In Light of the Recent Shootings....

[DT Guy]

Statistics-the concurrently true statements that the odds of YOUR being in an auto accident today are vanishingly small, and the odds that thousands of people WILL be in an auto accident today are 100%.



Larry

 

[old lady new shooter]

And this is a perfect example of why it's hard to have serious, thoughtful conversations about emotionally gripping matters.

You fear terrorist attacks and so can't differentiate relative levels of real risk.

Whether an all-out terrorist attack or "merely" a "hate crime", these things happen. So while statistically the risk may be low, if it happens to you it's at that moment 100%.

 

[Danoobie]

In light of the shootings that have plagued our country lately, has anyone been compelled to change their carry habits?

I know I am rethinking my minimalistic approach to concealed carry.

I've been changing my off-property CCW to pocket carry, for fear of someone, either violent
or political, grabbing my gun from a holster, and using it to "prove a point" leaving me holding
the bag, as the origin of the gun in a public place. I'd rather be slower on the draw, than risk
some dirt-bag stealing the gun, and then being held responsible for another's actions.
It's more the political climate, since the election, rather than the actual shootings.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

However, even if a guy exaggerated and claimed 10,000 Americans were killed in active shooter/terrorist attacks in the last two decades (which is a GROSS exaggeration, somewhere on the order of 2-3x the actual number), out of 325 million, you're talking about 0.0003% per year.

So you're literally 10,000 times more likely to have a home invasion than be a victim of such an attack...

One need not be killed in an active shooter or terrorist attach for a firearm kept in a vehicle to be useful - you just need to be present in a circumstance where the firearm becomes useful.

 

[Varminterror]

One need not be killed in an active shooter or terrorist attach for a firearm kept in a vehicle to be useful - you just need to be present in a circumstance where the firearm becomes useful.

And that circumstance is?

 

[Sam1911]

One need not be killed in an active shooter or terrorist attach for a firearm kept in a vehicle to be useful - you just need to be present in a circumstance where the firearm becomes useful.

I know this is a long thread, but if you take the time to read through it you'll find I discussed that in some detail. I think post 164 is a good example of where I discussed how we might start to think about how many people really would be present at the scene of "a circumstance" who would have a realistic position and time window to "do something" about it, and whether or not having a rifle stored in the trunk of a vehicle in the vicinity would mean the "firearm becomes useful."

Being killed isn't a pre-requisite to defining statistical significance, but when the numbers here are so very, very low -- such a vastly minuscule percentage of society -- then we can use basic math and the concept of "orders of magnitude" to give realistic expectations of how often a rifle would be useful to stop something like a terrorist threat.


An example of how that might work:

Say as I've roughly figured, about 0.7 Americans is killed by a foreign terrorist per year (in some way that could be resisted by rifle fire). That places the odds, strictly speaking, at 1:461,570,000 of the American population. Or about 0.000000002% of Americans. Now, let's go wild and crazy and say at every one of those killings there were fully one hundred people who could have returned rifle fire and engaged the killer(s).

That's a lot of people. Probably far too high a number, when you stop to think about how many people could even SEE a mass killer while he's shooting or driving his murder truck, and how many of those would have a shot. The real number might be five or ten or twenty even. But one hundred people is plenty generous and makes the math easier. You now have 0.0000002% of Americans who would have a reasonable chance of engaging a murdering terrorist with rifle fire. Odds of 1:4,615,700. Odds of one in over four and a half MILLION that a specific person (YOU) will be present at a terrorist killing event and in a place to conceivably do something to fight back.

And that's just of people who would be in a position, at a time, when they could have shot the bad guys... IF they had a rifle in their hands RIGHT THEN. Not stored in a car trunk someplace a block away and on the 4th floor of a parking lot or whatever reality might be, while the terrorists kill people or drive their suicide murder truck off down the block, out of range.


How badly do my calculations have to be OFF before this begins to look like a realistic problem and solution? Say, we throw various other kinds of violent acts into this where you can't survive with a handgun but could survive with a rifle. And say the terrorists somehow actually manage to make good on their threats and the number of Americans they kill rises some.

If I've calculated wrong by 100x we're still at odds of thousands to one against you even being someplace where you could respond IF you were already holding your rifle in your hands.

At some point I think we have to agree this is ... a little ... tiny ... bit, well, ridiculous.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Here you go old lady new shooter, Warp...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/domestic-violence-murder-stats/

If you don't like mother jones, no problem, here is a DOJ report on the subject (Table 1)...
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf

How about FBI stats? For 2011 (not an atypical year), 54% were murdered by somebody they knew. 12% were by strangers. The rest were of unknown relationship.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

You have more to fear from those people you know than from people you don't know, statistically speaking.

 

[BSA1]

Say as I've roughly figured, about 0.7 Americans is killed by a foreign terrorist per year (in some way that could be resisted by rifle fire).

Sam1911,

I don't know why you keep talking about foreign terrorists. It is not foreign terrorists that are committing the mass shootings and murders in the U.S.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam1911,

I don't know why you keep talking about foreign terrorists. It is not foreign terrorists that are committing the mass shootings and murders in the U.S.

Mostly because we keep seeing references to what militant islamists claim they're doing to us or are about to do to us as justifications for this up-arming. And because terrorism seems to be the big boogeyman we point to.

However, as I pointed out in post 231, the numbers which I started figuring based on terrorism statistics, are still instructive for our risk analysis when blown out to include other types of mass violence.

Want proof? Here's a very much "against us" report from the Washington Post about mass killings: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

They use a definition of mass shooting that includes any situation in which FOUR or more people were killed by a gunman. In their statistical count, the average death toll was only eight.

When you look at it that way, I'm not sure most of us think of 4 or 5 people killed as the sort of "go grab my rifle" situations we're talking about here. But fine, let's include them. And accept WaPo's numbers.

That's 974 -- NINE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR!!! - victims. That's a lot, right? But since when? Was that last year? Or this decade? Hmmm.... well, that's all of them since 1966. That's nineteen (19) total Americans killed by a mass shooter per year.

Nineteen. That's considerably fewer people killed by mass shooters per year than by pet dogs. The same number that are killed by backyard swing sets.

Only about four times more than are viciously murdered by... uh, believe it or not, latex party balloons.

Yeah, nineteen per year is a lot more than 0.7 per year. But it's still DANGED few.

And it doesn't change my numbers in any significant ways. 19 out of 323,100,000 Americans is 0.0000059%. That's way up from 0.00000002% right? RIGHT? Well... So you've not just got a 1:461,570,000 chance of being killed by a terrorist. You've also got a 1 out of 17,005,200 chance of being shot by a mass shooter! Woooah.... really?


From Curiosity.com:

Despite big-budget Hollywood films' depictions of plane crashes, flying is actually the safest mode of transportation. In fact, the odds of a plane crash are one for every 1.2 million flights, with odds of dying one in 11 million. Your chances of dying in a car or traffic accident are one in 5,000.

And the odds of being killed by a mass shooter are one in 17 million? And I'm supposed to lift even an eyebrow to prepare for this? C'mon.


Let me go farther than that: A statistician or behavioral scientist/economist would say it doesn't make any sense to do anything to resist a 1:17,005,200 chance of death -- IF that thing you'd do would guarantee survival. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze, even if the squeeze costs you practically nothing.

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about doing something (storing a rifle in our trunks, or up-armoring in some other way) which is not at all clear would be of any practical benefit whatsoever in resisting that attack. In fact, we have to come up with ever more specific and convoluted scenarios to explain why having that bigger gun would be crucial, or how we'd go get that rifle out of the trunk and return fire. There aren't any clear ways to define to what extent those specificities increase the odds against needing to up-armor, but it should be obvious that they drive those numbers significantly farther DOWN.

 

[Sam1911]

So, to follow up, BSA1, does that either answer the question you had or at least clarify the scale of the risk?
Is there anything about my analysis that you disagree with?

 

[otasan56]

In light of the shootings that have plagued our country lately, has anyone been compelled to change their carry habits?

I know I am rethinking my minimalistic approach to concealed carry.
I am also going to insist that my wife take the course and get her permit as well.

Not me. I still CCW my G17 24/7.

 

[I6turbo]

There are reportedly (per the CDC) nine (9) people killed each DAY due to texting and driving. I worry much more about that kind of thing than a mass shooting or even an individual shooting. And it annoys me much more that there's a massive campaign to stop these "mass shootings" yet virtually nothing done to stop texting while driving or other such things that kill many orders of magnitude more innocent people.

 

[BSA1]

Sam1911 you cover your position pretty well. I just disagree with your conclusions. In fact I could use your numbers to make a strong case as to why citizens do not need to carry firearms in public.

I don't get hung up on use of Terrorist and Terrorism as they are strictly political terms. In fact Obama Administration avoided using the terms Terrorist and Terrorism due to laws requiring certain sanctions and actions if the actions are described as such.

I am even less so with the term "foreign." Las Vegas, Texas Church and California School (earlier this week) are terrorism to me.

America is and remains a very mobile violent society. As such I fail to see why I should leave better, more powerful weapons that I can use more effectively stored in my gun vault.

As I said; A Statistic is when a crime happens to your neighbor. A Victim is when it happens to you.

 

[BSA1]

Not me. I still CCW my G17 24/7.

Thank you . You are already at the far end of the Bell Curve and better prepared than the majority of conceal weapon owners.

 

[Varminterror]

America is and remains a very mobile violent society. As such I fail to see why I should leave better, more powerful weapons that I can use more effectively stored in my gun vault.

Because in reality, they can't be "used more effectively" in the scenarios you're describing as the justification for employing them. The net reaction time, including retrieval, access, and deployment (run to the vehicle, access the weapon, run back to the danger) takes far too long. It also involves a logical fallacy - in most of these situations of PROLONGED danger, in which the above lengthy reaction time may still be serviceable, this process involves defensively retreating from danger to safety, then returning offensively to the danger. If a guy thinks they're going to play hero, great, but it's an illogical construct.

10 pages of this, it's pretty obvious some folks just won't yield their position, whether it's logical or not... The horses have all been lead to water...

 

[bearcreek]

The horses have all been lead to water...

That is the case roughly 95% of the time on every internet gun forum I've seen or been a part of.

Anyway, to answer the OP. No, haven't changed my carry gear. I still carry a semi auto pistol with 15 rounds on board, an extra magazine, a defensive knife, and TQ. The only change that I may implement, and this isn't specifically because of recent events, is to start carrying an occlusive dressing along with the TQ.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam1911 you cover your position pretty well. I just disagree with your conclusions.

Ok, please elaborate. What have I concluded incorrectly?

In fact I could use your numbers to make a strong case as to why citizens do not need to carry firearms in public

By all means, please do! What does that say about your own assertions in this thread?

You could make a cogent argument that citizens don't need to carry sidearms to defend against fairly common, everyday, muggings, hold-ups, and murders, so that somehow SUPPORTS your claim that they SHOULD be carrying rifles in their trunks to respond to events that appear to have odds of fewer than 1 in 17 Million?

You know, disproving the truth of a whole area of logical argument doesn't somehow prove the truth of the tiniest subset of that logical argument. If you manage to establish that NO dogs can breath under water, that doesn't then somehow support a contention that the Norwegian Lundehund has gills.

I don't get hung up on use of Terrorist and Terrorism as they are strictly political terms. In fact Obama Administration avoided using the terms Terrorist and Terrorism due to laws requiring certain sanctions and actions if the actions are described as such.

So? I've illustrated my points using both "foreign terrorist" and "domestic non-terrorist" sorts of numbers.

What more could you ask for? How can I be concluding something incorrect?

I am even less so with the term "foreign." Las Vegas, Texas Church and California School (earlier this week) are terrorism to me.

Ditto. I've now given the same analysis using home grown domestic numbers. Actually, my numbers include all such shootings, both foreign and domestic, and STILL illustrate the rarity of these events and the uselessness of storing away a rifle (or extra powerful handgun) to respond to them.

America is and remains a very mobile violent society. As such I fail to see why I should leave better, more powerful weapons that I can use more effectively stored in my gun vault.

Well, we've been over that. You've not shown any clear reason why such things make any of us safer at all. It does not stand to reason if the numbers do not back up the claimed risks and benefits.

As I said; A Statistic is when a crime happens to your neighbor. A Victim is when it happens to you.

A truism that conceals more than it illuminates.

If this is how you feel, I hope you're REALLY suspicious of swing sets, party balloons, bedsheets and all the other things that are comparable in lethality.

 

[Old Dog]

Actually, my numbers include all such shootings, both foreign and domestic, and STILL illustrate the rarity of these events and the uselessness of storing away a rifle (or extra powerful handgun) to respond to them.

Thank you, Sam, for making the anti-gun faction's argument perfectly clear in this forum. Heck, thank you for letting me see the light! I need nothing more than my old Model 10, a single shot Stevens 12-gauge ... but can I keep my Winchester 94 anyway?

With assistance such as this, most states shall have no problem getting magazine capacity laws installed and semi-auto rifle bans put in place. What a truly awesome, 2nd Amendment inspired post -- by a moderator, no less.

 

[Sam1911]

Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny.

But if that's the message you take away from this thread, well...I guess you got your money's worth.



Remind me again why I should not speak the truth because there might be some political angle we don't like?

Are you saying you really wish we WERE in immediate and regular lethal danger from mass shooters or terrorists? That it would be ever so nice if we all might really be likely to be shot to death -- because it would bolster a political point?

[SARCASM]Man, tell you what: I'm right there with you! I sure wish a few hundred thousand Americans were killed by mass shooters every year so the numbers on storing a rifle in your trunk started to make sense! It sure sucks that mass death at the hands of rifle-wielding terrorists is so rare! What a BUMMER![/SARCASM]

 

[Old Dog]

Ha ha ha. That's pretty funny.

But if that's the message you take away from this thread, well...I guess you got your money's worth.



Remind me again why I should not speak the truth because there might be some political angle we don't like?

Are you saying you really wish we WERE in immediate and regular lethal danger from mass shooters or terrorists? That it would be ever so nice if we all might really be likely to be shot to death -- because it would bolster a political point?

[SARCASM]Man, tell you what: I'm right there with you! I sure wish a few hundred thousand Americans were killed by mass shooters every year so the numbers on storing a rifle in your trunk started to make sense! It sure sucks that mass death at the hands of rifle-wielding terrorists is so rare! What a BUMMER![/SARCASM]

Continuing to pontificate on how useless it is -- statistically speaking -- to desire to carry a more effective weapons platform on one's self or in one's vehicle is speaking the truth?

I suspect that many here who ponder their personal risk, in an attempt to be prepared for a worst-case situation, don't obsess about statistics and let numbers guide their preparation. NOBODY wishes a few hundred thousand Americans would be killed by mass shooters every years to justify the concept of storing a rifle in one's vehicle. NOBODY here suggested that, and certainly not me.

Once again, you took over a 10 page thread to perpetuate your personal agenda, which appears now to be simply arguing solely for the sake of arguing. Do not put words in my mouth. If you want to shout down those who are proponents of carrying some extra rounds or a long gun as not understanding the real risks -- according to you -- of going about one's daily activities in America based on statistics, some here might interpret your understanding of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as not fully evolved.

There's no "political angle" I've seen in this thread that anyone's objecting to; simply some disagreement with some of the things you've said.

 

[Sam1911]

No, you miss my point.

The thread was about the decision of whether or not we would up armor ourselves in some way (most specifically either by carrying a higher powered handgun, or by going about our daily lives with a rifle stowed in our car trunks) in response to recent mass shootings and/or terrorism.

So I started to look and try to find out if there were numbers available which would indicate whether or not such a response makes sense. Because truly if this threat is at all likely to impact me personally, then I should prepare. And if so, HOW should I prepare? What responses are likely to actually improve my odds?

Throughout this entire thread I have repeated that it is perfectly reasonable to carry a heavier handgun, or to carry a rifle around in your car, just because you WANT to.

But the more I have looked into the matter, the less and less present and likely any of these risks appear to be. And the more I have tried to explore how some of the suggested responses to these threats, such as carrying a rifle around in our car trunks, might help us in those situations, the less useful such plans appeared.

This is an open forum: any member is welcome to post whatever statistics they can find which would support their assertions. I would very much appreciate it in fact. Somebody post something with some actual mathematical logic to it that says wow yes this is a pretty serious problem that we all might face. So far we've had a lot of people basically say I don't care about statistics or I don't like these statistics that you keep bringing up, but nobody's been able to say why they're wrong or why my view of them is wrong.

So far I can't find any means by which I can accept that this is a pressing need. That this is a reasonable and useful response to something that is a common enough problem in our society for anyone to make a personal effort to prepare for, or that the rifle in the trunk idea is actually a good and useful response even if the problem was significant and likely.

I suspect that many here who ponder their personal risk, in an attempt to be prepared for a worst-case situation, don't obsess about statistics and let numbers guide their preparation

To say that those who consider preparing for their personal defense, "don't obsess about statistics," really highlights why I've become involved in this thread.

We gun owners talk about how our positions are rational, our fears and concerns are realistic, it's the other guys who don't understand science or don't understand statistics or don't understand logic. The antis are all idiots, just ask us.

But when we start to try to dissect whether or not there is a realistic problem that we should be worried about, and that we should lift a finger to prepare for in our own lives, well now we really don't want to talk about whether or not a threat is common or uncommon, or galactically unlikely. Now statistics is some kind of Hokum, some kind of enemy. Not to be trusted.

Human beings are really not wired to understand how to think about numbers that are very small or very large. We can't grasp the context of things that are microscopic, or atomic, or sub-atomic, and we can't really get a practical hold of the size of a solar system or galaxy or the universe. We understand a gallon or a mile, or a hundred miles, or a cubic inch, but not what a population of 323,100,000 looks like. What an individuals place in such a mass really is. Similarly, we don't commonly have the ability to relate our own lives to chance happenings on the order of magnitude of 1 in 17 million. 17 million sounds big, but somehow, if that thing happened to someone, it COULD happen to us. At least that's how our brains react. But from a pragmatic point of view, that's not really true.

With assistance such as this, most states shall have no problem getting magazine capacity laws installed and semi-auto rifle bans put in place. What a truly awesome, 2nd Amendment inspired post -- by a moderator, no less.

And now I'm told to believe that a person who has volunteered a fair chunk of the last 10 years of his life to helping shepherd along an internet forum devoted to promoting a very hard line interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, is touting the anti-gun platform if he dares take a scientific look at actual rates of risks and deaths, or tries to speak plainly about how one might really be able to use a rifle in the circumstances under discussion.

There's no "political angle" I've seen in this thread that anyone's objecting to;

When you tell me that I should not report the statistics that I find, or should not speak my mind about whether or not those statistics point to a threat anyone should feel the need to prepare for, or you tell me that it isn't appropriate that I pursue the discussion of how useful a rifle locked in a trunk is when in the face of one of these attacks that have been brought up as a reason to carry such a thing -- because saying those things might give aid and comfort to the other side -- then that is arguing against truthfulness out of political expediency.

Old Dog, if that's what you meant to say, then I say that's the act of a coward.

 

[Sam1911]

some here might interpret your understanding of the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment as not fully evolved.

Let me just respond to this one line by saying, consider the challenge accepted.

If you or any of these "some here" feel my understanding of our Second Amendment right to bear arms is not fully evolved, make your point publicly.

I shall meet it.

 

[Varminterror]

It might be diminishing of the 2nd Amendment right to say a person doesn't need a rifle to defend themselves at all. But that is NOT what is being said by myself or @Sam1911 in this thread.

The point being made in this thread is more like:

It is NOT diminishing of the 2nd Amendment to say a person doesn't need a rifle to defend themselves against fire breathing dragons...

 

[Sam1911]

NOBODY wishes a few hundred thousand Americans would be killed by mass shooters every years to justify the concept of storing a rifle in one's vehicle. NOBODY here suggested that, and certainly not me.

My clearly sarcastic quip was meant to illustrate a point: Isn't it wonderful that we are not really in present and common danger from terrorists or mass shooters? Shouldn't that discovery -- through the science of statistics used to counter the fearful impressions delivered by the evening news -- fill us with joy? Isn't it a terrific thing that I can report, hey fellas, you can take take off your helmet and go back to just carrying that J-frame if you want, because we're still very, very safe from these sorts of threats? I am encouraged by the things I've found. Not mad that there aren't killers on my street when debating against gun control.

 

[Armored farmer]

Sam, do you carry on a regular basis?