Violent Crime, Lethal Force and Other Things

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kierkegaard

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
25
Location
Mass
Hey there everyone.

First time posting… And I know the first time posters that write something potentially flame-worthy get ignored. But here goes:

Assuming the violent crime rate in the US is ~2M incidents a year. And the population of the US is 300M, which makes the chance of encountering violent crime as .66% per person (or 2 ÷ 300). This assumes the occurrences are evenly distributed among the entire US population, which it isn’t… But to follow through…

Now assuming you have reasonable wits about you, you can further mitigate chances of violent crime by proper situational awareness. So you should be able to get your chances well below .66%, leaving actual violent crime for more those more complacent individuals (or those already engaged in high risk activities).

.5% to 5% of the US population suffers from an allergy than can cause anaphylaxis. Occurrences of anaphylaxis in the US are often a cause of unknown/unexpected exposure to allergens regardless of attentiveness by the allergic person.

The bottom line is that anaphylaxis shock is a greater threat to the population at large. Do any of you carry a first aid kit with an EpiPen and/or know CPR?

Safety is safety: These things seem to be as important to the safety of you/your loved ones as a whole as concealed carry.

Also, what would you be more willing to do for a 3rd party? Defend them with a firearm or perform CPR? And would you be willing to perform CPR on an individual after you used lethal force on them?

-kkg
 
Do any of you carry a first aid kit with an EpiPen
Click to expand...

You can't get one without a prescription which means you have to have a personal medical history of severe allergy reactions. I know because our local wildland fire dept tried to get one to carry just in case.

Not sure these questions are on-topic anyway ???
 
I think you are saying is CCW worth the hassle.

Let me throw something out there:
-Not all violent crime is reported (some rape victims, etc.).
-If someone stops a crime (self defense with a CCW, etc.) the "crime" is not always reported.
-CCW states tend to have lower crime rates due to deterrance.

Chances are you will never have to use it, but that is a good thing. It is better to be safe than sorry.
 
There's no one in my immediate family at risk of severe anaphylactic shock, therefore I have no need for an epi-pen. Everyone, though, in my immediate family is at risk of being a victim of crime. Therefore, I do what I can to safeguard those at risk. One of the things I do is to legally carry a concealed weapon. There are other things I can do to help alleviate the risk: I don't impair my faculties with drugs or alcohol in public, I try to remain aware of my surroundings at all times, and I don't go into "that neighborhood" at night. (There are several of "those neighborhoods" near where I live, and I avoid them unless I have good reason.)

You can prove, statistically, that I'm much safer out on the city streets than I am in my own bed. Nevertheless, when out and about, I do what I can to lessen the risks that are present.
 
The key difference of course is that while the incidents of violent crime are not completely random, incidents of anaphylactic shock are fairly predictable. Maybe someone can develop it out of the blue, but not 1 in 200 people every year. Therefore, the odds of an adult with no history of anaphylaxis dropping as a result of it are likely much (I'm guessing orders of magnitude) lower than the odds an adult being a victim of violent crime.

I KNOW for a fact my personal chances of anaphylaxis are near zero. Likewise my blood relations and my girlfriend.

Even if I DIDN'T need a prescription to get an epi-pen, why bother?

The same way a CHP doesn't make you a freelance defender of the public (or at least doesn't imply it's a great idea legalistically) it doesn't make you a freelance medic on its own either.
 
CCW is about personal protection, but not just from criminals.

It is also about self reliance, self discipline, dedication to practice and a strong knowledge base of personal rights and laws.

It's a huge responsibility.

Not sure I'm doing this justice because i'm tired, would someone care to add to this?
 
Keep in mind that those probabilities of being victims of a crime are per year, and are cumulative over the years. The percentage susceptible to anaphylactic shock is a fixed quantity of the population, and doesn't rise with time.
 
That's the thing about statistics, you can use them to make almost any viewpoint appear more valid.

I've had guns pointed at me in the past on several occaisions where I was doing nothing wrong, I've also been the victim of crime in the past, I also try to stay aware and therefore mitigate my potential to become exposed to crime so who knows how many situations I've also avoided. With that said I've never encountered anyone who was having an episode or symptoms of anaphylaxis shock.

Your underlaying assumptions are skewed. I have no idea what your underlaying motivations are with your very first post to the site here. But there does seem to be something there with your apparent slant, no flame intended (just an attempt at mitigation). ; )

It will be interesting to see if your followup posts reveal any motivation, assuming there are followup posts.
 
Also, what would you be more willing to do for a 3rd party? Defend them with a firearm or perform CPR? On the whole CPR, but even that depends on the individual and my own PPE. Bloodborne pathogens can be a ____And would you be willing to perform CPR on an individual after you used lethal force on them?Except in VERY exceptional, messed up circumstances (i.e. "friendly fire"), no way.
Click to expand...
 
Didn't mean to be off topic.
Jeff White's sticky stated that life saving or emergency related topics were not off topic.

Prescription for an EpiPen should be obtainable by nurses, those with a known allergy, parents and guardians of children with allergies, etc... they come in two doses and are relatively safe to use on most people.

Also, very similar to CPR, you take a certain level of liability in using either one; more so in certain jurisdictions.

Also, once someone is really down due to lethal force, first aid would be principal to keeping them alive. Blood borne diseases, liability and the fact you used lethal force in the first place might make you a bit hesitant to administer first aid.

Back to the overall topic of safety. Is it generally accepted by the membership here to help out when under these circumstances?
 
The Good Samaritan rules generally apply to most people willing to help.
Personal protection and personal security generally over-ride even for emergency services personnel.
A firearm is just another tool, another option, another choice.

I carry a jack and a spare tire in my car, not because I expect to need them, rather they're for just in case I need them. I have used my car jack in the past to help someone else.
 
I have had CPR training many many times over, as well as a variety of first aid/emergency response courses, all the way up to Paramedic. I think that they are as important to my safety and survival preparedness as the classes and time I spend on the range.

Without a prescription, you can't get an epi pen (in the USA). Most people who have those severe types of allergies/allergic reactions know already, they may be carrying one and may need help administering it in a emergency. But that is pretty simple, and instructions are usually printed right the injector.

As a part of my "daily crap I carry" is a disposable CPR mask and gloves, factory sealed in a waterproof packet. It's light cheap and disposable after one use. When I used to teach CPR, I would tell my classes: "If I'm not related to someone, I DO NOT do CPR without a mask." That is just my personal philosophy, and I would tell that to my students to help them be aware of the possible (albeit small) risks of doing CPR on someone from the general public. And part of that means thinking of your own safety first.

Preparedness and self protection take on many forms. I would highly recommend first aid/CPR training and recertification as an adjunct to your self defense training. As with self defense, the skills you learn and practice help give you the proper mindset to help you deal with an emergency.

You could have a self defense situation, that becomes a first aid situation:
You neutralized the "bad guy", but he shot your spouse. Can you do what is needed to help keep them alive until medical care arrives (and that could be over 30 minutes !) ? As we just saw in the unfortunate event with the Redskins player at his home in Miami, he was you might say, "only shot in the leg", but that was enough to do in a BIG, STRONG, HEALTHY, YOUNG guy.

Ideally you want to be able to win the battle AND win the war........
 
Also, once someone is really down due to lethal force, first aid would be principal to keeping them alive. Blood borne diseases, liability and the fact you used lethal force in the first place might make you a bit hesitant to administer first aid.
Click to expand...

We've had some threads on this very topic and the general consensus was notify EMS and LE and let them deal with the situation. In the event of a shooting, you will likely be in no mental condition to make medical judgements, you risk exposure to diseases (CPR would seldom be useful in the event of a GSW, anyway) and you can't be totally certainly that the person you just shot won't try to attack you while you're helping them. I'm an LEO and I agree with that stance.

Back to the overall topic of safety. Is it generally accepted by the membership here to help out when under these circumstances?
Click to expand...

I also carry a fire extinguisher in my car. If needed, I would use it to help put out a fire for someone else. Same with a first aid kit, a go bag, and a winter survival kit when I'm in winter driving conditions. I'd use my cell phone to call for help for someone else. These are all pretty much common sense things that most of the folks on this board are prepared (or have been made aware that it's a good thing to be prepared) to do. What's your point?
 
lots of replies...
Typically discussions of firearms carry is: pray for peace, but dress for war. To assume that carrying a firearm is covering some contingency that is any more real than many, many other threats is singing the same simple song again. I’m just stretching our minds, collectively.

Also… not saying CCW is a waste of time, just putting a different spin on it by tying it to other safety related issues.

And, those numbers aren’t anywhere a firm analysis of crime, and not they are not the entire crux of the argument, it just helps establishes what might be a baseline for a valid threats (loosely stated of course). They are 2005 population and crime information. Not a thorough review, but they help establish the point. Don’t read too much into them.

I’m not too sure I would consider helping someone who got shot unless it were a family member, if that helps put me on anyone’s good graces. Also, my CPR refresher course was over ten years ago. So don’t expect stellar performance from me anyway…

Gang, it looks like some assumptions are being made about me, and not the discussion. Those would your inferences not my implications; I can’t write the initial post in too sweet or complacent a manner. The point of this discussion is to discuss…

Here’s hoping my contribution so far is taken in the right context,
kkg
 
kierkegaard said;
Assuming the violent crime rate in the US is ~2M incidents a year. And the population of the US is 300M, which makes the chance of encountering violent crime as .66% per person (or 2 ÷ 300). This assumes the occurrences are evenly distributed among the entire US population, which it isn’t… But to follow through…

Now assuming you have reasonable wits about you, you can further mitigate chances of violent crime by proper situational awareness. So you should be able to get your chances well below .66%, leaving actual violent crime for more those more complacent individuals (or those already engaged in high risk activities).
Click to expand...

The great majority of violent crime occurs between people who live a criminal lifestyle or associate with those who do. If you don't live a criminal lifestyle, hang out with those who do, or go the same places they hang out, your chances of becoming a victim of violent crime are much lower then that. The biggest thing you can do to keep yourself safe from violent crime is to make smart lifestyle decisions.

.5% to 5% of the US population suffers from an allergy than can cause anaphylaxis. Occurrences of anaphylaxis in the US are often a cause of unknown/unexpected exposure to allergens regardless of attentiveness by the allergic person.

The bottom line is that anaphylaxis shock is a greater threat to the population at large. Do any of you carry a first aid kit with an EpiPen and/or know CPR?

Safety is safety: These things seem to be as important to the safety of you/your loved ones as a whole as concealed carry.
Click to expand...

If you or a family member doesn't suffer from an allergy like that, there is no need to carry an EpiPen even if you could get one. The private citizen carries his/her weapon to protect him/herself, not the general public. CCW has no public safety component. It is for the protection of the individual.

More people die from a sudden cardiac incident then from anaphylaxic shock brought on by unexpected contact with an allergen. Are you advocating that everyone carry an AED? Surely you would have a greater chance of needing one then you would an EpiPen.

Heavy Metal Hero said;

-CCW states tend to have lower crime rates due to deterrance.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely true. There is no relationship between CCW and the crime rate. Crime has been going up as the number of states that permit CCW has increased. How do you explain this negative correlation between CCW and the crime rate? How do you explain the fact that according to the FBI 2006 Uniform Crime Report http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_05.html , Wisconsin, pop approx 5 million, no CCW has a crime rate of 284.0 per 100,000 residents, and Tennessee, pop approx 6 million has a crime rate of 760.2 per 100,000 residents? Tennessee has CCW. The actual numbers disprove the oft repeated myth in the gun culture that CCW has any impact on the crime rate.

Of course the opposite is also true, laws restricting the possession or carry of guns also have no effect on the crime rate. The crime rate is determined by many complex social and economic factors. Guns are not one of those factors. The biggest thing that factors into the crime rate is the number of males in the society between 14 and 28 years of age, the next biggest factor is the incarceration rate. Again, guns just don't figure into the equation.

I'm moving this thread to General Gun Discussions as it's not on topic in Strategies and Tactics.

Jeff
 
Not even remotely true. There is no relationship between CCW and the crime rate. Crime has been going up as the number of states that permit CCW has increased.
Click to expand...

You're right, some areas are just more dangerous than others (with or without ccw). I should have put violent crime, anyways. Florida for example, if I am not mistaken, saw a decrease in violent crime when they allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Heavy Metal Hero said;
Florida for example, if I am not mistaken, saw a decrease in violent crime when they allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but there was never a definitive link to concealed carry being the reason. If you look at Lott and Mustard's data, Florida was the only state to show any significant decrease in violent crime after passage of CCW laws. So either Florida was an anomaly or there was some other factor involved in the decrease.

There is so much guesswork in all of the studies, Lott and Mustard, Kleck, Donohue and all of the other researchers are using incomplete data (the data they need is not collected nor is it reported) and in some cases relying on surveys, some of them decades old. It's quite possible to draw any conclusion you want from such research. Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University took the same data and concluded that if anything, shall issue laws have resulted in an increased adult homicide rate.

It's time to take guns out of the debate on how to fight the crime problem. They are statistically irrelevant. The medical community with it's advances in trauma medicine has earned much more credit for the drop in the homicide rate then any gun law.

Jeff
 
It looses something as just an anecdotal reference, but there was a recent incident here in Mass where a nurse used an EpiPen on a passersby-er while visiting one of our local beaches. That is not very germane to the discussion though…

Anyhow:
Heavy Metal Hero:
There was no opinion to be expressed; it was a conversation starter…

Jeff White:
No advocation has been proffered; see response to Heavy Metal Hero.

So my position is required?
I never preclude the option to carry… rarely ever do for a variety of reasons, but I paid big money to get an license in this state, it allows me to carry with few restrictions and I like recreational shooting. Also, I like peace and quiet and general conversation. So there you have it...

I obviously did put this in the wrong forum, very sorry. I am headed over the “New Member? Introduce Yourself Here”. It was fun making a splash!
 
I think that the whole thing boils down to the principle of the YOU, not the government, should be the one to decide weather or not your life is worth defending. If CPR were outlawed or severely restricted, you would probably see more people taking an interest in first aid. When it gets to the point that the state can decide what's best for you, the state in effect owns you. There is a growing COLLECTIVISM mentality in this country and the individualist is opposite of this. And nothing is more individualistic than going about armed.

OS
 
As low as the chances of being in a crime are, it sucks to be one of those people that are. I'm sure that the students that died at Virginia Tech would appreciate being told that they only had a .66% chance of being involved in a violent crime. I'd rather it be .01% instead of .66%, thus I own weapons to defend myself and my loved ones.
 
Here's my position:

Those with a demonstrated potential for condition X are most responsible for preparing for said condition.

What does that mean? Well, here are some examples:

When I drive a diesel car I have no demonstrated potential to run out of gasoline (because my diesel car cannot utilize gasoline). So I have no responsibility for carrying gasoline. That is true whether my having some gasoline on me might help a passer by.

I have a demonstrated potential to experience moderate allergic reactions. Therefore I carry antihistamines. If someone around me (coworker for example) is having a hay fever attack I may offer her some of my antihistamines to them to our mutual good... but she cannot say that I have a responsibility to carry antihistamines because she may have an attack. Likewise, I cannot say that she has a responsibility just because I might have an attack.

Violent crime crosses just about every social and economic stratum... but there are some groups who are especially likely to be victims: Young females, people with access to desirable or valuable items (jewelry couriers, pharmacists and doctors, etc), people in repressed minorities, people who have had threats communicated to them, etc.. Those people have a responsibility to carry for their own safety. I do not have a responsibility to carry for them. They do not have a responsibility to carry for me. The fact that I may benefit from their carrying is incidental.

Nobody knows your situation as well as you do. Nobody knows my situation as well as I do. When I was in California with a large social network, a house in a secure location, family I could call on, an office job with no particular access to valuables, etc., my risk was extremely low and in my opinion getting a CCW license would have been a waste of time and money. In fact having a loaded gun unlocked and around the house for quick access was not worthwhile. I had pushed my security perimeter out quite far and I hadn't had an incident in close to 20 years by the time I left. When I moved to an apartment in Texas that calculation changed and a CHL strikes me as an excellent idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top