Rationality and Gun Carry

[American1776]

This post will probably be interpreted as an instance of 'preaching to the choir'. It is. However, I would still like to share some of my thoughts about why I have an LTCF and why I choose to carry everyday, everywhere I am legally allowed to carry.

Many anti-carry/anti-gun proponents state that 'there is no need to carry a gun' and that doing so 'is paranoid' because 'you're never going to need a gun'. Similarly, it is said that 'the odds that you'll need to defend yourself are so low, the risks of being armed far outweigh any perceived benefit'.

Well, here of some of my thoughts on that misguided sentiment:

1. According to my own research, approximately 1 percent of the population is diagnosible as sociopathic. An additional percentage of the population have various sociopathic characteristics. That means that approximately 1 out of every 100 persons that you cross paths with daily is a diagnosible psychopath. Assuming that you're not a hermit, or live in the back woods, probability holds that we encounter clinical psychopaths EVERY WEEK.

2. A study done by the National Saftey Council, which was funded by the US gov. found that in 2007, the lifetime odds of dying from a firearm assault was 1:300. Comparatively, the lifetime odds of dying from being hit by a car as a pedestrian is 1:649. You are MUCH more likely to die from being attacked by a gun weilding assailent than from being run over by a car in the street. Incidentaly, you are equally likely to die from being an a car accident as you are from being murdered with a gun. (these are just gun murders; I'm sure murder in general, the odds are even higher).
This suggest that being attacked is actually not a remote possibilty.

3. According to one government study, the yearly number of violent crimes committed (reported) in the United States is about the same as the yearly number of house fires in the United States. I have fire extinguishers in my home.

4. Guns ARE potentially dangerous items. There are some risks involved with owning and carry a loaded firearm. However, what is most relevant is the cost/benefit. Here are some stats: every year, children die from accidentally shooting themselves with their parents' guns. Each instance is a tragedy. However, how many children die every year from accidentally shooting themselves in the home? About 100 children every year. Compare that with the 50 million households with a gun every year, and we see that children living around a parent with a gun is VERY safe.

5. Gary Kleck found that roughly 2.5 million citizens every year defend themselves with a firearm. Compare that with the roughly 400,000 gun crimes that are supposedly to occur every year, and we can see that guns are used to deter crime 5-6 times more often than they are used to commit crime.

These are just some of the REALISTIC stats and probabilities that lead me to conclude that responsible gun ownership and CARRY is really a good idea.

I just wish more good citizens would take some time to absorb these facts, and then think more seriously about what to conclude from them.

[coppery]

This post will probably be interpreted as an instance of 'preaching to the choir'.

you have a very proving, and a very factual post on the statistics that should allow us to have constitutional carry on a national level.

but one thing you need to remember is that the anti-gun crowd does not car for statistics. they don't care if one thing is worse than guns.

they work off of emotion. they work off of lies. they just want guns to all magically disappear from anyone who is not a cop or soldier.

to me personally, they lack common sense and sensible logic. they don't like/want it, you can't have it. they are ignorant to any truth, and arrogant.

My perfect day is to drive up, in my truck, to a gun store that has the most die hard anti gun protest in front of it, walk in with a suitcase of cash, and walk out, 10 minutes later, making a choo-choo- train run from my truck and the store with all the toys , and ammo i bought.


but your right. When i carry, people will ask me why i carry a gun for self protection. they are going to ask me if i'm paranoid. i will answer they are paranoid cause they lock their doors of house and cars, weir seatbelts, drive in a vehicle with airbags, and keep insurance.

[kolonial72]

3. According to one government study, the yearly number of violent crimes committed (reported) in the United States is about the same as the yearly number of house fires in the United States. I have fire extinguishers in my home.

My favorite. Well done.

[RobW]

I'm a member of the 'choir', so please take this as constructive criticism:

If you are going to rely on "government studies" or any other outside source as support for your conclusions, provide the reference. If you don't have the reference, you are doing what 'they' do - repeating talking point memos that support conclusions you've already reached.

[American1776]

I'm a member of the 'choir', so please take this as constructive criticism:

If you are going to rely on "government studies" or any other outside source as support for your conclusions, provide the reference. If you don't have the reference, you are doing what 'they' do - repeating talking point memos that support conclusions you've already reached.

Thanks RobW for the constructive criticism. I wrote this last night in a space of about 15 mins of free time, so I just wrote everything from off the top of my head; hence the reason why I didn't dig up all the citations (to make things worse, I'm in academia, so I should know better!)
With respect to the house fire/violent crime estimates, I'm misremembering where I read this. However, if one does a little digging, one can find that the NFPA estimates that more than 1.3 million house fires are reported annually. According to the FBI, reported cases of violent crime is, annually, at the 1.3-1.4 million mark. Thinking more carefully about this, we know that John Lott and Gary Kleck find that the reported number of violent crimes is always much lower than the number of actual violent crimes committed. (for sexual assault, something like half of all assaults are not reported. The U.S. department of Justice, in 2005, estimated that 60 percent of sexual assaults are NOT reported).
We can conservatively conclude that house fires are about as likely as being violently assaulted. We can reasonably conclude that many more violent crimes are committed than house fires occur.
With respect to the prevalence of clincial psychopathy, the DSM (more recent additions) will have those numbers. Also, note that Anti-Social Personality Disorder is sometimes cross-referenced with psychopathy/sociopathy. In any case, around 1 percent of the population is psychopathic. That doesn't sound like a lot of folks, but it actually is not an insignificant number. When we consider how many people we encounter at the supermarket every few days, not to mention restaurants, shopping malls, and gas stations every day, we see that we cross paths with a very large number of strangers. Every 100 of these strangers, there is almost surely to be a psychopath. Not to sound overly pessemistic, but there ARE wolves (bad people) among us.
The gist of my findings is that when we really look at the sheer numbers, with respect to violent crime, gun ownership, accidental deaths, and other risks that we already prepare for, owning and carrying a firearm is NOT the product of paranoia. It is a rational decision that can be informed and supported by the facts about the world we live in. More importantly, these stats are pretty much 'raw' figures. That is, they are not figures that are misleadingly manipulated into ratios, or phrased in ways that are disingeniously formed.
For example, the Brady Campaign had posted somewhere that women are many times more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to have used a gun to kill their assailents. This is misleading. They are comparing the number of murdered women with the number of killed women-attackers. But we all know that according to Kleck, and Lott, and others, that the vast majority of times in which a person (and woman) uses a gun to protect his or her life from a violent attacker, they never fire one shot, let alone actually kill their attacker.
I hope (and suspect) that my own little 'findings' about more raw figures can paint a more accurate picture. once again, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, since most people here agree

[Metz]

'there is no need to carry a gun' and that doing so 'is paranoid' because 'you're never going to need a gun'.

And shitting bricks every time when liberal sees an armed citizen is NOT being paranoid at all

[RobW]

No worries, we are on the same side ;->

FWIW, the DOJ quotes 19.3 victims of violent crime per 1000 citizens in 2008 (latest full version of the report, may be per adult citizens) and FEMA's Fire Statistics for 2007 show 13.2 deaths/injuries per MILLION people, latest stats show a continued downtrend. Your point about firearms/fire extinguishers is well made and well supported by the facts.

RobW

Thanks RobW for the constructive criticism. I wrote this last night in a space of about 15 mins of free time, so I just wrote everything from off the top of my head; hence the reason why I didn't dig up all the citations (to make things worse, I'm in academia, so I should know better!)
With respect to the house fire/violent crime estimates, I'm misremembering where I read this. However, if one does a little digging, one can find that the NFPA estimates that more than 1.3 million house fires are reported annually. According to the FBI, reported cases of violent crime is, annually, at the 1.3-1.4 million mark. Thinking more carefully about this, we know that John Lott and Gary Kleck find that the reported number of violent crimes is always much lower than the number of actual violent crimes committed. (for sexual assault, something like half of all assaults are not reported. The U.S. department of Justice, in 2005, estimated that 60 percent of sexual assaults are NOT reported).
We can conservatively conclude that house fires are about as likely as being violently assaulted. We can reasonably conclude that many more violent crimes are committed than house fires occur.
With respect to the prevalence of clincial psychopathy, the DSM (more recent additions) will have those numbers. Also, note that Anti-Social Personality Disorder is sometimes cross-referenced with psychopathy/sociopathy. In any case, around 1 percent of the population is psychopathic. That doesn't sound like a lot of folks, but it actually is not an insignificant number. When we consider how many people we encounter at the supermarket every few days, not to mention restaurants, shopping malls, and gas stations every day, we see that we cross paths with a very large number of strangers. Every 100 of these strangers, there is almost surely to be a psychopath. Not to sound overly pessemistic, but there ARE wolves (bad people) among us.
The gist of my findings is that when we really look at the sheer numbers, with respect to violent crime, gun ownership, accidental deaths, and other risks that we already prepare for, owning and carrying a firearm is NOT the product of paranoia. It is a rational decision that can be informed and supported by the facts about the world we live in. More importantly, these stats are pretty much 'raw' figures. That is, they are not figures that are misleadingly manipulated into ratios, or phrased in ways that are disingeniously formed.
For example, the Brady Campaign had posted somewhere that women are many times more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to have used a gun to kill their assailents. This is misleading. They are comparing the number of murdered women with the number of killed women-attackers. But we all know that according to Kleck, and Lott, and others, that the vast majority of times in which a person (and woman) uses a gun to protect his or her life from a violent attacker, they never fire one shot, let alone actually kill their attacker.
I hope (and suspect) that my own little 'findings' about more raw figures can paint a more accurate picture. once again, I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, since most people here agree

[Yellowfin]

And shitting bricks every time when liberal sees an armed citizen is NOT being paranoid at all

The problem with that statement: it isn't just liberals as there are plenty of anti gun people who identify themselves as conservatives (even gun owners who are anti gun), nor are all liberals anti gun. Many if not most fear or hate what they THINK a gun owner is because somehow it conflicts with one of their more important priorities. Common examples include:

1. They're a pet owner so anyone who they thinks kills animals (since they associate guns with hunting) is bad, so they assume they MUST be anti gun.

2. They're a vegetarian, so the same as #1 applies.

3. They're fresh out of college or a graduate degree, and the only information they've had is the stereotype that gun owners are uneducated and less intelligent, so they MUST be anti gun because they feel the need to assert a difference between them and those they're more educated and intelligent than.

4. They either practice or have a family origin of a strict religion, so they MUST assume to be anti gun as a cheap and easy means of claiming for themselves moral and ethical superiority. (It's easier than giving up drinking, sex, etc. -- being against something they'd never personally do costs them nothing.)

5. They espouse SOME alignment on an issue that has been traditionally associated with liberalism and think they MUST claim to be anti gun as well because it's part of the identity package. They treat it like an article of religious faith as they accept it and incorporate it into their own personal identity with absolutely zero though to question it no matter how ridiculous it is on its face, and can't defend it because they don't dare question it. This is usually the case with the most problematic ones.

So repeating the lie that liberal = anti gun by necessity only drives it deeper into them rather than extracting it and addressing it separately.

[American1776]

The problem with that statement: it isn't just liberals, nor are all liberals anti gun. Many if not most fear or hate what they THINK a gun owner is because somehow it conflicts with one of their more important priorities. Common examples include:

1. They're a pet owner so anyone who they thinks kill animals (since they associate guns with hunting) is bad, so they assume they MUST be anti gun.

2. They're a vegetarian, so the same as #1 applies.

3. They're fresh out of college or a graduate degree, and the only information they've had is the stereotype that gun owners are uneducated and less intelligent, so they MUST be anti gun because they feel the need to assert a difference between them and those they're more educated and intelligent than.

4. They either practice or have a family origin of a strict religion, so they MUST assume to be anti gun as a cheap and easy means of claiming for themselves moral and ethical superiority. (It's easier than giving up drinking, sex, etc. -- being against something they'd never personally do costs them nothing.)

5. They espouse SOME alignment on an issue that has been traditionally associated with liberalism and think they MUST claim to be anti gun as well because it's part of the identity package. They treat it like an article of religious faith as they accept it and incorporate it into their own personal identity with absolutely zero though to question it no matter how ridiculous it is on its face, and can't defend it because they don't dare question it. This is usually the case with the most problematic ones.

So repeating the lie that liberal = anti gun by necessity only drives it deeper into them rather than extracting it and addressing it separately.

,

I see what Metz is getting at, and I think there is some merit to it. It is true that many anti-gun people are also liberal in their politics. But you're right, there isn't a necessity attached to being liberal and being anti-gun.
You bring up some good points. Just some thoughts:
1. I am a pet owner, and I love my German Sheperd. I also like animals, and I prefer not to kill them. However, I carry my gun everyday and wherever I am legally permitted to do so.
2. I work in academia. I see the amount of anti-gun sentiment that is constantly espoused there, and it really is a shame. I have found that academics, who profess to support intellectual freedom, are the first ones to refuse to change their own views, even in the face of solid evidence. I have come across some academics who are like us on this forum. They are rare, but they exist.

[son of the revolution]

you have a very proving, and a very factual post on the statistics that should allow us to have constitutional carry on a national level.

but one thing you need to remember is that the anti-gun crowd does not car for statistics. they don't care if one thing is worse than guns.

they work off of emotion. they work off of lies. they just want guns to all magically disappear from anyone who is not a cop or soldier.

to me personally, they lack common sense and sensible logic. they don't like/want it, you can't have it. they are ignorant to any truth, and arrogant.

My perfect day is to drive up, in my truck, to a gun store that has the most die hard anti gun protest in front of it, walk in with a suitcase of cash, and walk out, 10 minutes later, making a choo-choo- train run from my truck and the store with all the toys , and ammo i bought.


but your right. When i carry, people will ask me why i carry a gun for self protection. they are going to ask me if i'm paranoid. i will answer they are paranoid cause they lock their doors of house and cars, weir seatbelts, drive in a vehicle with airbags, and keep insurance.

I had the IMMENSE pleasure of having my daughter ( who is also a shooter at 6 yrs old) do EXACTLY what you posted. The scene was Delia's Gun Shop in the NorthEast, which had been targeted by Anti Gun zealots masquerading under the guise of religion and a group called Heeding Gods' Call ( there are several threads here if you want details ) During one of their protests I had made a deal with the owner on a Remington 870 and after letting the CA Cops that were present know ahead of time, I let my daughter carry it out to my pick up at the curb in broad daylight, in full view of those idiots and she had a HUGE smile on her face the whole time, as did I. Im fairly certain a few of the protestors had strokes on the spot