

 

[JohnKSa]

...one could carry a small percentage of the time and yet have a high probability of carrying when needed.

It sorta does...

If someone has a lifetime 10 instances where they need the firearm, and 9 of those are in "the big city" while only one is "down on the farm" and said man carries only "in the city" than he will have the gun 90% of the time that he needs it.

You realize that this is no different from saying that the person is 90% accurate at predicting when he will need a gun, right?

It is, of course true, that if a person can predict when they need a gun with a high level of accuracy (say, 90%) then they can carry only when they predict they will need a gun and still be pretty likely to have a gun when they need it.

All of this is to say that I am not quick to condemn someone for carrying on an infrequent basis without knowing the circumstances they are in. Yes programme compliance is important, but so is the thoughtful design of the programme in the first place.

??? Nobody is condemning anyone and there is no "programme" and therefore no "compliance" or "non-compliance".

The point is that if you take two unlikely probabilistic events, unless they are completely correlated, their coincidence is even more unlikely than either one of the two original events. That is true no matter how you play with the numbers. People can do whatever they want with that information.

 

[Will Munny]

It sorta does...You realize that this is no different from saying that the person is 90% accurate at predicting when he will need a gun, right?

It is, of course true, that if a person can predict when they need a gun with a high level of accuracy (say, 90%) then they can carry only when they predict they will need a gun and still be pretty likely to have a gun when they need it.??? Nobody is condemning anyone and there is no "programme" and therefore no "compliance" or "non-compliance".

The point is that if you take two unlikely probabilistic events, unless they are completely correlated, their coincidence is even more unlikely than either one of the two original events. That is true no matter how you play with the numbers. People can do whatever they want with that information.

Programme compliance is a term sometimes used to refer to the consistency someone carries (Paul Harrell for example favors the term).

I would say there is a slight difference in my example from just saying they can predict with 90% accuracy. Mathematically it might be equivalent, but look carefully and see that I am not really assuming any crystal ball efforts on the part of my example (perhaps he should have a name, say, Duffy). Duffy is carrying when he goes to the big city, and not when he is on the farm. So implicitly yes, he has a 90% prediction accuracy, but that makes sense in such a model, while it sounds absurd in a uniform one (predicting which grocery store trips need carry with 90% accuracy is clearly problematic).

The point is that if you take two unlikely probabilistic events, unless they are completely correlated, their coincidence is even more unlikely than either one of the two original events.
That would be the frequentist approach. However carry choices are going to be much more Bayesian in nature so I'm not sure I take that as a given. There are going to be correlation, updating, and temporal considerations.

 

[JohnKSa]

I am not really assuming any crystal ball efforts on the part of my example (perhaps he should have a name, say, Duffy). Duffy is carrying when he goes to the big city, and not when he is on the farm.

No matter how you say it, Duffy is carrying based on when he thinks he will need to carry, and, because of the way you've set up your example, he's very accurate in his predictions. If he's truly carrying randomly, what are the odds that he would only carry where he's 90% more likely to need a gun?

However carry choices are going to be much more Bayesian in nature so I'm not sure I take that as a given.

Unless they are completely correlated then the combination of the two probabilistic events can't be anything other than less likely than either of the original events. That's pretty basic probability.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Which is precisely why carrying once in awhile is a nearly 100% successful strategy for insuring that you won't have a gun if you ever do need one. It's already unlikely that you will need one. If it's also unlikely that you will be carrying, trying to get those two unlikely events to line up is practically impossible.

Today I had an appointment with a new doctor. The old doctor's office is posted no firearms. So I figured the new one might be the same story. OTOH it's a 28-mile drive each way (the old one is 1.8 miles). On the third hand, still too much L.A. in me to leave my $1000 gun in the car. So I went unhappily gunless. Guess what, turns out the new doctor's office isn't posted, in the future I happily won't have this dilemma.

 

[buck460XVR]

I had a work disclaimer: "Disclaimer I'm excluding work so if one was about to quote me and say but work, touché I remembered the disclaimer." View attachment 1116521

Yes, I saw that, But it also seemed IMHO, that you were suggesting that this was a narrow parameter, i.e., Post offices and Military Bases. My post was just an attempt to show how wide those parameters can be. Unfortunately, those restrictions do not stop attacks or violence using guns against others. Seems work places and spousal workplaces are regular targets.

??? Nobody is condemning anyone and there is no "programme" and therefore no "compliance" or "non-compliance".

..and no one should. No one knows the amount of risk of others here and so to assess whether or not they need to carry more, or could safely carry less is impossible. We all have to do what is comfortable and what makes us feel safe. There is no doubt that high crime areas in big cities are not a safe as a rural road in the Midwest. While I don't agree with most of their philosophy and sometimes question where they get their info, these charts, IMHO, display a pretty telling story as to what areas have a higher risk of violence against a person.


https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps