Is anyone changing carry/training distance in light of terrorrist threats?

[MachIVshooter]

Nope. They're just not a real threat, and that becomes even more clear if you look at all of your daily risks based on CDC injury death data reports. Yes, it would be unfortunate to be one of the poor souls who is in the wrong place at the wrong time and gets shot or blown up by these clowns, but the odds are so remote that upsizing/increasing capacity of your daily carry for that reason would be like taking a parachute in your carry on when flying commercial airlines just in case your flight is that one in 2 million that falls out of the sky.

 

[GEM]

If you carry a semi, for the thousandth time, one of the main purposes of the extra mag is for malfunctions.

That is a separate reason from fighting zombies, terrorists, mad bikers, mobs of urban rioters, etc.

If you don't get that - you don't shoot semis enough.

There seems to be a mantra that gun fights in nice neighborhoods don't produce malfunctions. In nice neighborhoods, you don't miss and your 2 rounds will be effective.

So, if you are upscaling for terrorists, one might say you are being silly on a risk continuum. However, if you look at risk - you rarely use your gun, if you draw it - you rarely fire it (so you don't need it loaded anyway).

But if you truly trained and practiced with a semi - you would carry a spare mag.

It would be interesting to see how often the NO extra ammo folks actually shoot the gun or is it just in the pocket or car?

 

[agtman]

No, no change in equipment or mindset.
Being crowd-averse, I only shop in the very early morning (usually dependent upon when each store opens) and live in a rural/suburban area so it is rare that I ever find myself in an environment that would be attractive to such terrorists.

Well said, and the same for me.

My basic strategy is to avoid problem areas (with problem people), crowded venues, etc., if possible.

A secondary strategy is to train and be prepared if my luck goes south.

On me, it's my Glock, plus one mag. There's a carbine in the vehicle as a "trunk gun." Would rather have the long gun available and not need it, etc.

 

[a_canadian]

Not being a driver I don't have the trunk gun option. Thankfully. A neighbour had his stolen last month by a thief with a crowbar. Got a lock box with 500 rounds in it as well, and his buyout bag complete with a nice tent and sleeping bag, good stove, dried foods... sucks.

 

[yugorpk]

Not a statistically significant problem.I'm more concerned with getting mugged at the gas station.

 

[GEM]

That's not what statistical significance means. Sigh.

 

[MachIVshooter]

That's not what statistical significance means. Sigh.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Statistically, the injuries and deaths resulting from terrorism & mass shootings, tragic as they may be and highly publicized as they are, remain insignificant. 2.6 million people die in this country every year, about 200,000 of them injury deaths. That means that even the large toll (as terrorist attacks go) of 9/11 accounted for only ~1.5% of injury deaths and 0.1% of total deaths in the USA that year. If you take all the terrorist attacks, including domestic terrorism the likes of OKC, Unibomber, etc. on US soil and average them over any given period, you get a much, much lower figure.

So, yeah, terrorism is a statistically insignificant problem in this country. More to the point, altering your lifestyle in any way because of it is precisely the objective of terrorism.

 

[lmstncwby]

While the odds of you actually being somewhere that terrorists/radicals/urban rioters strike are quite low, you should still be prepared nonetheless. How many here practice at 25 yards with their carry weapon? Can you keep your rounds inside a 3 inch circle at that range? I recently attended an active shooter training class in New Mexico where that was demonstrated. There were a lot of good shooters there and they were good out to about 10 yards. Things went downhill rapidly from there. I shoot at 25 yards regularly with my carry weapons with practice and carry ammo to make sure I can do what is needed. Being under fire is a different scenario altogether. I plan on taking a force-on-force class with simunitions at Tac-Pro next year. I've had their Defensive Pistol courses (Basic and Advanced). I'm 62, mildly arthritic, stiff, what have you, but I want the training anyway. I know I will come home with red spots and welts but will have the knowledge of what will happen in an active shooter situation.

 

[lmstncwby]

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Statistically, the injuries and deaths resulting from terrorism & mass shootings, tragic as they may be and highly publicized as they are, remain insignificant. 2.6 million people die in this country every year, about 200,000 of them injury deaths. That means that even the large toll (as terrorist attacks go) of 9/11 accounted for only ~1.5% of injury deaths and 0.1% of total deaths in the USA that year. If you take all the terrorist attacks, including domestic terrorism the likes of OKC, Unibomber, etc. on US soil and average them over any given period, you get a much, much lower figure.

So, yeah, terrorism is a statistically insignificant problem in this country. More to the point, altering your lifestyle in any way because of it is precisely the objective of terrorism.

Good point.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Not a statistically significant problem....

That's not what statistical significance means....

Actually, that's exactly what it means....

No, it's not!

"Statistical significance" means:

DEFINITION of 'Statistical Significance'

A result that is not likely to occur randomly, but rather is likely to be attributable to a specific cause. Statistical significance can be strong or weak, and is important to research in many math- and science-related fields, including medicine, sociology, psychology and biology. Statistical significance does not always indicate practical significance. In addition, it can be misinterpreted when researchers do not use language carefully in reporting their results.

For another discussion of the meaning of "statistical significance" see here:

...Statistical significance refers to whether any differences observed between groups being studied are "real" or whether they are simply due to chance....

Or here:

statistical significance definition

In statistics, a number that expresses the probability that the result of a given experiment or study could have occurred purely by chance. This number can be a margin of error (“The results of this public opinion poll are accurate to five percent”), or it can indicate a confidence level (“If this experiment were repeated, there is a probability of ninety-five percent that our conclusions would be substantiated”).

 

[strambo]

Terrorism is not a significant domestic mortality problem. The correlation between radical Islam and terrorism is statistically significant.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No, it's not!

Beg to differ. In a given year, your sample size of people for injury deaths will include so many falls, so many drownings, poisonings, homicides, etc. The numbers will vary a bit, but remain within a range. People killed by terrorism, however, account for so few, and the occurrences are so sporadic, that there is no predictor.

That makes the terrorist threat statistically insignificant in the USA. As injury death rates are concerned, it is your random occurrence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Beg to differ....

Beg all you want. You'll still wrong. Plainly you don't understand what the term of art "statistically significant" means.

...In a given year, your sample size of people for injury deaths will include so many falls, so many drownings, poisonings, homicides, etc. The numbers will vary a bit, but remain within a range. People killed by terrorism, however, account for so few, and the occurrences are so sporadic, that there is no predictor.

That makes the terrorist threat statistically insignificant in the USA. As injury death rates are concerned, it is your random occurrence.

All gibberish.

The fact that something occurs rarely doesn't make it random. "Random" means:

1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern...

In fact people killed by terrorists are intentionally murdered for political purposes as part of an overall plan to disrupt and discomfort lives of people considered by the terrorists to be enemies. Furthermore, terrorist attacks are planned and calculate to have the effect desired.

You're simply using "statistically significant" ignorantly and improperly to give weight to an essentially empty argument.

Yes, deaths by terrorism represent a small subset of overall deaths during any particular period. That might influence the level of concern a person might have about being the victim of terrorism insofar as it affects the likelihood of dying at a terrorist's hands. But that doesn't mean that in social of political terms terrorism doesn't mean much.

Nor does it justify your misuse of a well defined, technical terms just because you seem to think it sounds good.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The fact that something occurs rarely doesn't make it random.

The fact that it cannot be predicted does.

We know that people will die of certain causes each year, which I already covered. We do not know if people will die as a result of terrorist attacks (unless, of course, you broaden the definition of terrorism to include things that really aren't). Each and every terrorist attack, and the resulting tolls, are anecdotal. 2,700 died on 9/11, but we cannot average that, because that figure was unprecedented, and has not occurred since. You could say 2,700 died in a year. You could average over a decade to 270. You could include the other terrorist acts that bring the toll up over 3k and average it over a century for 30 people died per year. But you and I both know that averaging doesn't work with anomalies.

As for saying it's not random because the terrorists have a purpose, well, you're being disingenuous. The reasons behind the attacks aren't random. The attacks themselves are also not random. But their occurrence in the grand scheme certainly is, because we cannot say it will occur again in a given timeframe, what kind of casualties we'll see, or even if it will happen (probable but not certain). Random.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The fact that something occurs rarely doesn't make it random.

The fact that it cannot be predicted does....

Not according to the definition of "random."

Try sticking with actual English instead of making up meanings for words.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not according to the definition of "random."

Try sticking with actual English instead of making up meanings for words.

Random

adjective

1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.

Within the scope of injury death risk, and defense against it (the purpose of this thread), terrorist attacks most definitely qualify. You can predict the number of deaths by many other causes, and even include factors that put some people at greater risk than others. Those patterns do not exist with terrorism, at least not at this time in the USA. Thousands may die next year, or there may be not a single death for two decades. If, who, when, where and how are completely unkown. The only pattern to these attacks is that they are far more likely to occur in places where there are large numbers of people. Beyond that, any prediction comes from intelligence gathering, not patterns.

 

[shootr]

Re original question - yes.

Went from considering car jacking or armed robbery as a most likely potential scenario to including multiple attackers at longer range as another. Also considered various conditions under which I'll carry and repercussions if ever involved in a shootout. Those things considered, these days I carry a G19 and one or two mags.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Within the scope of injury death risk, and defense against it (the purpose of this thread), terrorist attacks most definitely qualify. You can predict the number of deaths by many other causes, and even include factors that put some people at greater risk than others. Those patterns do not exist with terrorism, at least not at this time in the USA. Thousands may die next year, or there may be not a single death for two decades. If, who, when, where and how are completely unkown. The only pattern to these attacks is that they are far more likely to occur in places where there are large numbers of people. Beyond that, any prediction comes from intelligence gathering, not patterns.

All twaddle, and you still don't understand "statistical significance." Anyway, we're drifting. The readers now have access to the necessary definitions.

 

[MachIVshooter]

All twaddle, and you still don't understand "statistical significance." Anyway, we're drifting.

I demonstrate my point within your constraints once, you move the goal posts a bit, I do it again, and your way of dealing with that is to be contumeliously dismissive, then avoid further engagement by saying we're thread drifting?

I've also been very tolerant of your insolence so far, having noticed that you've been more abrasive to other members in general the last couple of years for whatever reason. At this point in this debate, though, there is but one appropriate response: Bite me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...your way of dealing with that is to be contumeliously dismissive...

Yes, I completely agree that I'm contemptuously dismissive of your attempts to justify the misuse of the technical term "statistically significant" based on the relative rarity of deaths by terrorism. It is completely inapposite.

 

[X-Rap]

Where the heck is a moderator when you need one??

 

[Frank Ettin]

Where the heck is a moderator when you need one??

Use the "report post" function.

 

[MachIVshooter]

attempts to justify the misuse of the technical term "statistically significant" based on the relative rarity of deaths by terrorism. It is completely inapposite.

I'm not contorting any definitions. I simply reject the notion that we can hold statistical probability regarding social epidemiology to the same rigorous constraints as laboratory tests, the latter of which most if not all variables are tightly controlled.

I also don't see that the enemy's ideology and goals-the reason behind their attacks-make them any less random to the rest of us. You really can't even put longshot odds on an American citizen on American soil being a victim of a terror attack, let alone one that provides the intended victim a situation in which they can defend themselves (shooter vs. bomber, etc). So, I maintain that for the purposes of this discussion-being armed adequately to defend against a terrorist-, the threat is statistically insignificant, because even assuming the if is dealt with, not only is the where, when and who random to the victim(s), but so is the how.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I simply reject the notion that we can hold statistical probability regarding social epidemiology to the same rigorous constraints as laboratory tests, the latter of which most if not all variables are tightly controlled....

No one is saying anything about the probability of injury from terrorist activity. It's low.

But the term "statistically significant" or "statistical significance" has a well defined, technical meaning. And use of the term in a technical sense, together with associated statistical analyses, has application in the social sciences.

You might be trying to say that the rarity of injury from terrorism is so low that as a matter of probability (statistics) the likelihood of injury is low (insignificant). If so, that's fine. But then the conclusion that low probability equates to insignificance is a value judgment, not a statistical or mathematical conclusion.

...I maintain that for the purposes of this discussion-being armed adequately to defend against a terrorist-, the threat is statistically insignificant, because even assuming the if is dealt with, not only is the where, when and who random to the victim(s), but so is the how....

And that is still not a correct use of the term "statistical significance" as I've shown it is defined. That is a value judgment. But the misuse of the technical terms adds unwarranted weight to that judgment -- making it appear to be a matter of mathematical fact, rather than just a value judgment.

 

[BigBore45]

no change for me, but i have always shot my carry gun(s) out to 50 yards on a 10"X10" plate. i still have my wife practice at 20 yards max though. realistically i would not stand a chance against a guy with a rifle but hey might as well try if i have a clear shot in that situation. i do most of my practicing at 15 yards though. and just started shooting idpa.