Concealed Carry Almost Triples since 2007

[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-...eport-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.