What REALLY drives the decision? Motivation for Daily Non-Sworn CCW

[BehindBlueI's]

1,319,500 fires in 2017
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

"likely around 1m" DGUs
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...ntrol-rhetoric
https://reason.com/2018/09/04/what-t...ys-on-defensi/

Thanks for making me check sources. I stand corrected.
I should have written "more likely," not "much more likely."

Or, if you'd rather, let's say the risk is the same. The question about why no rope under the desk is still pertinent.

Keep reading your own source:



From your own source:

Deaths 3,400
in 2017

But let's drill down a little more, because that includes residential, vehicle, forest fires, etc.

FEMA: Each year, from 2014 to 2016, fire departments responded to an estimated 100,300 fires in nonresidential buildings
across the nation.1,2 These fires resulted in an annual average of 90 deaths;




Compare to FBI's UCR crime stats for the same yer: In 2017, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 17,284.

So, again, is it?

Or, if you'd rather, let's say the risk is the same. The question about why no rope under the desk is still pertinent.

Not really. I worked on the 3rd floor of a gov't office building for about 6 years. The windows would have to be broken open as they didn't open. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system. There were multiple fire exits, as in stairwells with fire doors. There were fire alarms, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. In short, there was already plenty of avenues in place of dealing with a fire. Breaking the window to rappel down is more risky then simply using the multiple options provided. Which is probably why, as mentioned above, fewer than 100 people a year die in any sort of non-residential building fire. Of those less than 100, how many are in multi-story buildings vs deep in a factory, etc? How many would your rope have saved? Compared to the 1m DGU uses in your stats? Not same ball park, not even same planet.

If I'm jogging alone and Bad Things occur, what's my equivalent of the sprinkler system, fire alarm, multiple exits, readily available fire extinguishers, etc?

If you want to play odds/stakes some 17k murders vs 90 non-residential fire deaths doesn't make your rope seem relevant. If you want to play potential utility, a firearm is the sole option in many DGU uses. The rope is a terrible option given what other resources you're provided in a modern multi-story office building in the US.

[Alpha Sierra]

The question about why no rope under the desk is still pertinent.

Because I work on the ground floor

I think you're trying to bootstrap your argument.

You seem to assume that carrying non lethal means is mutually exclusive with carrying lethal means. Or that carrying a lethal weapon to mitigate the risk of being assaulted is incompatible with mitigating other risks.

You would be mistaken

[Earlymonk]

If I'm jogging alone and Bad Things occur, what's my equivalent of the sprinkler system, fire alarm, multiple exits, readily available fire extinguishers, etc?

If you want to play odds/stakes some 17k murders vs 90 non-residential fire deaths doesn't make your rope seem relevant. If you want to play potential utility, a firearm is the sole option in many DGU uses. The rope is a terrible option given what other resources you're provided in a modern multi-story office building in the US.

Very helpful, BBI. Clearly, that example "limps" on more than one front.

At the end of the day, my main question is about why we make the choices we do. You've expressed eloquently how beliefs about and traditions of masculinity, the role of protector, professions of arms, and the negative experiences of friends and relatives have all influenced your decision to carry daily. Thanks.

[Earlymonk]

Because I work on the ground floor

Best answer yet!

You seem to assume that carrying non lethal means is mutually exclusive with carrying lethal means. Or that carrying a lethal weapon to mitigate the risk of being assaulted is incompatible with mitigating other risks.

You would be mistaken

Not assuming either and I would be mistaken if I were.
Sorry we're not tracking. I'm mainly interested in 1) where people draw the line on what they carry and 2) why they make the decisions they do.

[paherne]

1,319,500 fires in 2017
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/

"likely around 1m" DGUs
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/co...ntrol-rhetoric
https://reason.com/2018/09/04/what-t...ys-on-defensi/

Thanks for making me check sources. I stand corrected.
I should have written "more likely," not "much more likely."

Or, if you'd rather, let's say the risk is the same. The question about why no rope under the desk is still pertinent.

You said, "Caught in a fire." Many of those fires were of unoccupied structures, car fires, etc. I've been to plenty of fires where no human was in danger, other than if it started a larger conflagration and required evacuations. I've been to a couple of those and they were, by far, the closest I've come to dying as a cop. But, there's been more defensive gun uses in my county than that. And, DGUs always involve a person, where a fire rarely does.

[Earlymonk]

You said, "Caught in a fire." Many of those fires were of unoccupied structures, car fires, etc. I've been to plenty of fires where no human was in danger, other than if it started a larger conflagration and required evacuations. I've been to a couple of those and they were, by far, the closest I've come to dying as a cop. But, there's been more defensive gun uses in my county than that. And, DGUs always involve a person, where a fire rarely does.

Yep. Conceded a few posts up that the fire example was a bad one.

All it was meant be was an example some other threat to which we devote less time and preparation. I'm interested in how we prioritize threats.

It could be that a threat is actually less threatening (which the fire example seems to be) or it could be because we perceive it to be less threatening. Why do we prefer to address some threats and not others? What goes into that decision?

In the case of DGUs, some of that decision making process is governed by where we place carrying a gun daily on a continuum of protective measures like this (exaggerated) one. We have different answers to that.

<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
tie shoes so we don't trip over laces

stay indoors to avoid being hit by meteorite

More importantly, what I've learned from people's responses here is that much more of our decision is based on our reasoning and deeply held beliefs about all sorts of things like crime & safety, divinely granted rights & responsibilities, familial values & mores, roles in society, previous experience, self-determination/agency, etc. Those are the sorts of more thoughtful answers I was looking for, beyond, "Because I can't carry a cop."

Many thanks to those who have shared.

[Alpha Sierra]

Don't follow you here. The essence of the original question revolves, in part, around the fact that a flat tire, car accident, fire, laceration, or burglary are all significantly more likely events. What I'm interested in is where and why people draw the line, as we move along the continuum toward the less and less likely.

You obstinately want to ignore the severity of an occurrence and want to focus exclusively on its probability of occurrence.

No matter how hard you try, you're wrong to do so. Every risk analysis matrix used anywhere in the world, regardless of the reason for its use, has three elements:

1. The probability of an event occurring
2. The probability of detecting that an event is occurring
3. The SEVERITY (aka consequences) of the event if it occurs

The total risk factor is a multiple of ALL three. When analyzed the correct way, none of the risks that you (sometimes mistakenly) assume are more likely to occur than a DGU have near the level of severity and almost all of your examples have a higher probability of detection before they become critical (which lowers their risk even more).

[camsdaddy]

I have grown up around guns. I carry to protect my family. I carry because I like guns. I carry because it gives me a sense (real or false) of safety and control.
I don't carry a fire extinguisher because extinguishers are not cool and I don't frequent fire extinguisher boards. I'm not a fire extinguisher enthusiast j

[Earlymonk]

You obstinately want to ignore the severity of an occurrence and want to focus exclusively on its probability of occurrence.

No matter how hard you try, you're wrong to do so. Every risk analysis matrix used anywhere in the world, regardless of the reason for its use, has three elements:

1. The probability of an event occurring
2. The probability of detecting that an event is occurring
3. The SEVERITY (aka consequences) of the event if it occurs

The total risk factor is a multiple of ALL three. When analyzed the correct way, none of the risks that you (sometimes mistakenly) assume are more likely to occur than a DGU have near the level of severity and almost all of your examples have a higher probability of detection before they become critical (which lowers their risk even more).

Easy, pal. I'm not "obstinately ignoring" anything. Rather, I was "ignorantly unaware" of the matrix you shared. Thanks for the enlightenment.

All of the above involve prediction or determining probability/likelihood of an outcome. We're not very good at that. I'm interested in how folks on P-F (try to) do it.

I've got some answers and am moving on.

[Alpha Sierra]

Easy, pal. I'm not "obstinately ignoring" anything. Rather, I was "ignorantly unaware" of the matrix you shared. Thanks for the enlightenment.

All of the above involve prediction or determining probability/likelihood of an outcome. We're not very good at that. I'm interested in how folks on P-F (try to) do it.

I've got some answers and am moving on.

You absolutely and deliberately ignored more than one respondent who told you that it's not the odds, that it's what's at stake that drives the decision. In fact, you dismissed that concept from the get go in your first post.

And one doesn't need to be an expert on risk analysis to understand that the consequences of an event have a significant impact on one's preparedness for it even if the likelihood is low. It's common sense that most people intuitively grasp.

I think you had an answer already in mind and I think that you're pretty good at finding all sorts of internet quotes to support your pre-determined position.