Concealed Carry Almost Triples since 2007

[cclaxton]

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/study-concealed-carry-soaring/
This may explain why we are seeing a lot more new shooters in IDPA.
Cody

[Bigguy]

5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.

That's 1 in 20 people. While 5% doesn't sound like a lot, if 1 in every 20 people I see in Walmart are carrying that's a considerable amount of firepower. If I was a criminal, I think I'd consider a career change.

[TGS]

That's 1 in 20 people. While 5% doesn't sound like a lot, if 1 in every 20 people I see in Walmart are carrying that's a considerable amount of firepower. If I was a criminal, I think I'd consider a career change.

At the same time, how many of 1 in 20 people who have a permit actually carry?

[Bigguy]

At the same time, how many of 1 in 20 people who have a permit actually carry?

Good question. Probably not as many as I'd hope.

[Peally]

Hopefully they all get trained up, that many competent shooters in a community is an asset.

I fear about 80% of them will carry and after 5 years and 200 rounds they'll still classify IDPA novice. Hopefully the other 20% get roped up in USPSA or whatever and really excel. Personally I'm noticing a respectable number of young (high school) shooters in the area, hopefully it keeps up.

[45dotACP]

That's 1 in 20 people. While 5% doesn't sound like a lot, if 1 in every 20 people I see in Walmart are carrying that's a considerable amount of firepower. If I was a criminal, I think I'd consider a career change.
Bet it ain't even close to 1:60 where I live...

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[okie john]

This is the fruit of a lot of legwork done by the NRA and other like-minded folk at the grassroots level after the 1994 AWB.

Before that bill passed, concealed carry was strengste verboten in more places than it was allowed and Joe Average hardly knew what an assault rifle was. After Senator Feinstein and President Clinton awoke the sleeping giant, the NRA helped a lot of new legislators, judges, and sheriffs get elected, and things began to go our way.

Classic case of going for a tactical win only to suffer a massive strategic loss.


Okie John

[41magfan]

Most people carry when they think there's a need. It's really just the same flawed logic the stalwart use when they carry a lesser, "NPE" firearm.

Predicting when you might need NONE makes no more sense that predicting when you may need LESS, but most people do it on some level about certain things.

[Alpha Sierra]

It's really just the same flawed logic the stalwart use when they carry a lesser, "NPE" firearm.
The whole point of an NPE handgun is that it is more concealable, and so less detectable. Because, you know, being made in an NPE is a bad thing, particularly if one can't play the cop card.

It has nothing to do with thinking that one can get by with less gun because danger will be less........

[41magfan]

The whole point of an NPE handgun is that it is more concealable, and so less detectable. Because, you know, being made in an NPE is a bad thing, particularly if one can't play the cop card.

It has nothing to do with thinking that one can get by with less gun because danger will be less........

Forgive me. I shouldn't have used the term NPE, it's a foreign concept to me personally and I probably misused it in my post.

Let me offer this instead;

The flawed logic I was eluding to would be the guy that carries a J-Frame everyday being looked down on by the guy that selectively carries a J-Frame when he's making a milk run or something of that nature. The predictability of risks in all of this line of thinking has huge holes in it but it's only perceived subjectively. That's the thought I was trying to convey.

[Alpha Sierra]

The predictability of risks in all of this line of thinking has huge holes in it

Yeah, not buying that. Nobody can make a reliable, mathematical risk prediction model. And since no one can, there are two (really only one) realistic option in my opinion.

You can kit up for war every time you step outside, or you can make your own risk assesment based on your life experience and decide how to roll every time.

Reasonable people pick door #2.

[GardoneVT]

Reasonable people pick door #2.

Three of them did this morning , making the risk assessment theyd never ever need a gun as workers in the media business - and two paid for the gamble with their lives on live TV. I adopt the philosophy that trouble never emails ahead for scheduled arrival, so I carry accordingly.

In any event, I don't view that CCW statistic optimistically. Many people -the exact amount has yet to be tabulated- acquire CCW permits with zero intention on actually carrying a weapon even part of the time.

One; in most states having a CCW permit simplifies owning ,buying and transporting weapons immensely. A 3" x5" card can mean the difference between being able to legally transport a gun in the passenger seat versus the trunk. It can also save a spouse from legal headaches when the gun toting husband/wife shares a car and leaves a heater in the vehicle. I don't like the practice either (may as well leave it on the street in plain view IMO ) , but lots of folks do it.

Two; the typical person with a CCW views daily carry as an exercise in paranoia. Guns are only toted when the danger is foreseen; ergo a trip to the daycare is made unarmed, but a visit to a gas station after hours means taking the XD compact.
Don't even broach the subject of carrying either a full size weapon and/or a spare magazine. <Obviously such an individual has major issues if they tote more then a .380 pocket pistol./sarc >

[Alpha Sierra]

Three of them did this morning , making the risk assessment theyd never ever need a gun as workers in the media business - and two paid for the gamble with their lives on live TV.
Would you carry while at work even if it means that you will be fired immediately if found?

[ssb]

Would you carry while at work even if it means that you will be fired immediately if found?

Speaking for myself, probably yes. Getting a shotgun stuck in my face made that decision for me. In retrospect, however, the better answer for my personal safety at the time was a different choice of employment. It was an unnecessary job with unnecessary risks.

In a more recent -- and more professional job -- I went through a similar decision process. The consequences of being caught were more severe (termination, criminal liability, consequences with a professional licensing organization). However, certain risks were also elevated -- I dealt with a lot of disgruntled people. It's a tough decision to make. I'm not quite sure it's as black-and-white as we (gun people) sometimes make it out to be.

[GardoneVT]

Would you carry while at work even if it means that you will be fired immediately if found?

You can't cash a paycheck if you're dead.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's not that easy - you have to consider the probability of risk and consequences. Being in a workplace shooting is rare. There were about 900 in the recent past. How many work places are there?

Depending on your profession and age, losing your job means losing your house, your kids' education and quite a few major life disruptions. On a gun forum, every priority is gun oriented risk. Life isn't that simple to decide based on cliches. I'm more like to die to on the way to work. Some butt wipe crossed the median today and almost gave us a head on - thank God for my wife's quick reflexes. So I shouldn't make a living because cars are dangerous?

[Alpha Sierra]

It's a tough decision to make. I'm not quite sure it's as black-and-white as we (gun people) sometimes make it out to be.
Yes, thank you

[Alpha Sierra]

You can't cash a paycheck if you're dead.

I was hoping for a mature answer. Guess not this time.........

[Alpha Sierra]

It's not that easy - you have to consider the probability of risk and consequences. Being in a workplace shooting is rare. There were about 900 in the recent past. How many work places are there?

Depending on your profession and age, losing your job means losing your house, your kids' education and quite a few major life disruptions. On a gun forum, every priority is gun oriented risk. Life isn't that simple to decide based on cliches. I'm more like to die to on the way to work. Some butt wipe crossed the median today and almost gave us a head on - thank God for my wife's quick reflexes. So I shouldn't make a living because cars are dangerous?

Another one who gets what I am saying.

[GardoneVT]

It's not that easy - you have to consider the probability of risk and consequences. Being in a workplace shooting is rare. There were about 900 in the recent past. How many work places are there?

Depending on your profession and age, losing your job means losing your house, your kids' education and quite a few major life disruptions. On a gun forum, every priority is gun oriented risk. Life isn't that simple to decide based on cliches. I'm more like to die to on the way to work. Some butt wipe crossed the median today and almost gave us a head on - thank God for my wife's quick reflexes. So I shouldn't make a living because cars are dangerous?

No, life isn't that simple. But the pithy sayings have a point- the consequences of participating in a gunfight sans gun equals you ending up on a stretcher at best, or a slab downtown at worst.

The truth of things is easy to say as it is harsh.

I love to be wrong about this, but in Real Life we will never live in an America where the right to responsibly keep and bear arms is recognized everywhere .
The way companies need to avoid liability combined with the irresponsible nature of people in general , means virtually every reputable workplace will require you be disarmed. No non-firearms industry employer large enough to need an HR department is going to say "yeah , you can carry whatever you want to here. " Even some LE agencies strictly limit what their officers can and cannot carry off duty. It's due to management and organizational CYA, and that culture is not going anywhere no matter what we gun guys think.

You ask if crossing your employers rules is worth it.
The real question is which adverse consequence do you want to experience; being crippled or dead because the flag flew and you were caught unprepared, resulting in a LEO calling your wife with Bad News?

Or being unemployed, financially destitute, and probably blacklisted from a career you've spent years building?
Note- preventing people from discovering you're armed in a place you're not supposed to is something you have limited control over. You have no control over Mr. FiveStrikes McShotaLEOlastyear deciding to put you in the ICU one dark night . It is also marginally easier to get a new job -regardless of the career damage - then it is to return from the dead, or walk again after a bullet cuts your spine in half.

[fixer]

I think we had a whole long thread about NPE carry a while back. Lots of good arguments there.

I wish I didn't need a job so bad that I can't afford to get caught carrying on company property.

On the other hand workplace violence is increasingly a major issue people have to account for daily. Your employer doesn't give, and won't ever give, a rip about your safety from attacks from colleagues (or from anything else for that matter). They will fill the seat with someone else's butt.

I go to work with the barest minimum of self protection that will fly under the radar.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Please give me the magic formula to easily get a new five figure job after being fired. Now it is hard to get one being dead, I grant you. My advocacy of the 2nd Amend. in a NPE probably increases the risk of being discovered if I carry a reasonable rig every day for 8 hours. Yes, I know how to carry a gun but nothing is full proof.

You can ignore the risk evaluation of negative consequences. If one actually wants to consider the outcome - being killed at work brings a cascade of money to my family from insurance and the like. Being fired - we are screwed financially.

Easy to talk about NPE carry if you don't have significant family responsibilities. Let us know when you do such if you do get such.

Everyone decides their own risk profile. Denouncing someone for not having Spidersense at all times or risking a professional career for a low probability event is just Internet BS. In a NPE, there are other measures to lower risk.

Even if you carried, I doubt you have total constant condition Yellow - it is not possible. Someone could ambush you if they tried, Spidey.

Ah, crap - stupid internet argument. Only get a job where you can carry an AR with a 100 round mag around with you and wear full body armor.

[ssb]

I will say that, as my career has started bringing me towards places where I'm actually prevented from carrying a gun (or other per se weapon) by things like metal detectors, law enforcement security, and other physical barriers, I've looked a lot harder at my unarmed skillset. It is lacking. I've since taken steps to begin to rectify that. A gun is no longer my only option for defense.

TPI had an excellent thread a few years back that's stickied, something to the effect of "Building Bruce Wayne." The discussion there is very relevant to the tangent this thread's taken. I took good notes.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Roughly six percent of workplace fatalities are the direct result of falling objects.

I'd like to know who wears a hardhat to work everyday along with their gun.

Granted, that fraction isn't huge...but a whopping FORTY percent are killed by being struck by vehicles.

I assume the "always carry no matter what" crowd will be almost relieved to hear this as it really justifies the wearing of vests 24/7. The only catch is that, obviously, they have to be high-vis reflective vests.


But you can't cash a paycheque if you're dead, you know.

[cclaxton]

I find these new statistics incredibly POSITIVE and such a great achievement.
From the responses here you would think this was the worst possible news for concealed carry.
Geez.
Cody

[1slow]

I was in a carbine course several years ago. One student was from NYC. I asked him about his location given his interest in carbine training. He said that he could make hugely more money in his profession in NYC than elsewhere.
He viewed his location as being a combat tour. He was going to make money and get out.
I cannot argue with the way he looked at this, risk was accepted with open eyes to get the money.

[GardoneVT]

Roughly six percent of workplace fatalities are the direct result of falling objects.

I'd like to know who wears a hardhat to work everyday along with their gun.

Granted, that fraction isn't huge...but a whopping FORTY percent are killed by being struck by vehicles.

I assume the "always carry no matter what" crowd will be almost relieved to hear this as it really justifies the wearing of vests 24/7. The only catch is that, obviously, they have to be high-vis reflective vests.


But you can't cash a paycheque if you're dead, you know.

Crucial difference- employers have a vested interest in ensuring falling objects, vehicle-worker incidents, and other OTJ injury risks are mitigated.

But that , as of now, does not apply to workplace shootings. From the company perspective, its cheaper to wash the employees' blood off the floor then to risk tort litigation from the dead bad guys survivors'. Then it is the insurance company's problem.

The only risk mitigation in play WRT armed jerks on company property is your own.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I don't follow US tort law at all, but I find it hard to imagine that if workplace shootings make up a significant percentage of workplace fatalities, that employers don't have a vested interest in mitigating those risks.

Just because they don't assess risk mitigation as "letting the staff pack heat" doesn't mean that no risk mitigation processes are in place.

Or are we seriously saying that, say, ExxonMobil does not have a vested interest in trying to prevent its employees from getting shot in gas stations?

Because I just feel certain I've seen gas stations in the United States that I couldn't enter at night, and had to slide money through a drawer. That wasn't a dream, right?

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[ssb]

While the odds of, say, a disgruntled client shooting up my former place of employment may be astronomically low (but not unheard of), it's not just at work where I may need a firearm.

Similar thing to campus carry, actually. I've got a buddy who goes to school in Atlanta. He can walk off campus to grab dinner and be in what may as well be an entirely different country. While lightning may strike and some kid may shoot up the engineering school, I'd wager that his primary concerns with wanting to carry a firearm are actually his daily commute and his near-campus activities.

[Salamander]

There's a report on 2013 California CCW statistics at https://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-initiative/reports/cgf_carry-license-report-2013.pdf and that's as far as I know the most recent set of numbers available.

From a quick review, one county approaches 3 percent of the population with CCW's. Three other counties are over 2 percent. They are very small, very rural, inland counties. My county and a couple of other northern coastal counties hover a little over 0.5 percent, even though it's relatively easy to get a CCW here the state regs do mean it takes a few months and isn't the most intuitive process, which I'm sure discourages some people.

At the bottom end of the scale is the city and county of San Francisco, which as of 2013 had two individuals with permits. This is a little misleading though; our permits are valid statewide, I carry when I'm working from the San Francisco office, and so do a lot of other people. Just because their sheriff won't issue to anyone but Dianne Feinstein (only half joking; she allegedly had one, and gave it up when it went public) doesn't mean there aren't a lot of legal handguns on the streets every day. It's not impossible to get permits in several counties within commuter distance.

The good news is that the number of statewide permits increased by 14% from 2012 to 2013, and the number is likely higher since then because even though Peruta is still on en banc appeal, that court case resulted in several formerly non-issuing sheriffs altering their policies.

So even here, the trend is in the right direction, even though the numbers are smaller than in some other states and the biggest cities tend to have the tightest restrictions.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

While the odds of, say, a disgruntled client shooting up my former place of employment may be astronomically low (but not unheard of), it's not just at work where I may need a firearm.

Similar thing to campus carry, actually. I've got a buddy who goes to school in Atlanta. He can walk off campus to grab dinner and be in what may as well be an entirely different country. While lightning may strike and some kid may shoot up the engineering school, I'd wager that his primary concerns with wanting to carry a firearm are actually his daily commute and his near-campus activities.

No arguments here and I fully support your right to carry pretty much wherever. When you're a Canadian in the gun business, you're really far out on the edge of the "liking guns" spectrum. I'm both of the athetics: symp and emp.

I just find the whole "I have to carry 100% of the time because I'm tactically prepared for condition midnight every nanosecond" thing hard to take seriously, given the number of people carrying 0% of the time and making it through their life.

And the fact that I see a lot of "I need to carry" combined with absolutely zero "I need to wear a reflective vest" tends to reinforce my general attitude of shruggery. Carrying is good for you and good for society. But for christ's sake, some gun people need to get laid.

[Hambo]

Roughly six percent of workplace fatalities are the direct result of falling objects.

I'd like to know who wears a hardhat to work everyday along with their gun.

Granted, that fraction isn't huge...but a whopping FORTY percent are killed by being struck by vehicles.


Ah, statistics. So if I work in an office what are my chances of being run over by a truck at my workplace?

[Maple Syrup Actual]

While the odds of, say, an inept truck driver crashing into my former place of employment may be astronomically low (but not unheard of), it's not just at work where I may need a high vis vest.

Heading across the street for coffee...the way to and from...threats abound. You can't go your whole life in condition low-vis like a sheeple After all, it's not the odds, it the stakes.

[oldtexan]

Three of them did this morning , making the risk assessment theyd never ever need a gun as workers in the media business - and two paid for the gamble with their lives on live TV. I adopt the philosophy that trouble never emails ahead for scheduled arrival, so I carry accordingly.

/sarc >

If you had only changed the events by adding a handgun to the gear carried by each of those people that day, then likely the results would have changed little. They had task fixation and suffered a loss of situational awareness. The killer presented his gun at least 23 seconds before opening fire, in the field of vision of at least two of the three victims, and none of them acted as if they needed to take action until the killer began shooting. If they weren't aware enough to notice the threat, then they probably never would have deployed their weapons, even if they were carrying.

I carry a G19 every time I leave the house and almost always have a 9mm subcompact on me inside the house. It's my choice, but I accept that other people, maybe wiser than me, will do a risk/benefit analysis before deciding whether to be armed when they venture out. Who am I to criticize them for doing so? We all do risk/benefit analyses, usually very, very informally, before making decisions in so many areas of our lives. Otherwise, we'd always put on crash helmets before getting into any vehicle and we'd never go near a bathtub.

[Salamander]

I just find the whole "I have to carry 100% of the time because I'm tactically prepared for condition midnight every nanosecond" thing hard to take seriously, given the number of people carrying 0% of the time and making it through their life.



When I was 20-something in Chicago, carrying wasn't an option. Not only was it decades before CCW came to Illinois, this was during the Chicago gun ban. But I was young and immortal then, and routinely wandered around rough inner city neighborhoods at 4:00 am.... and never even came close to having a problem, if you don't count the one successful fistfight with some gangbangers.

Now I'm in a very safe small town, if there was ever a homicide here it was way before I arrived 14 years ago. Curiously, by my informal count we're way above the regional average for number of permits in town, and many of the more prominent citizens have them. I know, based on what they've told me, that most of them don't carry unless they're "going over the bridge." The local perception is that certain other parts of the county and especially the larger towns are higher risk, and I suppose that's statistically true although it's still pretty safe compared to major cities by my perception. I probably carry much more often than most of the folks here, even though it's a gun friendly local culture.

My largest current project is in the next county over, it's a large site, about 700 acres, with roads but not much else and lots of squatters. I've been out there off and on for the past three years but gained some new insight today when I brought two county employees with me, grunt laborers working for my client. They're local boys and told me lots of new things about the project site. They distinguish between tweakers and drunks among the squatters, were able to put names on a lot of them, and told me that the typical lifestyle is to spend the weekdays in the nearby town and return after begging, borrowing, or stealing enough to get their next fix. It's a dumping ground for stolen cars which are stripped for the metal within days, that part I already knew. We only found two discarded needles today and heard but didn't see any dogs, so it was a slow day. Most of the squatters must not have been back from town yet.

You better believe I always carry when I'm out there. Most of my staff choose to carry bear spray or similar instead (there really are black bear there, I just found a dead one a couple months ago) and they work in larger groups when practical. Personally I put the dog risk higher than the human risk, lots of loose pit bulls although the local boys were a little nervous while we were out there today.

Being in places like that does make home feel a lot safer. It's a constant re-evaluation, and I'm going through that again this week. Where's the line between prepared and paranoid? Some days I'm not quite sure.

[Nephrology]

It might be worth mentioning that the number of people who are licensed to carry are lower than the number of carry permits issued. Hell, as we speak i have carry permits active from 3 states... I am sure I am not the only one on p-f.com with more than one valid permit, either.

[GardoneVT]

It might be worth mentioning that the number of people who are licensed to carry are lower than the number of carry permits issued. Hell, as we speak i have carry permits active from 3 states... I am sure I am not the only one on p-f.com with more than one valid permit, either.
Indeed.

Then we come to the troubling yet VERY topical question- of the people who do carry even periodically, how many actually are capable of deploying that weapon effectively?

I don't suggest that being a graduate of Rodgers is necessary to carry, but my limited sample of shooters I see at the local range makes me wonder. Most of these folks who pocket carry their G42s and Shields couldn't hit a B27 past 7 yards, and look at me like I'm John Wick for daring to run a mag at 25 yards.

[Peally]

Have to admit it's a great boost to the ego. I can get destroyed at an area match but among 99% of the population I'm a god with a pistol :D