As an aside, if you are showing a print it’s considered open carry.
If you are in a state that only allows concealed, how do you determine how much of a print is acceptable?
As a Police Officer and someone that carries at all times, no matter where I am going, I will say that if you do carry make sure you ARE willing to use it if the occasion should arise. If you just pull a gun to deter a confrontation or “scare” someone and you are not only physically trained to properly use it but mentally and emotionally ready to do so you will basically present your attacker with a weapon that they could possibly take and use against you. If a situation arises that you feel that your life or the life of another is threatened there should be no question or hesitation in what you will do.
If you have questions or doubts as to how you will react then you most likely should not be carrying a weapon. Too many people carry guns to give themselves a false sense of security and truly don’t know if they would be willing to take the appropriate action if called to do so. Get schooled on the laws, get trained properly and be secure enough in your decision making processes to ensure that if you do ever need to use your weapon that you will not hesitate and be able to make a decision in a milli-second that you can live with for a lifetime.
[quote]DUKE56 wrote:
I’m sorry but the study is faulty. Why don’t you try reading how many people have saved their, or other peoples lives by using the ccw instead of seeing why you shouldn’t carry. [/quote]
So what do all those people who say the study is faulty think it actually says? I’m curious, it is no threat to those who want to carry guns and may actually prove to be very useful in educating gun owners in sensible use of weapons for self-defence. The study doesn’t say WHY it only says WHAT. If you are seriously interested in protecting your rights and your personal safety, then this is the data you need to pay attention to.
I don’t expect everyone to be able to figure out why it makes no difference if every single one of those 677 victims were drug dealers, pimps, or under-cover agents trying to infiltrate the mafia; but I would have thought the basic message would be better understood. It’s really no threat at all unless you’re too ignorant to rebut the anti-gun lobby who WILL use this sort of data (incorrectly) to support their argument.
But you can just ignore it. No skin off my nose.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are rules in every state.
Here (TN) you never ever brandish the gun in any way. You never mention it or show it in any way, unless you are pulling it on someone in an extreme situation where you are in fear of life or severe injury.
Even things like a broken nose don’t count as severe.
Showing or mentioning your gun can get aggravated assault charges. Simply un-tucking your shirt exposing the gun can land you in jail.[/quote]
not trolling here- Did you ever find out the law, or just start to, carry while with your VFD?
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]DUKE56 wrote:
I’m sorry but the study is faulty. Why don’t you try reading how many people have saved their, or other peoples lives by using the ccw instead of seeing why you shouldn’t carry. [/quote]
So what do all those people who say the study is faulty think it actually says? I’m curious, it is no threat to those who want to carry guns and may actually prove to be very useful in educating gun owners in sensible use of weapons for self-defence. The study doesn’t say WHY it only says WHAT. If you are seriously interested in protecting your rights and your personal safety, then this is the data you need to pay attention to.
I don’t expect everyone to be able to figure out why it makes no difference if every single one of those 677 victims were drug dealers, pimps, or under-cover agents trying to infiltrate the mafia; but I would have thought the basic message would be better understood. It’s really no threat at all unless you’re too ignorant to rebut the anti-gun lobby who WILL use this sort of data (incorrectly) to support their argument.
But you can just ignore it. No skin off my nose.[/quote]
It’s not really a study, just an observation. Without any demographic breakdown on criminal histories or CWP licenses, it is worthless as a study.
Anecdotally, I know ~100 CWP holders (LEO excepted) who carry and none of them have ever been shot at. Only one of those do I know to have used the weapon and killed an attacker. I know fewer than 10 current and/or former drug dealers. All but one of them has been shot at. This is purely anecdotal, and I’m not a journalist with an agenda, so I won’t draw any specific “scientific” conclusions from that. But I will state that in my limited experience that law abiding citizens who carry a firearm for protection get shot at a lot less than drug dealers who carry weapons illegally.
[quote]JLD2k3 wrote: It’s not really a study, just an observation.
[/quote]
Data.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]JLD2k3 wrote: It’s not really a study, just an observation.
[/quote]
Data.[/quote]
Is that a point?
I’m not dismissing the data. I’m dismissing the conclusions made by the author that he surely used the data to arrive at. I’m also saying that the data is not sufficient to support any meaningful conclusion without further developing the data.
But, hey, you said “data,” so you must be right.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Jfbalabama wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Fun fact. People who carry guns are most likely to be gunned down.
[/quote]
The study is flawed 677 people isnt enough people for an accurate cohort, besides that only using one location is going to produce biased results ( if i wanted to argue something ridiculous as say banning knives i would just argue use England as an example and statistics from a area with high rates of stabbing London maybe). Also the study did not mention the details of the control group, was it the total pop. of the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, 677 people who dont carry guns involved in crimes, 677 people who dont carry who weren’t involved in crimes. And just who where the 677 people where they handpicked cases meant to prove the results researchers wanted, random people, and what end of the assault where they on.
The article also mentions the term gun assault which is a non-existent legal classification so im left to wonder what they mean by that.
To many unknowns and flawed methods in the article for it to be legit.[/quote]
From a logical point of view, it does make sense. If you are armed, you are most likely to get in a gun fight, thus more likely to get shot.
[/quote]
Wrong, guns can also shoot unarmed people.
[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]JLD2k3 wrote: It’s not really a study, just an observation.
[/quote]
Data.[/quote]
Is that a point?
I’m not dismissing the data. I’m dismissing the conclusions made by the author that he surely used the data to arrive at. I’m also saying that the data is not sufficient to support any meaningful conclusion without further developing the data.
But, hey, you said “data,” so you must be right.[/quote]
You said it was an observation (and not a “study”). Not all observations are equal, this is data - an important difference.
Did you access the study to inform your claim that “the data is not sufficient to support any meaningful conclusion without further developing the data”?
[quote]tom63 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
From a logical point of view, it does make sense. If you are armed, you are most likely to get in a gun fight, thus more likely to get shot.
[/quote]
Wrong, guns can also shoot unarmed people.[/quote]
Depends on what you define as a “gun fight”.
Here is an extract from the study itself for those who are interested in what the authors had to speculate about the reason for the findings. Note that it could be argued that this is a case for better education and training of gun owners. It is also relevant to the OP, thus not straying too far OT.
"A few plausible mechanisms can be posited by which possession of a gun increases an individual’s risk of gun assault. A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided.[ 58-60] Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.
Situations in which the victim had at least some chance to resist may have generated gun assault risks when one considers that many of these events were 2-sided situations in which both parties were ready and mutually willing to fight on the basis of a prior argument.[ 29][ 30] Because both victim and offender had some sense of each other’s capabilities prior to the event they may have had more time to prepare for their ensuing conflict.[ 61] More preparation may have increased the likelihood that both individuals were armed with guns and that at least 1 or both were shot.
Although less prevalent, 1-sided situations in which a victim had at least some chance to resist an unprovoked attack may have also generated gun assault risks for victims who possessed guns.[ 29] In these situations, victim and offender were often interacting for the first time and the element of surprise afforded the offender likely limited the victim’s ability to quickly produce a gun and defuse or dominate their advantaged opponent. If the victim did produce a gun, doing so may have simply exacerbated an already volatile situation and gotten them shot in the process.
In contrast, when victims had little to no chance to resist, they were almost always confronted with events that happened very suddenly, involved substantial distances, had no face-to-face contact, and had physical barriers between them and the shooter (e.g., bystander or drive-by shootings). These victims likely had no meaningful opportunity to use a gun even if they had one in their possession."
Charles C. Branas, Therese S. Richmond, Dennis P. Culhane, Thomas R. Ten Have, Douglas J. Wiebe (2009). “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault” American Journal of Public Health.
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There are rules in every state.
Here (TN) you never ever brandish the gun in any way. You never mention it or show it in any way, unless you are pulling it on someone in an extreme situation where you are in fear of life or severe injury.
Even things like a broken nose don’t count as severe.
Showing or mentioning your gun can get aggravated assault charges. Simply un-tucking your shirt exposing the gun can land you in jail.[/quote]
not trolling here- Did you ever find out the law, or just start to, carry while with your VFD? [/quote]
Not allowed to carry, but I can keep it in my vehicle.
^interesting, glad you looked into it so as not to get in any trouble. Now if you have it in your car and a situation arises are you allowed to fetch it if you arrived at the scene in gear in your personal vehicle? or do you guys always respond to the station?
This rather extinsive study , and several studies cited within, completely contradict the OP study.
“Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6]”
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
^interesting, glad you looked into it so as not to get in any trouble. Now if you have it in your car and a situation arises are you allowed to fetch it if you arrived at the scene in gear in your personal vehicle? or do you guys always respond to the station? [/quote]
I would if I needed to. And no, we don’t always respond to the station. I keep my gear in my truck.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
This rather extinsive study , and several studies cited within, completely contradict the OP study.
“Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.[6]”[/quote]
The difference is that this that you are quoting here is talking about what is actually important for a person who legally carries. The other data includes everyone who has a gun.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JLD2k3 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Ranzo wrote:
Tennessee is not and open carry state[/quote]
Tennessee is most certainly an open carry state. I literally just took an 8 hour class on it.[/quote]
“Tennessee is not a traditional open carry state. However, Tennessee is a shall-issue state that issues a carry permit that allows both open and concealed carry.”
[/quote]
Yes, you do have to be permitted. But you can open carry.[/quote]
Typically when someone asks if XX is an open carry state, they mean open carry without a permit.[/quote]
I took it as opposing what I had said previously meaning I thought he was saying Tennessee was conceal carry only.[/quote]
Yes I was refering to being an open carry state in the sense that you don’t need a permit to carry. Most open carry states allow you to carry openly but you need a permit to carry concealed. So what you said about Tennessee is correct.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
First, let me say that I have nothing against rational people carrying guns. I own a gun, but have never carried it because it seems fucking dangerous to do so. I’d be concerned that if I was involved in a confrontation of some sort and an adversary even became aware that I had a gun and had one himself, it would serve as provocation. I wouldn’t want to get too confident carrying a gun and thinking I could just use it to deter anyone who fucked with me and that it would be that easy.
So for those of you who ever carry a gun, what is your philosophy regarding its use? When do you take it with you, and under what circumstances would you brandish or pull it out? Would you attempt to say anything and give a warning, or just shoot? [/quote]
I do carry pistols (of various kinds), and hold permits in several states and in Israel.
I would never “brandish” a weapon. If a pistol becomes visible it is to shoot it.
I would utilize it in accordance with the laws of the State or country I was in; most typically to defend myself or my family.
Outside of the military, I’ve never had reason to fire any weapon for the purpose of killing someone.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
I want to know how many samples were CCW holders and how many of these people were gunned down. Common sense would say not many. [/quote]
Those don’t fit the agenda of gun grabbers.
For the record, one of the first laws passed by the National Socialist in Germany was to grab the weapons of Jewish citizens – then everyone. An armed populace is much more difficult to tyranize.
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The one thing TN does not do is insulate a justified shooter from civil suits. Pretty much, if you ever use your gun, justified or not, you will have a civil suit brought against you.[/quote]
Same in TX[/quote]
Actually, the law in Texas is that a person who is injured when committing a crime cannot sue for injuries.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
[quote]Jfbalabama wrote:
677 is a incredibly small number for a accurate study especially given the size and crime rate of a city like philly[/quote]
There were 3485 shootings on police record for the duration of the study so it’s a very large percentage. But this does not matter, for statistical purposes it is waaaayyyy more than necessary.
Something to consider - a larger sample size is more likely to give you statistical significance regardless of effect size. So, the more data you look at, the more likely you are to find statistical significance regardless of true effect size. A bigger sample would produce higher significance.
Brilliant