Bob S., over at 3BoxesofBS, offers a good illustration of the “one percent doctrine” applied to the carrying by private citizens of personal firearms in public places. In his book, Suskind argued that the Bush Administration treated threats with even a one percent likelihood as certainties. Similarly, Bob argues here that his anecdote about a robber beating a woman and stealing her ring shows that he must carry everywhere he goes–because it happened in a nice neighborhood.
This destroys control advocates’ memes, he says, because it shows that one might need a firearm even if they avoid “bad” places. No one is ever a hundred percent safe–anywhere–so people should arm themselves.
Technically, I suppose, Bob is right: no one is every one hundred percent completely safe, wherever they go and whatever they do (just ask these guys up in Lorton). But the “gun control memes” “If you live in a good neighborhood, you aren’t likely to need a firearm” and “If you don’t go to bad places, you won’t likely need a firearm” are demonstrably true. Saying they’re not is a bit like saying that everyone must always be prepared to win the lottery–since someone won it just last week.
I’ve spent time in very dangerous places, where we had to keep pretty much constant vigilance when out and about. I wonder about the mind set of someone who does this all the time, even in his own neighborhood.
#1 by Bob S. at February 5th, 2010
| Quote
Stan,
Did the criminals alert their victims that one “a given day” they would be a victim of a violent crime?
Or did the attack come out of the blue for most of them?
If I knew that I would be a victim of a violent crime at place X and time Y; where do you think I would be?
NOT THERE is the answer.
Unfortunately, criminals are not mannerly enough to inform me when I will be a victim.
So I carry everywhere I legally can….that way whether 2% or 1 in 25,000 I can respond to the degree that I choose and not the limit the criminals would have me limited to.
Also, you do not address the consequences of a violent crime. Is rape a serious enough crime to warrant women carrying protection?
Is a mugging where my money — prescription drug money in some cases– could be taken from me a serious enough crime to warrant me carrying protection?
Nice to finally have you responding back.
#2 by R. Stanton Scott at February 5th, 2010
| Quote
“Out of the blue” is an interesting choice of phrase, since it connotes an improbable event.
The probability that any particular individual will become a crime victim matters only to the extent that the likelihood of an attack justifies the increased risk of carrying a sidearm to the carrier and others. If I carry no weapon, for example, I cannot accidentally shoot myself in the foot while drawing it from its holster. It cannot accidentally discharge it in a grocery store and wound a bag boy.
If armed, this chance is positive and nonzero, whether or not it is high or low. If no guns are in the sports bar, I cannot by definition be shot–if there is, that chance becomes positive and nonzero, whether or not high or low.
Given this positive (albeit, arguably, low) risk inherent in the mere presence of a (loaded) firearm, it makes sense to compare this risk to the probability that you will actually need it on a given day when you make the decision about whether or not you carry that day. If this chance is very low, leaving the weapon at home makes sense.
You and I disagree about how these probabilities shake out, or you discount the low probability of being a victim due to the magnitude of the potential loss (prescription drugs or rape), much as a lottery player discounts the low odds of winning because of the magnitude of the prize.
Fair enough. But the way you use statistics distorts the picture by painting too broad a brush. I’m really only trying to point out that you strengthen your argument by including some nuance, and resisting the urge to suggest, with tone if not words, that everyone should carry a firearm all the time.
As for not responding, rest assured that I will not ignore you. But sometimes work gets in the way. Sadly, I’ve yet to find a sucker dumb enough to pay me to do this.
#3 by Weer'd Beard at February 6th, 2010
| Quote
“Sadly, I’ve yet to find a sucker dumb enough to pay me to do this.”
You started too late, Stan! Joyce Foundation’s budget is collapsing, otherwise you could have gotten in on that gravy train. You’d be perfect for it so long as you dump your comment section.
#4 by Mike at February 6th, 2010
| Quote
Stan, you’re still not answering simple questions posed to you in this thread & others. Are they really that difficult for you to answer?
#5 by mike w. at February 9th, 2010
| Quote
resisting the urge to suggest, with tone if not words, that everyone should carry a firearm all the time.
Incorrect again Stan. None of us have suggested that. We’re advocating Freedom of Choice in the exercise of rights.
YOU are the one whose position seeks to deny individual choice and impose your own policy preferences upon everyone because of your irrational fears and prejudices.
#6 by mike w. at February 12th, 2010
| Quote
The point here is that even taking into account the tragic consequences of an attack, the lottery-like low probability of actually being attacked for most people makes carrying a gun all but useless, and in fact actually increases their risk.
Where’s your evidence Stan? Surely since you’re claiming that the risk of any one person being the victim of a violent crime is “lottery-like low” you have something substantive to back it up.
Also, how would low probabilities make carrying “useless?” If I end up using that tool by chance to defend myself then it’s hardly “useless” regardless of probabilities.
As for “carrying a gun increases their risk” Again, proof please. If you’re going to make such specific, declarative statements I expect you to have EVIDENCE backing up your claims.
#7 by mike w. at February 15th, 2010
| Quote
If I carry no weapon, for example, I cannot accidentally shoot myself in the foot while drawing it from its holster. It cannot accidentally discharge it in a grocery store and wound a bag boy.
Well in a world without the clusterfuck of gun laws we’ve got I could easily stick my gun in a holster, leave it there and carry it around everyday without handling it. I’d never have to unholster except to use it in self-defense, shoot at the range, & clean the gun.
Instead we’ve got a world where gun laws require a massive amount of unnecessary administrative handling of a firearm. No one is immune to having an ND, and anti-gunners directly contribute to an unnecessary increased risk of them.
#8 by mike w. at March 1st, 2010
| Quote
Stan’s still not answering questions and still failing miserably to back up anything he says with evidence.
He makes all manner of definitive claims & assertions, yet never backs them up with substance.
You’d think answering simple questions and backing up his claims with evidence would be easy, but apparently it’s damn near impossible for Stan.
#9 by mike w. at August 8th, 2010
| Quote
Where’s your evidence that CCW is dangerous or that it increases crime?
Evidence Stan, do you have it?
An opinion that cannot be backed up with factual evidence has no credibility whatsoever. YOU have no credibility whatsoever.
#10 by R. Stanton Scott at August 8th, 2010
| Quote
Carrying a weapon by definition creates an otherwise nonexistent possibility of accident. Ceterus parabis, this means it is more dangerous than not carrying.
I never said that issuing concealed carry permits to qualified citizens increases crime–I argue that it does not decrease crime.
#11 by mike w. at August 25th, 2010
| Quote
So Stan, do you only wear your seatbelt when you think you’re most likely to be in a car accident?
Or do you wear it everyday because you simply can’t know when, where (or even if) it’ll ever save your life?
Putting on a seatbelt creates an otherwise non-existent possibility that you’ll be trapped in a car by that belt, yet you put it on anyway do you not?