I completely disagree with the blanket statement : Clearly, real world results demonstrate that having a gun (any gun) is a huge improvement over no gun.
There are people every day who defend themselves with a firearm and never fire a shot. Clearly those are real world results that demonstrate that having a gun, even if you can't shoot it effectively, even if it's not a mainstream self-defense caliber, even if it's NOT LOADED, is a huge improvement over no gun at all. I'm not advocating carrying unloaded guns, but real world results demonstrate that something like 90% of successful self-defense gun uses don't even involve the attacker being injured seriously. It's impossible to argue that having a gun is not an improvement over not having one.
I mean it's possible to argue that point--but only by ignoring logic and real-world results.
What you're saying amounts to claiming that even though only about 1 in 10 SUCCESSFUL self-defense gun uses involves seriously wounding the attacker and most end without the gun being fired, we should dissuade people from carrying small guns that might save their lives 9 out of 10 times.
That's not the kind of logic that works for me.
Of course a gun isn't the right tool for every self-defense encounter. And, of course, there are times when deploying a gun can increase the chances of being injured or killed (although statistically speaking, resisting with a gun offers the BEST chance of remaining uninjured--even better than compliance). But pointing out those true statements which relate to rare outcomes when it comes to self-defense gun uses doesn't change the big picture--it certainly doesn't provide a good reason to ignore the vast majority of self-defense gun uses.
The fact is that we KNOW that having a gun is better than not having one--purely from a statistical standpoint. People who resist violence with a gun have a better chance of surviving a violent encounter uninjured. Of course, having a gun AND being proficient with it is even better yet. But we need to be sure that we're not letting the best be the enemy of good enough.
To be clear, I'm not advocating that people carry and not practice. I'm also not saying that small guns are as good as full-sized ones. I'm just pointing out that even tiny guns in "ineffective" calibers can be lifesavers and therefore it's not a good idea to give people the idea that they need to carry at least 'this size gun' in 'at least this caliber' or just forget about it.
Carrying a gun everyday does not seem to be an indicator that people practice.
I didn't say that it was an indicator/reliable predictor of practice. What I said was pretty clear: "I
tend to think that people who carry regularly are
at least slightly more likely to practice regularly so getting people carrying
might actually get them to practice more."
Do people who carry automatically practice? No.
Will getting people to carry insure that they practice? No.
Are people who carry "at least slightly more likely to practice regularly"? I think that's a safe statement.
I understood what the OP was saying but I truly believe that a person who is new to concealed carry and is doing it with pocket gun has a false sense of security because unless they have trained a lot they will not be effective with that gun.
1. If you look at real-world incident reports, for the most part people are effective with pocket guns. Small guns are not ideal and they can be difficult to shoot, but if you look at the reports, there just aren't very many reports of people getting killed because they chose to carry a pocket gun.
2. Pocket guns are more capable than pointing your finger and saying: "Bang!". The OP is talking about getting someone into carrying when they are having trouble making the decision due to complications with and worries about carry. The decision being discussed is not between carrying a full-sized service pistol and a pocket pistol, it's between not carrying at all and carrying a small gun.
If you want to tell people who ask you that they need to carry a full-sized gun (or make sure that it's at least X caliber) and get training and be sure they meet your requirements for situational awareness, or just forget about the whole deal, that's your prerogative. I believe that is a terrible approach to getting people to carry--in fact, I believe that it's a good way to convince someone who's thinking about carrying that it's too hard for them so that they just give up.
This boils down to one simple principle. No matter how experienced and knowledgeable you are, what you feel is right for you isn't automatically right for everybody.