Late last night

[RedNeckGeek]

Statistical probability of violent crime occurrence and an increasing belief that bad things will happen, or that the state of affairs is declining, are different things. Logically if the reality is that those are increasing or decreasing, people would react accordingly. You wear a seat belt because you know they save lives, statistics show that; you reacted to reality.

Whether or not you are always prepared for bad things to happen doesn't necessarily correlate to your sureness that they will. You can wear your seat belt while continuing to feel just as certain that you will never crash. If you felt more certain that you will crash, you would seek out additional protections such as air bags.

However, what you think about your changing chances of crashing--unless you have a crystal ball--is not connected to any reality beyond statistics: your age, type of driving, miles driven, where you drive, etc.

Increasingly expecting bad things to happen to you, or sensing a declining general state of affairs, does indicate you are more certain of that probability however much reality says otherwise. There is something going on there beyond being always prepared.

Good points, however in two aspects of my own life, it boils down to being prepared for events that do happen:

I ride many miles every year on motorcycles. On a bike, you don't get to pick when and where you're going to crash, but you do get to pick what you're wearing. For that reason my attire always includes a helmet, gloves, a heavily padded riding suit, and rigid/armored boots. I've fallen off at speeds over 70MPH and walked away, and been hit at speeds at less than 20MPH and broken bones. In either instance I would have been much more severely injured or killed had I not been in my usual attire. It's not a matter of statistics, but rather of cause and effect, that motivates me to always be prepared for the worst.

I should have mentioned in my previous post that, when I moved to Butte County four and a half years ago, there was no gang violence to speak of, no drive by shootings, no youth gang stabbings of random pedestrians in downtown Chico, and no running gunfights. At least none were mentioned on the local TV news broadcasts or in the Enterprise Record newspaper. This past year it seemed that such events were reported on an almost weekly basis. It seems unlikely to me that news reporters have changed their desire to report events like this, and the only conclusion I can come to is that life around the little town of Chico has become more violent. If I choose to do my shopping there, it is reasonable to conclude that being involved in some random act of violence is now part of the experience.

I moved up here from the San Francisco Bay Area where it was impossible to obtain a Concealed Carry Permit. In contrast, Butte County's requirements are such that anyone with a clean record, and that can pay for training and pass the test, will be issued a permit. I took advantage of that, but when the permit expired two years later I didn't renew it right away. In fact I let it lapse for more than a year before the news coverage of increasingly violent crimes gave me reason to reconsider. Again, it wasn't because of published statistics (I'm not aware there are any that new), but of my ability to defend myself should I be faced with what now appears to be a real threat. To me this is very discouraging, because getting away from crime was a huge motivator in moving, and it now appears violent crime has spread to Chico, Oroville, and Redding (my closest cities) as well.

Heck of a topic to be discussing at a time when we should all be passing along wishes for peace and brotherhood, and counting our blessings and the rewords of another year's labor.

 

[jix]

There is a lot of good sound reasoning in this thread, but there are also several areas where opinions are presented based upon different understandings, or evaluations of the same ideas.
On the whole, this thread is productive.
What is a pity is that some Carry devotees appear to be dug in in their thinking, but not very many are being foolish about their point of view.

I was strongly opposed to carrying by the average Joe, but I have been persuaded that I was guilty of dug in thinking myself. I do hope that the common sense I have read posted here prevails. I can certainly see why people think that they need to be "self-protectors" in their communities, because of the nature of those communities.

God send that such communities do not increase in number, and that the common sense of those carrying continues to prevail everywhere. Fear is the greatest enemy of firearms common sense.

It seems clear that those who carry are fear-motivated. During fear, people do desperate things,

So if you are going to carry, do not allow fear to govern your actions. Only act deliberately and fearlessly. Think before you pull a weapon, It is difficult to be cool-headed if you are scared ****less.
It takes more than weapons training to develop clear calm and cool thinking in a frightening situation, but if you carry, that is what you are required to do. Good luck with that.

 

[RoyJackson]

There is a lot of good sound reasoning in this thread, but there are also several areas where opinions are presented based upon different understandings, or evaluations of the same ideas.
On the whole, this thread is productive.
What is a pity is that some Carry devotees appear to be dug in in their thinking, but not very many are being foolish about their point of view.

I was strongly opposed to carrying by the average Joe, but I have been persuaded that I was guilty of dug in thinking myself. I do hope that the common sense I have read posted here prevails. I can certainly see why people think that they need to be "self-protectors" in their communities, because of the nature of those communities.

God send that such communities do not increase in number, and that the common sense of those carrying continues to prevail everywhere. Fear is the greatest enemy of firearms common sense.

It seems clear that those who carry are fear-motivated. During fear, people do desperate things,

So if you are going to carry, do not allow fear to govern your actions. Only act deliberately and fearlessly. Think before you pull a weapon, It is difficult to be cool-headed if you are scared ****less.
It takes more than weapons training to develop clear calm and cool thinking in a frightening situation, but if you carry, that is what you are required to do. Good luck with that.

In many instances, some folks had this misguided fear that issuing carry permits was going to result in blood running down the streets...it never has and very few people who carry firearms ever get into trouble with them...now, I'm writing about the non-criminal element...the so-called "average joe".

Prohibitions on carry of firearms (such as in Canada, for example) have little to do with safety or common sense. Canada had no prohibitions for decades and people lived safely carrying firearms as a matter of course. As far as why this changed...just read my signature line below.

 

[jix]

There are Lies, **** lies, and statistics.

 

[dave1949]

Statistics, when done properly and impartially, can indicate trends and probabilities in populations. Sampling error is always a risk which can be quantified, to a degree.
However, statistics mean very little to discrete elements (us, as individuals) of that population...in other words, the instance of crime may be trending downward, but when some a-hole has a gun in your face or a knife in his hand, statistical trends aren't going to mean much.


Expectation ("sureness") of an event doesn't even come into play...I never expected to have to pull my gun...but it has happened twice since I've been carrying. Fortunately, in both instances, there was no need to use the firearm (in fact, the threat never knew the pistol was in my hand).

We can discuss statistics all you want, but if that crime hits home...as I'd written, the statistics won't mean much...other then you have now become a statistic.

I am not using statistics in that way Roy, like a roulette wheel that gives you 1 out 36? chances to win. The idea I am discussing, however obtusely, is specific to what role do statistics play in the way someone reacts to an event, and if there is a disconnect between what those statistics are saying and what people are feeling, why?

The 'why' is important but there are really no correct answers. TripleR doesn't trust the stats. I think people get many negative impressions that exceed reality. Someone said it doesn't matter what the per capita rate is, people pay attention to the numerical value: 10:3000 vs 100:30000. 100 is a lot bigger than 10.

This has nothing to do with being prepared to avoid becoming a statistic. An individual who has carried all their lives, and one who hasn't, can each have a general perception of being safer or less safe.

Using the convenience store example; there are some number of customers and clerks who hear "Freeze!" The reactions of those present are influenced by their perception of the world around them. Statistics play a role in forming those perceptions. What you see and hear in the news, what other people share as their experiences, your own experiences, what happened down the street; those also play a role in forming your perceptions.

What separates statistics from those anecdotes and experiences is that they are the only attempt at formal and inclusive data collection and analysis being made. TripleR has seen a lot of statistics sausage being made. Fine, what else is there? You don't toss your canoe paddle in the middle of the lake because there are splinters in the handle.

 

[jix]

In many instances, some folks had this misguided fear that issuing carry permits was going to result in blood running down the streets...it never has and very few people who carry firearms ever get into trouble with them...now, I'm writing about the non-criminal element...the so-called "average joe".

Prohibitions on carry of firearms (such as in Canada, for example) have little to do with safety or common sense. Canada had no prohibitions for decades and people lived safely carrying firearms as a matter of course. As far as why this changed...just read my signature line below.

Roy: Please Allow me to expand on your comment concerning why Guns were (almost) banned in Canada

Our Egocentric PM of that day was Jean Chretien. He was not a deep thinker, most agree. He hafd appointed a man named Allan Rock to be his Minister of Justice. Allan Rock was a very brash politician himself, and he was not popular.

Allan Rock responded to Chretien's direction when some insane gunmen shot up a school, following the act of another insane man who shot up his former employers offices out of revenge for being fired.
There was a media firestorm after both incidents. Chretien was in political trouble even before this happened, so he Grandstanded the issue and gave Allan Rock Carte Blanc to go do something to quiet the issue and appease the police.

Allan Rock responded by creating a draconian law that required everyone to properly qualify for a gun permit for every kind of a gun. He established three or four classes of guns: Prohibited guns (all fully automatic and heavy (cannon) weapons);
Restricted weapons (all guns with a barrel length less than 18" (pistols) and Unrestricted weapons (all long guns with magazine capacity under 14 shots)

Rock also established two kinds of permits.. Possession only (except for prohibited and restricted, which require a special permit of a special case under very restrictive conditions) The second type of permit is an acquisition permit , needed to buy a gun from anyone. Rock also established a gun registry which recorded all guns owned by anyone, for all types of guns. The registry requires that all gun permit holders must renew their PA and PO license every four years (for a fee) The gun registry was subsequently repealed after the government changed.

Chretien and Rock both lost their jobs by a popular vote that brought in the Conservatives under Stephen Harper
The police in their lobbying did not agree with total repeal of the firearms control act and subsequently only the gun registry was reassigned to the police, for political cosmetic reasons, but not the requirement for everyone possesing or acquiring a gun to have a PO Licence or a PA licence and to renew it every four years. The function of maintaining and renewing these two types of lessons the became RCMP responsibility, so the cops know everybody who has a gun, buys a gun or sells a gun and where they live. Police acess this record at least 112,000 times a year, a fairly frequent occurrence. We still have a gun registry, but it has a different name. It is called a national fire arms database. Stephen Harper thinks we are fooled by this sleight of hand. Nope we are not. It is in fact a gun registry by another name, run by the cops.

If a gun owner fails to renew his licence, and owns a gun, that person commits a criminal offence If you wish to acquire a restricted weapon, you must have a weapons course qualification, be a member of a gun range, and give good reason to the police for why you want a handgun.. This is a red-tape and bureaucratic process, of course.
If you wish to transport the handgun from your residence anywhere and back, you must apply for and get a transport permit before you do that..another redtape procedure. Typically you can only transport restricted weapon from your house to a gun range, in a case, and unloaded. You cannot carry it in a holster whatsoever and you can only transport it between certain intervals of time.. and only by the most direct route to and from home and an approved and licensed gun range.

Prohibited firearms are PROHIBITED..you cannot own one. There is one class of exception to that.: If you owned it before the Firearms control act was established and if is a "collectors item" You cannot take it anywhere, you cannot shoot it, not even on your private property.

All guns must be "safely" stored in a secure locked case. If someone steals it, then you have a criminal problem, because it was by definition" not safely stored" so you get busted. PERIOD. The thief, only if he gets caught.

Long Guns (hunting) weapons must be carried unloaded and in a case until you reach your licensed hunting area. If in a vehicle, they must remain in a case and must not be loaded. No gun can be transported while loaded.

Other than these "mild " restrictions, anyone can own a gun.. If they are over 19 yrs of age, do not have a criminal record and are sane and sober.

IMHO, you would need to be insane to bother with owning a handgun; and be very wary of cops. If you own a gun, then any cop has the right of entry into you home, without a warrant, and seizure of your weapons for cause, a nasty neighbor, a nasty wife or a troublesome kid..or a ******** cop.

Doers this situation have any good effect..YEP, it does. not many persons get shot in Canada..It has reduced by 75% the incidence of homicide by firearm, except for suicides. Does it impact crimes by fire arm..Nope, not even slightly. Criminals do not obey the law (Duh, no **** Sherlock))

Does it save police lives..no, on the contrary, they have increassed Thirteen RCMP in a year have been murdered ( by crazy persons) that I know of...with rifles, not pistols

What has been accomplished? Nothing, except to royally piss off the hunters, the recreational shooter and every other type of gun owner in Canada. Only criminals carry guns here now. Word is that illegal guns are still for sale to criminals by other criminals.

One crazy and counter-intuitive fact is that "gun dealers" can still buy and import guns here..and they do, so there are still some diehards out there who will put up with the BS necessary to own a gun I have four guns, they are highly valued works of gunsmith art. they are almost never fired..and they are in a vault in my house. I could surrender them to the cops, if I wished, but would get no money for them

Do I sound a little scornful of this stupid law.. I certainly should.. Allan Rock and Jean Chretien should roast t in ****.

But I do not want nor need a handgun where I live.

 

[MossRoad]

...

I read and hear on the news that the number of people owing firearms is increasing, as is the number of people that have permits to carry concealed firearms. Yet I don't hear or read of ANY accidental shootings by such people, and in today's anti-gun climate, I'd think such a story would be front page news from coast to coast. That leaves me to conclude that the vast majority of people that choose to carry a concealed firearm do so only after a fair amount of deliberation, training, and practice. All as it should be....

There are accidental shootings every week in this country by people that are legally possessing a firearm. In Indiana, you need no training to get a concealed handgun carry permit. There's plenty of folks that have little to no current practice with their weapon.

 

[ovrszd]

Yeah, some sports star just the other day shot himself in the foot with his girlfriend sitting next to him when he tried to unholster his pistol. People like that have no understanding of "trigger finger placement" when simply handling a pistol.

 

[two_bit_score]

Roy: Please Allow me to expand on your comment concerning why Guns were (almost) banned in Canada

Our Egocentric PM of that day was Jean Chretien. He was not a deep thinker, most agree. He hafd appointed a man named Allan Rock to be his Minister of Justice. Allan Rock was a very brash politician himself, and he was not popular.

Allan Rock responded to Chretien's direction when some insane gunmen shot up a school, following the act of another insane man who shot up his former employers offices out of revenge for being fired.
There was a media firestorm after both incidents. Chretien was in political trouble even before this happened, so he Grandstanded the issue and gave Allan Rock Carte Blanc to go do something to quiet the issue and appease the police.

Allan Rock responded by creating a draconian law that required everyone to properly qualify for a gun permit for every kind of a gun. He established three or four classes of guns: Prohibited guns (all fully automatic and heavy (cannon) weapons);
Restricted weapons (all guns with a barrel length less than 18" (pistols) and Unrestricted weapons (all long guns with magazine capacity under 14 shots)

Rock also established two kinds of permits.. Possession only (except for prohibited and restricted, which require a special permit of a special case under very restrictive conditions) The second type of permit is an acquisition permit , needed to buy a gun from anyone. Rock also established a gun registry which recorded all guns owned by anyone, for all types of guns. The registry requires that all gun permit holders must renew their PA and PO license every four years (for a fee) The gun registry was subsequently repealed after the government changed.

Chretien and Rock both lost their jobs by a popular vote that brought in the Conservatives under Stephen Harper
The police in their lobbying did not agree with total repeal of the firearms control act and subsequently only the gun registry was reassigned to the police, for political cosmetic reasons, but not the requirement for everyone possesing or acquiring a gun to have a PO Licence or a PA licence and to renew it every four years. The function of maintaining and renewing these two types of lessons the became RCMP responsibility, so the cops know everybody who has a gun, buys a gun or sells a gun and where they live. Police acess this record at least 112,000 times a year, a fairly frequent occurrence. We still have a gun registry, but it has a different name. It is called a national fire arms database. Stephen Harper thinks we are fooled by this sleight of hand. Nope we are not. It is in fact a gun registry by another name, run by the cops.

If a gun owner fails to renew his licence, and owns a gun, that person commits a criminal offence If you wish to acquire a restricted weapon, you must have a weapons course qualification, be a member of a gun range, and give good reason to the police for why you want a handgun.. This is a red-tape and bureaucratic process, of course.
If you wish to transport the handgun from your residence anywhere and back, you must apply for and get a transport permit before you do that..another redtape procedure. Typically you can only transport restricted weapon from your house to a gun range, in a case, and unloaded. You cannot carry it in a holster whatsoever and you can only transport it between certain intervals of time.. and only by the most direct route to and from home and an approved and licensed gun range.

Prohibited firearms are PROHIBITED..you cannot own one. There is one class of exception to that.: If you owned it before the Firearms control act was established and if is a "collectors item" You cannot take it anywhere, you cannot shoot it, not even on your private property.

All guns must be "safely" stored in a secure locked case. If someone steals it, then you have a criminal problem, because it was by definition" not safely stored" so you get busted. PERIOD. The thief, only if he gets caught.

Long Guns (hunting) weapons must be carried unloaded and in a case until you reach your licensed hunting area. If in a vehicle, they must remain in a case and must not be loaded. No gun can be transported while loaded.

Other than these "mild " restrictions, anyone can own a gun.. If they are over 19 yrs of age, do not have a criminal record and are sane and sober.

IMHO, you would need to be insane to bother with owning a handgun; and be very wary of cops. If you own a gun, then any cop has the right of entry into you home, without a warrant, and seizure of your weapons for cause, a nasty neighbor, a nasty wife or a troublesome kid..or a ******** cop.

Doers this situation have any good effect..YEP, it does. not many persons get shot in Canada..It has reduced by 75% the incidence of homicide by firearm, except for suicides. Does it impact crimes by fire arm..Nope, not even slightly. Criminals do not obey the law (Duh, no **** Sherlock))

Does it save police lives..no, on the contrary, they have increassed Thirteen RCMP in a year have been murdered ( by crazy persons) that I know of...with rifles, not pistols

What has been accomplished? Nothing, except to royally piss off the hunters, the recreational shooter and every other type of gun owner in Canada. Only criminals carry guns here now. Word is that illegal guns are still for sale to criminals by other criminals.

One crazy and counter-intuitive fact is that "gun dealers" can still buy and import guns here..and they do, so there are still some diehards out there who will put up with the BS necessary to own a gun I have four guns, they are highly valued works of gunsmith art. they are almost never fired..and they are in a vault in my house. I could surrender them to the cops, if I wished, but would get no money for them

Do I sound a little scornful of this stupid law.. I certainly should.. Allan Rock and Jean Chretien should roast t in ****.

But I do not want nor need a handgun where I live.

WOW! That says a lot about how precious our Second Amendment right is and how we must staunchly defend it so we can continue to defend ourselves.

 

[jix]

TBS:
Uh huh. And yet we still have crazies with guns killing school kids...and cops. so Gun Control only regulates those who do not offend. As ever, the bad spoil it for the good... and We Canadians have a new weapon. Sling shots.
My guess is the second amendment will someday be history..it could happen.
I.E -Is there an amendment which prohibits advocating the overthrow of government, in the USA?