In Light of the Recent Shootings....

[BSA1]

OK.

You have convince me that having a rifle in the trunk of my vehicle is totally useless in a terrorist and mass attack.

Since terrorist and mass attacks are so rare as to ignore does that also apply to all types of violent crimes?

The O.P. question was how many have reconsidered what they are carrying for self-defense and upgraded to a more powerful gun. I took this to mean to mainly included handguns as they are the most common firearm carried for self-defense. 3 shots fired in a armed encounter statistic is frequently quoted from FBI Study. Since 3 is mean of 1 and 5 there is no reason is larger more than 5 round revolver or pistol.

So carrying my Beretta 92 with loaded with 18 rounds and a spare 17 round magazine is paranoid and a overreaction to the statistical odds of being a victim of a violent crime and even if I am a victim of violent crime I will only not fire more than 3 rounds.

So a logical, rational conclusion is long guns should remain in the safe at home only to be brought out for hunting and target shooting as the risk of it being stolen is greater than use in defense of self or others.

It is also logical, rational conclusion that carrying a firearm with more than 5 rounds is a overreaction to real crime data and the odds of being a victim of violent crime.

Whew!

 

[JR24]

Nope. Didn't change me much as I carry a duty size gun and spare mags.

I debated a truck gun (and will debate again) but haven't because

a) I would be too paranoid about it getting stolen and

b) if I'm in public, im with my kid and if I have access to my rifle then I have access to my truck and me and my family will just get to safety.

Sam1911: thanks for running the odds on what I've always intuitively believed vis a vi mass shooter attacks.

Edit: got rid of the **'d phrase

 

[Sam1911]

You have convince me that having a rifle in the trunk of my trunk is totally useless in a terrorist and mass attack.

No, actually I don't. Do whatever you like. As I said before, it may be quite comforting to go put a rifle in your truck because of these events -- even though doing so has a practically zero chance of making you any safer whatsoever.

But if you're really asking -- after all these pages of explanation (!?) -- ok, here we go again:

Having a rifle stored in your trunk or truck is only of some possible use in instances where:
a) you're actually THERE. This is vanishingly unlikely. Again, on the order of being one of those unlucky souls who manages to strangle to death in their own bedsheets, or be killed by a swing set, and
b) you aren't killed by the bad guy immediately, and
c) you're able to escape the area, and
d) the attack goes on so long that you have the actual quantity of time needed to go to your vehicle, retrieve your gun, return to the scene, and engage the bad guy, and
e) there is some way for you to set yourself in a position to be able to confront/see/aim at the bad guy, and
f) returning to the scene of the mass killing, holding a rifle of your own, seems like the RIGHT thing to do.
Among various other likelihood-reducing factors.

You're demanding we prove a negative: That a rifle stored in your truck COULDN'T be the answer. That it would be totally useless -- in the set of all possible shooting scenarios. That's not the purpose here. Instead we're evaluating whether that's a possibility at all likely enough to warrant changing behavior in order to prepare for. You want us to prove that it isn't POSSIBLE. But that dodges the much more important question of whether it is realistic to prepare for such an inconceivably small chance.

Since terrorist and mass attacks are so rare as to ignore does that also apply to all types of violent crimes?

Really? Not to be rude, but do you really need that explained to you?

There were about 1,205,000 violent crimes in the US last year.
Approximately 19 people die every year due to mass shooters (including terrorists).

Do I need to go further, or is the math apparent from that point forward?
If so, let's just say you've got about 0.4% chance of being a victim of a violent crime next year. That will happen to about 4 people out of 1,000.
You've got about an 5.88e-6% chance of being killed by a mass shooter. That will happen to about 1 person out of every 17 MILLION people.

One seems like the sort of thing you might prepare for. The other is the sort of thing you could live many, many lifetimes without ever encountering.

The O.P. question was how many have reconsidered what they are carrying for self-defense and upgraded to a more powerful gun. I took this to mean to mainly included handguns as they are the most common firearm carried for self-defense.

Actually, it was "In light of the recent shootings..." how many have. The recent shootings were extremely rare events, totally and wholly UNLIKE those which fit into any sort of FBI statistics, due to their rarity.

3 shots fired in a armed encounter statistic is frequently quoted from FBI Study. Since 3 is mean of 1 and 5 there is no reason is larger more than 5 round revolver or pistol. So carrying my Beretta 92 with loaded with 18 rounds and a spare 17 round magazine is paranoid and a overreaction to the statistical odds of being a victim of a violent crime and even if I am a victim of violent crime Iwill only not fire more than 3 rounds.

Gads. You've got real difficulty in picturing scale. A study that says this common type of crime generally fits within this model doesn't tell you that 3 rounds will be enough, though it would be a reasonable basis to help you sort out just how many rounds you really need to carry to feel well-protected.

A common service size handgun with a full magazine isn't a gross overreaction to either the most common of the studied violent encounters, NOR to the somewhat rarer instances where a handgun will help but more rounds are needed than just three or five. Further, we all have experience with missing our targets, most of us train to shoot multiple rounds per threat, and most of us understand that malfunctions in autopistols are most often due to a magazine problem, so a spare is a reasonable idea.

However, we can look at that statistic and say that you've got about 0.4% chance of being a victim of a violent crime, and in some of those cases a gun might be helpful, and that WHEN a gun is fired in such cases, normally between 1 and 5 shots are fired -- so it's reasonable to carry a revolver, or a 1911, or a Beretta 92 -- or anything else fitting into that general mold. On the other hand, carrying a primary, a backup, a second backup, and three spares for each would be rather extreme -- and very, very few of us would think of that as a logical, rational response to the threat faced by the common average American citizen. The use cases where anything approaching that level of firepower was needed are just too rare to make that a logical choice.

The use cases for where a rifle stored in someone's trunk is used to stop a mass killer are similarly, though moreso, exceedingly rare.

So a logical, rational conclusion is long guns should remain in the safe at home only to be brought out for hunting and target shooting as the risk of it being stolen is greater than use in defense of self or others.

That certainly seems to be the case, yes. There are somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 firearms stolen each year. Some number of them (I could not find statistics on what percentage) are stolen from vehicles. Let's say it's only 1/10th of the total number stolen, and go with the lowest estimate. That would mean that 30,000 guns are stolen from cars or trucks every year. And there are 19 people killed by mass shooters each year. Based on those rough numbers, if you put a rifle in your truck it is almost 1,600 times more likely that someone will steal it than that you'll face a mass killer -- at all. Let alone one where you can meet all of the requirements given above to actually be able to USE that rifle.

It is also logical, rational conclusion that carrying a firearm with more than 5 rounds is a overreaction to real crime data and the odds of being a victim of violent crime.

Covered.

However, I do not worry excessively about my safety or that of my family when I'm out in society in locations or situations where I cannot carry a firearm at all. Most of us are probably safer today, living where we live in the USA, than any other people, anywhere, have been throughout history.

 

[fastbolt]

If someone is looking to experience that "safe feeling" by changing their equipment, hopefully they've first considered whether their training & practice regimen, developed skillset and experiential knowledge base is also adequate, or might benefit from more attention.

Equipment is still just equipment, but "upgrading" and improving knowledge and skills can be of practical value regardless of equipment selected, or whatever may be at hand in some unexpected exigent situation.

People tend to look for comfort in talismans, though. Kind of like Touch stones, charms, religious charms and medals, rabbits' feet, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

Since terrorist and mass attacks are so rare as to ignore does that also apply to all types of violent crimes?

Did you know that from time to time there is a weird meteorological phenomenon in which frogs rain from the sky onto people, greatly surprising them? (Greatly surprising the frogs, too, I imagine. Talk about a grand adventure with a really abrupt and unpleasant end.)

Masses of fish, frogs, worms, and other various kinds of flightless animals end up swept into the sky and then rain down. This has happened many times in recorded history, all over the world, and as recently as a very few years ago.

Now, I'm not going to go buy a frog helmet.

But that doesn't mean it's irrational to keep an umbrella handy.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If someone is looking to experience that "safe feeling" by changing their equipment, hopefully they've first considered whether their training & practice regimen, developed skillset and experiential knowledge base is also adequate, or might benefit from more attention.

Don't be silly. Training and practice require a concerted effort, time, and expense. Being proficient means work. Upgrading gear just means fun shopping for new toys.

How many people in the thread, did you notice, stated that they are going to take defense classes (self defense, handgun defense, etc.) instead of, or in addition to, buying new guns?

 

[CapnMac]

Masses of fish, frogs, worms, and other various kinds of flightless animals end up swept into the sky and then rain down. This has happened many times in recorded history, all over the world, and as recently as a very few years ago.

Small world. Centuries ago, when I was a young lad in the very early 80s, I had an opportunity to go ride fence for a medium-large outfit near the edge of the Edwards Plateau at the south end of the Texas Panhandle. Was a job right out of Louis L'amore, sadle up a horse and a pack horse or two and ride along the fence line and making sure all was right along that line. I had ridden three days' out, and was returning to the line cabin, as it was time for more supplies and a roof over my head again.

Sky went dark and cold and gray and miserable. Clouds the color of lead dross and twilight gloom. Got the horse all down in a draw, and hobbled all the mounts as best I could. Lots of thunder, not a lot of lightning, and then a rather brutish heavy rain of short duration. Rain stopped but left some intense winds behind. Got the horse moving again toward the cabin and some shelter. Only to have a great load of minnows and tiny frogs rain down. This was followed with a rather brief rain of tiny pebbles.

This probably would have been much more disconcerting had I not had my entire attention being put to trying to keep three horses from bolting off in three different directions all at once. Horses are not fond of squishy footing--like minnows & frogs. Their instinct is to "Run Away!" I was cold, wet, and tired enough to not want to be a 5¢ rodeo. Rest of the way to the cabin was uneventful.

The meteorolgists tell me that like as not, a line burst wind structure rolled out of the storm cell and scoured a creek bottom and the updraft carried the debris around the cell's toriod until it was visited upon me.

To this day, I still make no special efforts to keep frog-proof head gear at hand (floppy black felt hat was all I had at the time).

 

[Varminterror]

OK.

You have convince me that having a rifle in the trunk of my trunk is totally useless in a terrorist and mass attack.

Since terrorist and mass attacks are so rare as to ignore does that also apply to all types of violent crimes?

The O.P. question was how many have reconsidered what they are carrying for self-defense and upgraded to a more powerful gun. I took this to mean to mainly included handguns as they are the most common firearm carried for self-defense. 3 shots fired in a armed encounter statistic is frequently quoted from FBI Study. Since 3 is mean of 1 and 5 there is no reason is larger more than 5 round revolver or pistol.

So carrying my Beretta 92 with loaded with 18 rounds and a spare 17 round magazine is paranoid and a overreaction to the statistical odds of being a victim of a violent crime and even if I am a victim of violent crime I will only not fire more than 3 rounds.

So a logical, rational conclusion is long guns should remain in the safe at home only to be brought out for hunting and target shooting as the risk of it being stolen is greater than use in defense of self or others.

It is also logical, rational conclusion that carrying a firearm with more than 5 rounds is a overreaction to real crime data and the odds of being a victim of violent crime.

Whew!

Another absurdist strawman argument...

 

[BSA1]

I decided to help you out on your argument. I researched the following mass shootings as reported in the United States for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017;

Nov. 5, 2017 – 26 killed, 20 injured Texas Church Shooting. Shooter committed suicide.

Oct. 1, 2017 – Scores killed and injured; Las Vegas – Shooter committed suicide.

June 5, 2017 – 5 killed; Orange County Fla. – Shooter committed suicide.

Jan. 6, 2017 - 5 killed, 6 injured: Fort Lauderdale, Fla. – Shooter remained at scene and surrendered unharmed without resisting officers.

Sept. 23, 2016 - 5 killed: Burlington, Wash. – Shooter left the scene and was later captured uninjured.

June 12, 2016 - 49 killed, 58 injured in Orlando nightclub shooting. Shooter was killed by Police.

Dec. 2, 2015 - 14 killed, 22 injured: San Bernardino, Calif. Two shooters were killed by Police.

Oct. 1, 2015 - 9 killed, 9 injured: Roseburg, Ore. Shooter committed suicide after gun battle with the Police.

July 26, 2015 - 5 killed, 3 injured: Chattanooga, Tenn. Shooter killed by Police.

June 18, 2015 - 9 killed: Charleston, S.C. – Shooter fled and later arrested unharmed.

May 23, 2014 - 6 killed, 7 injured: Isla Vista, Calif. – Shooter committed suicide.

April 2, 2014 - 3 killed; 16 injured: Ft. Hood, Texas - Shooter committed suicide after being confronted by the Police.

I will stop here but more mass shootings incidents can be found at:

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Conclusions;

In none of the attacks did use of firearm by a citizen stop the attack or cause the death of the shooter. The Texas Church Shooter was shot after he had committed his mass attack.

All civilian owned handguns and rifles are not needed in a mass shooting or terrorist attack.

In fact the presence of armed citizens hinders the Police investigation of identifying the attacker as occurred at the Walmart shooting in Thornton, Colorado on November 2, 2017.

Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are so rare that they cannot be predicted.

However while the odds of being involved in such an event is very low the possibility exists. Since civilian firearms are documented to be unneeded in this type of event it is best to remain unarmed when in public to avoid hindering the police investigation and possible theft of your firearm.

This also supports your argument that the monetary value of a rifle that may be stolen from your vehicle is greater than the value of human live(s) or prevent injuries it may save since mass shooting or terrorist attack are so rare in the United States. (What you are doing is accepting the loss of human life and injuries to people in exchange for preventing a rifle from ever being stolen from vehicles).

Based on the commonly quoted FBI Statistic of only three rounds fired in self-defense someone being a victim of or witnessing a mass shooting we certainly don’t need high capacity handguns in public either. Since the hit probably under stress is low for some folks firing multiple bullets significantly increases the chance of a innocent bystander(s) being injured or killed. (This is well documented. Just look at NYPD officer shootings).

However your position on allowing handguns to be taken outside of the home is inconsistent with your belief that a rifle should remain in the home due to theft. Handguns are easily stolen. They present a even greater threat to the public as they are frequently lost and on rare occasions taken from the owner while they were carrying it.

Furthermore supporting carry of handguns that hold more than five rounds is contrary to your position on the threat a rifle that is merely locked in the trunk of a vehicle presents. The risk to bystanders can only be reduced by limiting the amount of ammunition the gun has and the power of the cartridge and eliminated by not allowing firearms to be carried in public

Actually the gun laws in New Jersey are consistent with your beliefs. Severe restrictions are required to take a firearm outside of the home. Firearms must be kept unloaded and locked in case, can only be moved by certain modes of transportation (walking to the range with your gun NOT!) and can only be transported to certain locations designated by law such as a shooting range.

As for Armored Farmer and other non-leo THR members that carry full size handguns and long guns in their vehicles for self-defense the first step to our recovery is forming a support group and admitting we that like having such large unneeded amounts of massive firepower on our person and in our vehicles is based solely on emotion, not rational, logical risk assessment. I am weak of will so I will need a lot of support from everyone in the group.

Enlightening discussions.

 

[luzyfuerza]

We've talked a lot about risk in this thread. A common thought is that risk is simply the probability of an event occurring. Not really.

For those who evaluate and manage the effects of small-probability events for a living, risk is more than just the probability of an event occurring; it is the probability of the event times the magnitude or consequence of the event. I think that this broader definition of risk adds value when we try to evaluate low probability hazards and helps us determine where we should focus our response to these hazards.

Here's an illustration of why this is an important distinction: if the probability that an individual will get a splinter is 0.5% over a certain period of time, and the probability that that individual will be shot and killed over that same period is 0.5%, then the risks of those two events for that individual are quite different even though the probability is the same. We can't really evaluate risk without understanding both probability AND consequence.

A second factor in real risk analysis is that we are all actually exposed to a number of distinct low-probability events. The total risk to each of us is actually the probability of each of these individual events times its associated consequences, all added together.

Sam, when you write about the silliness of carrying a rifle in the trunk to be ready to respond to a terrorist or mass murder event, you're correct, as far as your analysis goes. In this thread, you have held consequence constant (dying in the event) and you have limited your analysis to only one potential event (a mass shooting or terror attack). Of course, this is myopic, and I believe that you probably realize this.


A real risk analysis for someone who is willing to assume some responsibility for their own self-defense might look at the following possible scenarios:

An armed robbery at work
An armed robbery while we're visiting the local stop-n-rob
A drive-by shooting at home
A road rage conflict
A home invasion at your home
A home invasion at your neighbor's home
A hold-up while you're using an ATM
A bank robbery that happens while you're standing in line to cash a check
A drunken brawl outside your favorite watering hole
A wolf is attacking your herd
A raccoon is in the chicken coop, again
A mass shooting occurs at a concert we attend
A grandchild grabs a stored gun in my home and shoots himself
A grizzly bear attacks us on a trail

and so on.

We then take our best guess about the probability that these events that we've identified will occur over the course of a year, a decade, or the rest of our lives.

We multiply the bad consequences of each event times the probability of each. Of course, consequences and probabilities don't have to be expressed in numbers--using terms like small, medium, large, very large is enough. For example, I have no herd or chickens, and don't drink, so the risk of these events, to me, are each zero. However, I do use ATMs, have been known to change lanes of the freeway, and live in a home and have neighbors, so perhaps I should think about the risks associated with these activities.

I definitely have grandchildren, they do come to my house regularly, and I do own firearms. I absolutely must look at the risk associated with that fact (very high probability times very high consequence = astronomical risk!).

For those events that have non-zero risk, we figure out which are the most significant, and what we can do to control them. We pick the most cost-effective responses that reduces the most risk possible. Training and planning typically helps control the risk from a variety of events. Some risks are so significant that they merit a special, specific response: for example, when I am not wearing my sidearm, it goes in a locked box, whether my grandchildren are coming over or not. I want to do everything necessary to prevent any negative consequences for them that could result from my ownership of firearms.

Some risk we decide not to control, so we just accept it.


If an individual chooses to carry a rifle in the trunk, or a service-caliber handgun instead of a mouse gun, or pepper spray instead of a handgun in response to their own personal risk profile, then I say more power to them, especially if they have taken the time to be pretty careful in evaluating the risks that they are really exposed to!


I think that most people do this kind of balancing intuitively. I also think that there can be value in describing the process in some detail, and in taking the time to think carefully about the risks that we really face.


What I think is absolutely ridiculous is taking the time to write all this down on page 13 of a thread on a site that only discusses issues related to firearms, over 300 posts into the discussion. What is the probability that this will benefit even one person, and how much of a difference will it make? A small probability times small consequence (in this case a benefit) = tiny potential to help keep someone safe. But here it is.

I hope everyone had a lot to be thankful for today!

 

[Demi-human]

I believe this page top to bottom , to be the purest, most illuminating content on the whole of the matter. (Not that I did not enjoy the other twelve pages...)

 

[Sam1911]

I decided to help you out on your argument. I researched the following mass shootings as reported in the United States for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017;

Thank you! I'm glad you're starting to look at numbers, finally, as a way to frame the conversation.

Conclusions;
In none of the attacks did use of firearm by a citizen stop the attack or cause the death of the shooter. The Texas Church Shooter was shot after he had committed his mass attack.
All civilian owned handguns and rifles are not needed in a mass shooting or terrorist attack.

The historical record does indeed say that situations of a mass shooting being stopped by citizens with their guns are extremely rare. A very rare subset of a very rare subset of situations.
We're agreed on that, then.

In fact the presence of armed citizens hinders the Police investigation of identifying the attacker as occurred at the Walmart shooting in Thornton, Colorado on November 2, 2017.

This is a bit of a non sequitur in light of the current conversation. The armed citizens in that case were carrying concealed sidearms which they carry as a defense against many sorts of everyday type violent crime. None of them were (re)entering the store holding a rifle, or fled to their cars, retrieved a .44 Magnum, and returned into the scene. In this case, the claims of "hindering" the investigation seem far fetched and inconsequential.

Now, we certainly could discuss how a person who leaves the scene of a shooting, goes to his/her car, retrieves an rifle, and then runs back into the scene to go hunt down the killer certainly presents grave dangers to both himself, other innocents, and the police. A "wild card" visibly armed dude stalking the aisles, not in communication with responding law-enforcement officers, not in police uniform, could cause a LOT of harm.

Back up in post 303 I listed a number of conditions that would have to be met for a rifle to be useful in these situations. When you get all the way down to letter f, you have to address this question of whether or not grabbing your rifle and returning to the scene will make things better or worse, and whether the rewards are worth the risks you're creating for yourself and others. It isn't a simple or obvious choice.

Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are so rare that they cannot be predicted.

Mass shootings probably are so. I don't know whether terrorist attacks are within our capacity to predict at all. So far it doesn't seem like it. But, so what?

However while the odds of being involved in such an event is very low the possibility exists. Since civilian firearms are documented to be unneeded in this type of event it is best to remain unarmed when in public to avoid hindering the police investigation and possible theft of your firearm.

That's one conclusion. It isn't mine. I will still choose to carry a concealed sidearm as I commonly do, as that seems a reasonable response to all the other sorts of violence that DO befall people every day. I don't leave it in my car to be stolen, but I carry it on my person. If I ever meet a terrorist or a mass shooter, I MAY choose to try and use my sidearm to either stop him or secure my (and my loved ones') escape. Or I may keep it concealed, figuring my chances of getting out of the area are better without waving a gun around.

Whatever I do, I'm going to do with the gear, skill, and will I have with me right in that moment. I'm not running off to go get a rifle and then trying to hunt down the bad guy.

This also supports your argument that the monetary value of a rifle that may be stolen from your vehicle is greater than the value of human live(s) or prevent injuries it may save since mass shooting or terrorist attack are so rare in the United States. (What you are doing is accepting the loss of human life and injuries to people in exchange for preventing a rifle from ever being stolen from vehicles).

This would be true, and I wouldn't hide from it, IF there was some clear correlation between saving lives and storing a rifle in my car trunk. I have illustrated that any such correlation is EXTREMELY tenuous and unlikely. If putting a rifle in my trunk would save lives -- or had some calculable chance, like carrying a sidearm has, of doing so -- I would. It doesn't, so I don't.

Since the commonly quoted FBI Statistic of only three rounds fired in self-defense someone being a victim of or witnessing a mass shooting we certainly don’t need high capacity handguns in public either.

Many of our members choose to carry a J-frame, or a 1911. Some carry Glocks, some carry three reloads for their piece. What you NEED to carry is, hopefully, nothing. But there's a REAL chance you'll face a violent criminal, so having any common sidearm seems wise -- call it "high" capacity, "low" capacity, whatever suits you and that you practice with a lot.

Since the hit probably under stress is low for some folks firing multiple bullets significantly increases the chance of a innocent bystander(s) being injured or killed. (This is well documented. Just look at NYPD officer shootings).

Certainly that is a concern we discuss very frequently here. You own every bullet you fire.

The risk to bystanders can only be reduced by limiting the amount of ammunition the gun has and the power of the cartridge.

That doesn't make sense. You're adding A+3 and getting "chicken."

Your support of handguns that hold more than five rounds is counter to your position on the threat a rifle that is merely locked in the trunk of a vehicle presents.

Is this your first time trying out "logic?" It's fun, isn't it? But you need to practice more before you do it in public.

 

[Elkins45]

I decided to help you out on your argument. I researched the following mass shootings as reported in the United States for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017;

Nov. 5, 2017 – 26 killed, 20 injured Texas Church Shooting. Shooter committed suicide.

Oct. 1, 2017 – Scores killed and injured; Las Vegas – Shooter committed suicide.

June 5, 2017 – 5 killed; Orange County Fla. – Shooter committed suicide.

Jan. 6, 2017 - 5 killed, 6 injured: Fort Lauderdale, Fla. – Shooter remained at scene and surrendered unharmed without resisting officers.

Sept. 23, 2016 - 5 killed: Burlington, Wash. – Shooter left the scene and was later captured uninjured.

June 12, 2016 - 49 killed, 58 injured in Orlando nightclub shooting. Shooter was killed by Police.

Dec. 2, 2015 - 14 killed, 22 injured: San Bernardino, Calif. Two shooters were killed by Police.

Oct. 1, 2015 - 9 killed, 9 injured: Roseburg, Ore. Shooter committed suicide after gun battle with the Police.

July 26, 2015 - 5 killed, 3 injured: Chattanooga, Tenn. Shooter killed by Police.

June 18, 2015 - 9 killed: Charleston, S.C. – Shooter fled and later arrested unharmed.

May 23, 2014 - 6 killed, 7 injured: Isla Vista, Calif. – Shooter committed suicide.

April 2, 2014 - 3 killed; 16 injured: Ft. Hood, Texas - Shooter committed suicide after being confronted by the Police.

I will stop here but more mass shootings incidents can be found at:

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadliest-shooting-rampages/

Conclusions;

In none of the attacks did use of firearm by a citizen stop the attack or cause the death of the shooter. The Texas Church Shooter was shot after he had committed his mass attack.

All civilian owned handguns and rifles are not needed in a mass shooting or terrorist attack.

In fact the presence of armed citizens hinders the Police investigation of identifying the attacker as occurred at the Walmart shooting in Thornton, Colorado on November 2, 2017.

Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are so rare that they cannot be predicted.

However while the odds of being involved in such an event is very low the possibility exists. Since civilian firearms are documented to be unneeded in this type of event it is best to remain unarmed when in public to avoid hindering the police investigation and possible theft of your firearm.

This also supports your argument that the monetary value of a rifle that may be stolen from your vehicle is greater than the value of human live(s) or prevent injuries it may save since mass shooting or terrorist attack are so rare in the United States. (What you are doing is accepting the loss of human life and injuries to people in exchange for preventing a rifle from ever being stolen from vehicles).

Based on the commonly quoted FBI Statistic of only three rounds fired in self-defense someone being a victim of or witnessing a mass shooting we certainly don’t need high capacity handguns in public either. Since the hit probably under stress is low for some folks firing multiple bullets significantly increases the chance of a innocent bystander(s) being injured or killed. (This is well documented. Just look at NYPD officer shootings).

However your position on allowing handguns to be taken outside of the home is inconsistent with your belief that a rifle should remain in the home due to theft. Handguns are easily stolen. They present a even greater threat to the public as they are frequently lost and on rare occasions taken from the owner while they were carrying it.

Furthermore supporting carry of handguns that hold more than five rounds is contrary to your position on the threat a rifle that is merely locked in the trunk of a vehicle presents. The risk to bystanders can only be reduced by limiting the amount of ammunition the gun has and the power of the cartridge and eliminated by not allowing firearms to be carried in public

Actually the gun laws in New Jersey are consistent with your beliefs. Severe restrictions are required to take a firearm outside of the home. Firearms must be kept unloaded and locked in case, can only be moved by certain modes of transportation (walking to the range with your gun NOT!) and can only be transported to certain locations designated by law such as a shooting range.

As for Armored Farmer and other non-leo THR members that carry full size handguns and long guns in their vehicles for self-defense the first step to our recovery is forming a support group and admitting we that like having such large unneeded amounts of massive firepower on our person and in our vehicles is based solely on emotion, not rational, logical risk assessment. I am weak of will so I will need a lot of support from everyone in the group.

Enlightening discussions.

Good heavens, it's like you are going out of your way to be obtuse here.

Tell you what: YOU carry a rifle in your trunk to prepare for the terrorist apocalypse and a 2-shot derringer in your pocket so you aren't carrying any statistically irrelevant ammo. I will do otherwise.

 

[Sam1911]

We've talked a lot about risk in this thread. A common thought is that risk is simply the probability of an event occurring. Not really.

No disagreement, there. I've been trying to keep things very simple -- only tackling the biggest and simplest side of the equation -- because we seem to have some confusion about that first-order factor: just what are our odds of ending up in one of these situations?

For those who evaluate and manage the effects of small-probability events for a living, risk is more than just the probability of an event occurring; it is the probability of the event times the magnitude or consequence of the event. I think that this broader definition of risk adds value when we try to evaluate low probability hazards and helps us determine where we should focus our response to these hazards.

One of our other Mods likes to say, "It's not just the odds, but the stakes," which I think sums up your point well.

The problem I see is that we gun guys already have an inherent appreciation -- LOVE, really -- of contemplating the stakes. We talk about saving our lives and those of others all of the time. We focus with rapt fascination on mass killers, terrorists, criminals, murders, and the damage they can do. And we have our favorite narratives of how Joe Everyman will step up when, "The police are only minutes away..." etc. In my view, almost the last thing we need is more reinforcement of the consequence of the event.

Sam, when you write about the silliness of carrying a rifle in the trunk to be ready to respond to a terrorist or mass murder event, you're correct, as far as your analysis goes. In this thread, you have held consequence constant (dying in the event) and you have limited your analysis to only one potential event (a mass shooting or terror attack). Of course, this is myopic, and I believe that you probably realize this.

Oh, without a doubt. However, I also think you grasp that in the ODDS x CONSEQUENCE equation we're discussing, the odds are so very, very low that we approach the "zero x whatever is still zero" idea I've posted a couple of times.

The consequences are pretty constant: dying. (Plus sometimes we consider death of loved ones as possible in certain cases.)
Those are exactly the same consequences as attend car crashes, drowning in swimming pools, house fires, average everyday violent crimes, being hit by "blue ice" (frozen excrement jettisoned from passing aircraft -- it's a real thing. People die.), heart disease, and thousands of other disasters. We react in very uneven ways to these threats.

We then take our best guess about the probability that these events that we've identified will occur over the course of a year, a decade, or the rest of our lives.
...
For those events that have non-zero risk, we figure out which are the most significant, and what we can do to control them. We pick the most cost-effective responses that reduces the most risk possible. Training and planning typically helps control the risk from a variety of events. ...
Some risk we decide not to control, so we just accept it.

Again, we do so in very spotty, uneven -- and I'll go again to the word "irrational" -- ways.
We can multiply odds times consequences. But we DON'T. We put a rifle in our trunk, but don't wear a helmet when we drive. Those are vastly disproportionate responses to the risks.

I think that most people do this kind of balancing intuitively.

Ah ha! And that's really the problem. Human intuition is not evolved to deal with numbers which are very large or very small. A point I brought up a ways back in this thread.
Human intuition can make a good judgments about human-scale phenomena. But human intuition loses all grasp when the numbers run into the millions, or the millionths. We simply can't visualize quantities like that. So when we're faced with something scary, and then told there's a 1 in 17 million chance it will happen to us, we actually worry. We will physically react. Even though doing so is pretty absurd.

What I think is absolutely ridiculous is taking the time to write all this down on page 13 of a thread on a site that only discusses issues related to firearms, over 300 posts into the discussion. What is the probability that this will benefit even one person, and how much of a difference will it make? A small probability times small consequence (in this case a benefit) = tiny potential to help keep someone safe. But here it is.

I like to think so! Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Terrorist attacks and mass shootings are so rare that they cannot be predicted.

And yet armed robberies, assaults, murders, home burglaries, etc. are so ubiquitous that they can't be predicted either.

 

[Sam1911]

Human intuition can make a good judgments about human-scale phenomena. But human intuition loses all grasp when the numbers run into the millions, or the millionths. We simply can't visualize quantities like that. So when we're faced with something scary, and then told there's a 1 in 17 million chance it will happen to us, we actually worry. We will physically react. Even though doing so is pretty absurd.

Just a quick attempt to put human scale on this.

1 in 17 million.

Say someone hired you to work, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, sitting in an office meeting people. Your job is to say Hi, take down their name, greet them politely, and then send them on their way. This takes one minute per person. Now we're going to send our 17 million people through your office.

You will be gainfully employed meeting and greeting these people until August of the one hundred forty second year. (Starting today, that's the year 2,159. The Farmer's Almanac says August will be especially wet that year. Keep a raincoat handy.) One of the folks you meet is quite likely to be killed by a mass shooter. Of course, every single one of them will be dead of old age before you're much more than halfway done counting.

 

[Varminterror]

I finally realized why we're having a heatwave here in Kansas, bsa's burning strawmen left and right this week!

 

[Armored farmer]

It certainly has been entertaining with all the slams, low blows, elementary school mathematics, and amphibian downpours.

 

[luzyfuerza]

The benefit comes not in doing precise math, but in making sure that we expand our thinking to carefully consider EVERY possible scenario. The "small, medium, large, and very large" math really is a very common way the pros do these calculations. They do this precisely because while humans can't distinguish between numbers that are equal to zero and those that are simply approaching zero, our intuition really can lead to valuable improvements in safety.

For example, one HAZOPS study I did years ago looked at the possibility that a passenger airplane would crash into an anhydrous ammonia tank, releasing the chemical all at once. Probability, of course, was really small (approaching zero) but consequence was very large. The HAZOPS team initially laughed at the idea of including this scenario in the study. But as the team thought about it more, one member realized that the tank was directly under the landing path of a very large international airport. This realization didn't appreciably change the probability of this scenario, but carefully considering it was still useful. The team decided that it couldn't do much about this risk since the plant was already built (building an airplane-proof box around the tank was an option, but everyone realized that it wasn't going to happen). However, if the builders of the plant had considered this possibility in their siting decisions, might a different site have been chosen? The team learned the lesson that careful consideration of all possibilities can reduce risk, and that failing to do so can increase it.

As a result of events over the last couple of decades, society thinks a little differently today about the risks of airplane crashes into structures. If we can think about these events (even though the probability of this occurring for most structures is still approaching zero), and think about cheap tweaks to the design or materials used in these structures that drastically reduce the consequences of such a low-probability event, then isn't that worthwhile? If these tweaks also provide benefits in the case of a simple electrical fire, then maybe those ideas become part of design standards for future buildings.

The thought process of determining the risk of every scenario we can think of, ranking those risks, and then controlling those that are most significant using the easiest, cheapest means possible is how society gets smarter and safer over time. It is the biggest reason why, for example, airplane travel is so safe today. And newer buildings don't fall down as readily in earthquakes. And why fewer vehicle fatalities occur per 100,000 miles driven today than 25 years ago.

What works for society as a whole, also works for individuals. This thread has mostly been about how individuals do this. This is really good. Applying it to self-defense-related risks is valuable and worthwhile.

However, deriding this fundamentally intuitive process by demanding that all involved understand the difference between zero and a number that simply approaches zero, doesn't contribute much to us getting smarter and safer. I also don't think that its high road, in my own, very humble opinion.

 

[danez71]

Just a quick attempt to put human scale on this.

1 in 17 million.

.

I think you know where I stand on this.... that the recent events arent enough for me to change what I carry. And I do get your statistics.


Now let's look at it a little different using stats from the FBI link on page 8 that i posted for a 13 yr period of these types of events.


3.1% of the shootings (5 incidents) ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters.


That's a pretty decent stat, imo.

(active shooter incidents of someone trying to kill people in public places which may or not result in being included int the defined mass killing catagory)

 

[Sam1911]

3.1% of the shootings (5 incidents) ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters.


That's a pretty decent stat, imo

Yes it is!

How many with rifles retrieved from automobiles?

 

[Sam1911]

The benefit comes not in doing precise math ...

Agreed. I've tried not to insist that any of the positions I've taken relied on precise math, or anything close to it. I've tried to work in terms that point out the orders of magnitude involved. It doesn't matter if 19 Americans are killed per year by mass shooters, or if it's 38, or if it's 190 -- or even 1,900. The orders of magnitude involved still say all that needs said about the odds.

As I've pointed out several times in this thread, it really doesn't matter if my math is wrong by a factor of ten, or by a hundred, or even more. The story's still, effectively,.the same.

...but in making sure that we expand our thinking to carefully consider EVERY possible scenario.

And that brings up a good point: why? Why consider EVERY possible scenario? There are a LOT of possible scenarios. From ones where you might suddenly need an AED (actually that one's not very rare), to those where you'd unexpectedly need a parachute, to those where you'd really REALLY wish you had a personal flotation device. Why chase the smallest possible end of the tail? Why, when we as average Joe citizens have a limited ability or duty to prepare for lethal threats, why expend our limited efforts on the least of these?

I'm greatly intrigued by the HAZOPS study you worked on. And I find it really interesting that you did extend the study to include one of the least likely events possible, because it had catastrophic consequences.

And that your team decided that making a reaction to that low odds, high stakes, scenario wasn't worthwhile.

Which is precisely the point I've been making here. Your team did just what I posit our folks discussing this here would do: consider, evaluate, and decide not to act (at least not with the given answer provided in the opening post, i.e. up-arming, or as was brought up later, by storing a rifle in their vehicle trunk).

When the stakes are high, but the odds are very, very low (and in this case, where the "answer" is highly questionable) NOT acting is the correct choice.

What works for society as a whole, also works for individuals. This thread has mostly been about how individuals do this. This is really good. Applying it toself-defense-related risks is valuable and worthwhile.

Absolutely! And it's a big part of what we do here at THR. Our raison d'etre.

However, deriding this fundamentally intuitive process by demanding that all involved understand the difference between zero and a number that simply approaches zero, doesn't contribute much to us getting smarter and safer.

I'm afraid you've lost me there. I don't demand anyone understand the difference between zero and a number that approaches zero. For the purposes of this discussion, I say that distinction is functionally irrelevant. If there's a 1 in 17 million (or anything like that) chance that something might happen to you, it isn't particularly useful to treat the odds as anything other than zero. Like your HAZOPS team, you look at the stakes and then consider the long, long, long, odds. If those "almost zero" odds appear to have a long string of zeros between the factor and the decimal point, call it zero and move on.

Your HAZOPS team had to consider that the event they were concerned with would claim MANY lives and millions of dollars (at least) of property damage. And yet, they realized there was not sufficient reason to act. Our job here (thinking about personal preparations for a mass shooting) is to consider the very much lower stakes of our own lives and perhaps those of loved ones. The very same stakes we put on the line multiple times a day when we climb behind the wheel of a car, or go for a swim, or ride a horse or motorcycle, or climb a ladder, etc., etc. If your HAZOPS team decided not to act, I think that's a sound object lesson for us here.

I also don't think that its high road, in my own, very humble opinion.

You'll have to explain. Here at THR we do not shrink from firm positions and straight talk. So long as the debate proceeds in good faith and without an excess of direct insult, the discussion is fair game. We may not attack the argu-er but we may well attack the argu-ment with vigor!

I've asked for anyone who so wishes to present alternate sets of statistics. I'm completely open to being shown that I've made an error in my math. I certainly make such mistakes from time to time. I always appreciate substantive corrections! I'm trying to understand these things, myself, and make my own decisions. I'd love to hear where my conclusions are in error.

Truth is, a deep down part of me would LOVE to find out that I aught to grab the AR and be ready for the terrorists. That I might be the good guy who stops that next mass shooter. That these things are realistic and worth something more than a discarded Powerball ticket. So far, that's not happened.

 

[BSA1]

Sam1911,

I agree completely with you that long guns serve no purpose being kept in vehicles for self-defense which is why I researched mass shootings over the last three years. All we are determining is what human lives and injuries are worth. Since long guns should not be kept in vehicles then human lives and injuries are less valuable than the value of the gun that is being stored in trunk. Since the value of long guns vary greatly we must use the lowest value of the gun when determining what the value of humans lives are.

Furthermore in none of the shootings I posted did a civilian use any type of firearm to stop the shooter. Therefore civilians that have guns serve no purpose and in the Thornton, Colorado shooting hampered the police investigation.

“The chaos of panicked people running out of the store, shoppers who pulled their own guns and multiple victims created a difficult situation for police and slowed their investigation.” Denver Post.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/02/shoppers-pulled-weapons-walmart-shooting/

By you listing exceptions to when having a long gun in the vehicle you are undermining our position.

Since our position is the risk of the gun being stolen outweighs the possibility of it ever being used to stop a mass attack or shooting it also logically follows that since handguns are stolen (and lost) more often the long guns and used in other types of crimes they pose a greater danger.

As long guns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters the only logical way to reduce their use is to enact severe restrictions on who may own one, under what circumstances and the location and matter in which it is store. In some incidents the shooter killed family members and stole the guns from the house to use to carry out their attack.

England is excellent model. Guns are stored under lock and key at gun clubs. Low powered guns (.22) are only allowed to be kept in certain homes for the purpose of pest control. Applying these type of requirements will have the immediate and dramatic effect of reducing crimes committed with firearms. Can’t be a mass shooter if I can’t get a gun right?

Convincing the public to accept these very logical, reasonable facts and convincing them that it is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment is particularly difficult with the gun owners that cling to their guns or religion.

 

[chicharrones]

You'll have to explain. Here at THR we do not shrink from firm positions and straight talk. So long as the debate proceeds in good faith and without an excess of direct insult, the discussion is fair game. We may not attack the argu-er but we may well attack the argu-ment with vigor!

The post below appears to be an attack on the argu-er and not the argument, IMO.

Is this your first time trying out "logic?" It's fun, isn't it? But you need to practice more before you do it in public.

 

[danez71]

Yes it is!

How many with rifles retrieved from automobiles?

That would be a big fat zero.

But the thread started as a ' are you upping your carry gun' and still resides in the Handgun section.
(jiminy Crickets, some of these mods around here are reall slacking off as of late )

Having said that....Nor is there any indication that a bigger caliber or more rounds would have made a difference.


What CAN be reasonably applied to this thread from the study is that:

These things DO happen.

Being armed with a handgun DID (presumably) save lives 3.1% of the time.

That Mind set > Skill set > Tool set is seemly holding true when you consider another stat in the same study:

In 21 incidents (13.1%), the situation ended after unarmed citizens safely and successfully restrained the shooter.


Even though bum rushing the shooter accounted for stopping the shooter more than 4x the rate of stops by citizens using a gun, a gun was instrumental in a noteworthy amount of times.

(Not specifically part of the study) Leaving and coming back didn't even hit the radar.

(Not specifically part of the study) Using a rifle didn't even hit the radar.

(Not specifically part of the study) Caliber choice didn't hit the radar.

(Not specifically part of the study) Having more rounds didn't hit the radar.


Another worthy point from the study

Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face.