I'm carrying a gun - Am I looking for trouble?

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think I explained why. I do not have an issue with sane people owning guns, clearly having more than 80,000,000 guns in circulation doesn't pose a significant risk or it would be gun fight at OK coral every day, I just do not understand why anyone would feel threatened simply stepping outside their frond door. It doesn't make any sense given that most people never, ever encounter situations where having a gun would assist them in any way. I would imagine that there are very few people that in reality feel like that or carry gun on every and any occasion but obviously there are some.

As long as it comes to you not understanding their POV thats fine. The data is there even if its not as available as other risk mitigation tools.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Brown Dwarf

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Statistically significant is a matter of opinion. 1:1000 (rough US average) chance of being robbed for instance seems significant to me.

Therefore it is illogical to write off having a self defense plan to mitigate that risk. For instance, it makes sense for a woman out at night to at least have spray or a taser. A firearm is just a bigger more lethal insurance policy to mitigate that risk.

Finally the point of conceal carry is to avoid attention.

A firearm actually increases your risk. It has been shown that a firearm in the house is about a dozen times more likely to inflict harm on a member or guest of the household than it is to fend off an intruder. So yes, it is more lethal. But an insurance policy it is clearly not.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

A firearm actually increases your risk. It has been shown that a firearm in the house is about a dozen times more likely to inflict harm on a member or guest of the household than it is to fend off an intruder. So yes, it is more lethal. But an insurance policy it is clearly not.

And the sad part about this is that many of these incidents could be prevented if the gun owners were responsible and not leaving loaded guns where children and others have easy, unrestricted access to them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The only study I am aware of is the gun use stat which has two assessments from Kleck

You do know that Kleck has been thoroughly discredited, as has been Lott.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And the sad part about this is that many of these incidents could be prevented if the gun owners were responsible and not leaving loaded guns where children and others have easy, unrestricted access to them.

And still the fact remains that a gun does not decrease your risk but increases it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

he only study I am aware of is the gun use stat which has two assessments from Kleck - the low end being 800,000 uses to stop crime and the high end being 2.4 millon per year. However, I'm also aware the DOJ rates successful defensive use at a much lower number of 80k per year.

Kleck.

Consider this:

Consider the responses to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,500 adults conducted in May 1994 by ABC News and the Washington Post. One question asked: "Have you yourself ever seen anything that you believe was a spacecraft from another planet?" 10% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These 150 individuals were then asked, "Have you personally ever been in contact with aliens from another planet or not?" and 6% answered "Yes."

By extrapolating to the national population, we might conclude that almost 20 million Americans have seen spacecraft from another planet, and over a million have been in personal contact with aliens from other planets. That more than a million Americans had contact with aliens would be incredible news — but not the kind actively publicized by reputable scientists. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post data on aliens are as good as or better than that from any of the thirteen surveys cited by K-G as supporting their conclusions about self-defense gun use.”

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

Just as there aren't 20 million Americans that have seen an alien spacecraft and just as there aren't one million Americans that have been in personal contact with aliens, there aren't two and half million - or even 800,000 - crime prevention occurrences by use of firearms. That's a pipe dream that has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Kleck.

[RGinWA 816]

I vote "no"

I carry a gun. I never look for trouble. I always complete my business.

Next survey...

I own a fire extinquisher, am I looking for a fire?

OR

I wear a seatbelt, am I looking for a car accident?

Two of those designed to prevent death and one of them designed to administer death.

Great analogy.

Go ahead, use the auto accident deaths like everyone else.

[Peikko 1,575]

As long as it comes to you not understanding their POV thats fine. The data is there even if its not as available as other risk mitigation tools.

I don't know how else to put this across. There is no reliable data that shows carrying a gun increases the safety of the ordinary Joe/Jane in normal life. The available data clearly demonstrates that a gun owner and his family are more at risk from their own guns in their own homes in their own hands than any external threat. Having a gun in the home without following a strict code of gun safety and storage is positively foolish.

It would seem that from a safety perspective the data supports avoiding having guns in the home because that is the source of most of the risk. I can't stop people being foolish, but I don't have to join them.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[pddp 240]

How many assaults were there in the US last year? How many forcible rapes? Murders? Robberies? Violent crimes? Tell the 14,000+ women who got raped that it is not a measurable risk.

FYI, rape by a stranger is extremely rare. The vast majority of women who are raped are raped by a romantic partner, family member, or some other person known to them, often in the privacy of their home or some other place where the woman expected to be safe. If there is a gun in the situation, it is more likely to be used against her. In fact, a woman's odds of survival decrease exponentially if there is a gun where she resides with her violent partner.

It is not up to women to stop men from raping by carrying a gun and killing their violent husbands/boyfriends/dates etc. It's up to men to stop thinking it's ok to rape and to view women as property.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Two of those designed to prevent death and one of them designed to administer death.

Great analogy.

Go ahead, use the auto accident deaths like everyone else.

Or you could be optimistic and say that one of them is designed to prevent death.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Or you could be optimistic and say that one of them is designed to prevent death.

?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

FYI, rape by a stranger is extremely rare. The vast majority of women who are raped are raped by a romantic partner, family member, or some other person known to them, often in the privacy of their home or some other place where the woman expected to be safe. If there is a gun in the situation, it is more likely to be used against her. In fact, a woman's odds of survival decrease exponentially if there is a gun where she resides with her violent partner.

It is not up to women to stop men from raping by carrying a gun and killing their violent husbands/boyfriends/dates etc. It's up to men to stop thinking it's ok to rape and to view women as property.

If I remember correctly, the post I replied to stated that the chances of having a violent action committed against you was not a measurable risk, ie a miniscule chance of it happening. I replied that it probably wasn't miniscule to the 14,000+ rape victims. Since you dismissed that, do you think it was a minimal risk to the 400,000+ victims of violent crime? Or doesn't that violence count either?

[Peikko 1,575]

If I remember correctly, the post I replied to stated that the chances of having a violent action committed against you was not a measurable risk, ie a miniscule chance of it happening. I replied that it probably wasn't miniscule to the 14,000+ rape victims. Since you dismissed that, do you think it was a minimal risk to the 400,000+ victims of violent crime? Or doesn't that violence count either?

No one is dismissing the victims of rape and violent crime, but your numbers do not represent an assessment of risk. Just saying there are 400,000 victims has no meaning as part of an argument as to whether carrying a gun increases or decreases your risk of being injured by an external party.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

No one is dismissing the victims of rape and violent crime, but your numbers do not represent an assessment of risk. Just saying there are 400,000 victims has no meaning as part of an argument as to whether carrying a gun increases or decreases your risk of being injured by an external party.

From the one who says that there is no reason to carry a gun because the risk of crime is irrelevant.