Do we take ourselves as gun owners too seriously?

[bogus]

Simple question I've have been contemplating for some time. I have come to find there's no simple answer. Just curious as to my fellow INGOer's thoughts.

Almost daily on this site, other gun sites, and Youtube I see "wars" over bullet design, caliber, open vs. cc, training, etc...I'm one of those guys that is on the never ending quest to find "the magic" bullet. The best gun cleaner. The best lube. The "best" type of optic. The "best" firearms. Heaven forbid I don't put an Aimpoint on my AR.

I've personally been considering taking a training course. I know it would be interesting and fun, but what is the practical purpose? I see people posting about going to this class and that class all the time. I keep asking myself "why?" though for some reason. I was bored at work today and started to do some fact finding. I ended up reviewing violent crime data on the FBI's site.

First I reviewed the FBI's Crime Reports Table 43 located here: FBI ? Table 43

I did some calculations on the risk of an individual's average risk of being involved in a violent crime. I used the definition of a violent crime as defined here: FBI ? Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2012 Basically murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I found that there was a .1718% chance that I would have been involved an a violent crime in 2011. Violent crime dropped by 1.2% in 2012 based upon the previously supplied link. So last year my risk dropped to .1698%. I thought to myself, "How can this be?". It seemed way too low considering all the pushing for situational awareness, training, resposibility as a firearms owner, most reliable equipment, posts I see everyday. You would think it would have been MUCH higher than that. I then noticed that Table 43 data was for "arrests" by category is 2011. Aha! That must be the issue. The actual number of reports must be much higher than arrests. We know that not every incident results in arrest.

I found the reported crime information here: FBI ? Violent Crime This gave me link for "Table 5" which list the incidents reported by state. Below is my finding for Indiana.




My calculations are in the blue shaded area. So now I ask you and myself, are we taking ourselves too seriously? Obviously I'm talking about average Joe's and not MIL/LEO. I personally have a less than .1360% chance of being involved in a violent crime. Now that I think about it, I don't know of anyone in my family (including a couple of previous generations) ever being involved in a violent crime. I personally have not seen so much as a fist fight since high-school and I'm 45.

Is the less than .2% chance that one of us will be involved in a violent crime worth all the time, money, and effort? Or is it just fun to do and talk about? Does any of it really matter for the average person? At the end of the day, does it matter that I'm using the best equipment and have been to umpteen training sessions in pursuit of operator status? Sorry to say I really don't know. I guess if I were a surviving victim I would say yes, but the chance of being a victim in the first place is extremely low. Which is obviously a good thing!

Care to share your thoughts?

 

[Birds Away]

Do you ever play the lottery?

 

[bogus]

Once in a blue-moon. Couldn't tell you the last time I bought a ticket. I understand your line of thought though.

 

[wolfman]

Similar to the “Should I Wear a Seat Belt” argument.

If you don’t, and are never involved in an accident, it is a moot point, but if on the other hand you are involved in an accident, the outcome could depend entirely on how prepared you are for the accident event.

 

[bogus]

Excellent point. I guess my question should be how well do I prepare? Is carrying a firearm, having one on-the-ready for home defense, and being very familiar with operation and safety enough? Do I need to be running and gunning in a class with my AR and pistol? Maybe somewhere in-between. I would venture to say there is no definitive answer. It might possibly be different for many of us.

 

[armedindy]

things change sometimes, and sometimes that change happens quickly

 

[AlwaysVigilant]

How many undocumented variables are contained in every report? Impossible to know. I can think of at least a dozen that wouldn't be reflected in the data, but forget that for a moment and consider this...

If you were faced with two doors, and entering one of them would have a .2% risk of you being killed instantly, and the other a .1% chance...which door would you choose to enter? Let me answer for you: The one with the least risk of instant death.

My point should probably end there, but since this is nothing beyond mere musings and conversation why not talk about the randomness of everything. The perceived value in statistical analysis is based on constants, and human beings are anything but. You will notice swings in data from year to year that run contrary to sound logic. For instance violent crime rates may drop in a city who has seen a reduction in law enforcement personnel. On the surface it seems unlikely, until you discover that the statistics are based on arrests, and there are less of those do to the reduction in officers, or that it is per capita, and droves of people left to pursue employment, which reduced the tax base resulting in said manpower reductions.....and on and on.

IMHO, most gun owners don't take carrying a gun seriously enough. Training attendance is woefully low considering the number of people carrying. Why? Why would someone not want to be the best they can possibly be, especially with lives at stake? I will never understand that thought process. How much is your life worth? That of your family and friends? So little that a statistic will allow you to be a cheapskate, or lazy, or uneducated? Probably not for the people on INGO, but as a whole, there are a large group of "gun people" who don't get it.

And I don't "get" them.

 

[LANShark42]

Simple question I've have been contemplating for some time. I have come to find there's no simple answer. Just curious as to my fellow INGOer's thoughts.

Almost daily on this site, other gun sites, and Youtube I see "wars" over bullet design, caliber, open vs. cc, training, etc...I'm one of those guys that is on the never ending quest to find "the magic" bullet. The best gun cleaner. The best lube. The "best" type of optic. The "best" firearms. Heaven forbid I don't put an Aimpoint on my AR.

I've personally been considering taking a training course. I know it would be interesting and fun, but what is the practical purpose? I see people posting about going to this class and that class all the time. I keep asking myself "why?" though for some reason. I was bored at work today and started to do some fact finding. I ended up reviewing violent crime data on the FBI's site.

First I reviewed the FBI's Crime Reports Table 43 located here: FBI ? Table 43

I did some calculations on the risk of an individual's average risk of being involved in a violent crime. I used the definition of a violent crime as defined here: FBI ? Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2012 Basically murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. I found that there was a .1718% chance that I would have been involved an a violent crime in 2011. Violent crime dropped by 1.2% in 2012 based upon the previously supplied link. So last year my risk dropped to .1698%. I thought to myself, "How can this be?". It seemed way too low considering all the pushing for situational awareness, training, resposibility as a firearms owner, most reliable equipment, posts I see everyday. You would think it would have been MUCH higher than that. I then noticed that Table 43 data was for "arrests" by category is 2011. Aha! That must be the issue. The actual number of reports must be much higher than arrests. We know that not every incident results in arrest.

I found the reported crime information here: FBI ? Violent Crime This gave me link for "Table 5" which list the incidents reported by state. Below is my finding for Indiana.




My calculations are in the blue shaded area. So now I ask you and myself, are we taking ourselves too seriously? Obviously I'm talking about average Joe's and not MIL/LEO. I personally have a less than .1360% chance of being involved in a violent crime. Now that I think about it, I don't know of anyone in my family (including a couple of previous generations) ever being involved in a violent crime. I personally have not seen so much as a fist fight since high-school and I'm 45.

Is the less than .2% chance that one of us will be involved in a violent crime worth all the time, money, and effort? Or is it just fun to do and talk about? Does any of it really matter for the average person? At the end of the day, does it matter that I'm using the best equipment and have been to umpteen training sessions in pursuit of operator status? Sorry to say I really don't know. I guess if I were a surviving victim I would say yes, but the chance of being a victim in the first place is extremely low. Which is obviously a good thing!

Care to share your thoughts?

Thread title is the question of the century. And the answer is: On this forum - ABSOLUTELY!! I've been thinking the same thing since I joined. I'm wondering if any of the people on this forum carry a fire extingiusher. Seems like they are more likely to be involved in a fire than in a shootout. So my question is: If you don't carry a fire extinguisher, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, WHY NOT????????

 

[cosermann]

Risk also takes into account the potential consequence of an event. It is not merely an the probability of an event.

Risk is the potential for loss and might look something like: Risk = probability x impact.

(Although there are different risk models in different fields.)

So, probability alone does not reflect total risk.

In the case of many gun toters (I think, except those living in very risky areas), it's the potential consequence, not the raw probability of an event that many people to carry.

Example: I've only ever had one flat tire on the road in my life (low probability). It's also a low impact event (minor inconvenience). And yet I carry a spare tire.

Why would someone not take steps to mitigate the risk of a low probability event with a potentially HIGH impact (i.e. death)?

 

[bogus]

....Why would someone not take steps to mitigate the risk of a low probability event with a potentially HIGH impact (i.e. death)?

You hit upon the basis for my original post. Taking risk into consideration, how many steps do you take to mitigate the risk? Do I have to be an operator class uber tactical guy to adequately and effectively protect myself and my family? I am not at all opposed to bettering myself. But, when does all the time, money, and effort become a diminishing return? Or does it simply never end? In my mind, you could spin this type of logic into about any situation in our daily lives from getting out of bed in the morning and driving to work to someone crashing through your front door with intent to kill.

Sometimes it would just be nice to enjoy life without worrying about what was around the corner...


Excellent post by the way.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It's not the odds, it's the stakes.

Taking risk into consideration, how many steps do you take to mitigate the risk?

This becomes apparent in discussing things such as home security. People run off into the tall grass about this gun, that gun, field of fire but they ignore the big things like . . . the lightswitch. 5K in guns but they don't want to turn on the frickin' light so they won't be burglarized. Geeeezzzzzz, guys.

"Eye gots me a $3,500 UberBenalleeeee shotguuunnn, but I'd don't wants to pay the extra $.14 for the leyeght bill." Just turn on the light and that way you don't have to use your $3,500 shotgun.

 

[wolfman]

Excellent point. I guess my question should be how well do I prepare? Is carrying a firearm, having one on-the-ready for home defense, and being very familiar with operation and safety enough? Do I need to be running and gunning in a class with my AR and pistol? Maybe somewhere in-between. I would venture to say there is no definitive answer. It might possibly be different for many of us.

There isn't !!!

For me, it goes something like this;
I am somewhere between middle age and older than dirt, and have lived what I consider to be a reasonably satisfying life. My wife and I are comfortable with our relationship with our Lord, and neither of us will be devastated if the other is called home while protecting ourselves or others from an illegal use of force. I am also at the point where age has taken its toll on my strength and agility, so mindset is beginning to play a larger roll in how I would/will defend myself and/or others.

In an sd encounter 15 to 20 years ago, I would have reacted with lightening speed, marksman like accuracy, backed up, if necessary, with enough brute force to successfully end the encounter with minimal damage to self, and live to see another day.


Now that I am older, things have changed! I anticipate my reaction speed will be more along the lines of just a little faster than grass growing, accuracy to be sufficient as long as my glasses stay on, along with appearing to be just strong enough to hold my head up, so I now rely more on situational awareness to minimize my exposure to a sd situation. I have also developed a "mindset" that better reflects my current physical abilities which now leans less toward surviving the encounter to live another day, and more toward making sure I take the aggressor totally out of the picture, even if I dont survive, when protecting those around me from the illegal activity.

What you are willing to risk, will depend greatly on where you are in life, and what value you put on seeing tomorrow in relation to the value you put on those people and things around you. Risk has a value, ask any insurance agent.

 

[rhino]

Risk also takes into account the potential consequence of an event. It is not merely an the probability of an event.

Risk is the potential for loss and might look something like: Risk = probability x impact.

(Although there are different risk models in different fields.)

So, probability alone does not reflect total risk.

In the case of many gun toters (I think, except those living in very risky areas), it's the potential consequence, not the raw probability of an event that many people to carry.

Example: I've only ever had one flat tire on the road in my life (low probability). It's also a low impact event (minor inconvenience). And yet I carry a spare tire.

Why would someone not take steps to mitigate the risk of a low probability event with a potentially HIGH impact (i.e. death)?

It's not the odds, it's the stakes.



This becomes apparent in discussing things such as home security. People run off into the tall grass about this gun, that gun, field of fire but they ignore the big things like . . . the lightswitch. 5K in guns but they don't want to turn on the frickin' light so they won't be burglarized. Geeeezzzzzz, guys.

"Eye gots me a $3,500 UberBenalleeeee shotguuunnn, but I'd don't wants to pay the extra $.14 for the leyeght bill." Just turn on the light and that way you don't have to use your $3,500 shotgun.

Indeed!

I haven't had formal risk assessment training since 1990 or 91, but I remember a little. It seems like too many people consider only the empirical probabilities and ignore the costs/benefits, or focus on the costs/benefits and neglect the probabilities.

Add to this is that the bulk of the information we have, both actual numbers as well as apocryphal "I've always heard that"s, are based almost entirely on police action shootings. The dynamics of a shooting or gunfight that may involve a private citizen can be significantly different in terms of time, distances, shots fired, number of people involved, etc. To know this, do some research on the case studies compiled by Tom Givens of Rangemaster of his many students who have been involved in self-defense shootings. Many of them bely the traditional wisdom that the situation will be resolved with one or two rounds and that it will occur at a few feet between victim and assailant.

Having tools to help you resolve problems is a great idea. Having the will, knowledge, and skills to use those tools as effectively as possible is an equally good idea.

 

[cosermann]

You hit upon the basis for my original post. Taking risk into consideration, how many steps do you take to mitigate the risk? ...

That depends on individual risk tolerance.

Sometimes it would just be nice to enjoy life without worrying about what was around the corner...

That's an option. You can accept the risk as is if you want to.

 

[bogus]

I have always had a genuine love for firearms my entire life. I love the deep blue steel and walnut furniture of days past. Now I'm enjoying synthetics and black phosphate. I've always admired various firearms their form and function. They are IMO beautiful and really cool mechanical tools.

My point is that I've been a gun enthusiast all my life. My first shotgun wasn't purchased for defense. It was for hunting. Same goes for my rifle. Even my first handgun was not purchased with the sole purpose of defense. I just enjoyed the feel, looks, and function. Being able to use it for defense was just a bonus.

I guess it may boil down to the way the world and its people have changed. I don't don't see the point of all the gung-ho, bravado, do or die crap. It irks me to see post after post about how if you own a firearm and don't train for SD you're an idiot. If you don't use a S&W J-frame instead of an LCR you're basically an idiot. You use a .380 instead of 9mm. You use anything but a .45 blah, blah, blah. Guess what? I'm not an idiot and neither are many us of who own firearms simply because we enjoy them. We understand that crap may hit the fan tomorrow. But there's just as good of a chance or better that it won't. People have been declaring the end of the world as we know it for centuries. We are still here.

The uber tac person doesn't understand why the redneck that just likes to shoot is not more concerned. The redneck wonders why the tac person is so concerned/worried all the time. Truth of the matter is that they will both likely die from something other than a violent crime. Different strokes for different folks I guess. If we were all the same the world would be a boring place.

 

[netsecurity]

It simply doesn't matter what the odds are of something happening, it only matters whether we survive it or not. Hence the training. The rest of the arguments are more hobby talk, always trying to get the slight edge in competition shooting, etc.

To be honest, you sound like a liberal shill. Of course we take ourselves too seriously, as do skaters, surfers, sportsmen, musicians, etc. But at least what we train for has some practical use of critical importance, whereas they do not.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

With a population of just over 6.5 million people, and your stated relative risk ratio as .1365%, that means that there are approximately 8,800+ people who will be victims of violent crime in this State. Don't you think they would desperately wish for a chance to adequately defend themselves when push comes to shove? I imagine they would welcome an opportunity to arm and defend themselves from those who accost and assault them and theirs.

If you don't wish to be diligent, that's your business and fine: your choice doesn't affect mine, nor my choice affect yours. I agree that there are some people who are really, really devoted and borderline obsessive about certain topics, but that's why they're experts. Someone who has vehement, logical reasoning as to why they support 6.5mm Grendel versus .308 or .223 at least gives me something to consider. I may come to disagree with their assessment, but I'm usually glad to have their input, if they know what they're talking about - and most on INGO definitely know what they're talking about. Not all, not about everything, but the input - even the bickering - of caliber aficionados and brand fanboys and tacticool maneuvering all have bits of wisdom to impart, many of which I know for a fact I probably never would have considered before joining INGO.

I would agree even that certain people or personalities may be a bit too somber and self-serious, but to lump all gun owners into this super-stern category, I have not found to be true. If anything, I think we gun owners tend to have more fun than non-gun-owners, having perhaps one of the best stress outlets and hobbies ever. Case in point, when have you gone to the range and not had at least a modicum of fun? I wouldn't confuse a willingness to have fun with a lack of situational awareness, but too serious? I don't know if that applies. If it does, you'd have to point out some specific patterns of behavior.

Every other fellow gun owner I've yet met has been downright friendly. Not just polite, but downright 'let's go to the range and then have a beer or some eats after' friendly. And I'm very glad that I've chosen an interest that at least has some intrinsic value as well as some external value. People in the gun culture are some of the nicest folks I've ever met, and I think we all have a natural affinity in some sense, if not some sort of imagined camaraderie. Too serious? I just don't see it.

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

Well some of us have seen our fair share of violence obviously compared to others and I'm sure many others have seen far more then I have in my life. As one who travels a lot for work and used to all over the country in previous years for work, I have seen more than several "violent" acts happen very near by. By the definitions of Indiana Code a few would have been justifiable to use deadly force IMO but IANAL. I'd rather be well trained as much as possible, know what I'm doing and never need to use it then to just assume that "Oh it'll never happen to me or my family". I hope it doesn't but if it does I hope I am properly prepared.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Yes.

 

[bogus]

My last post wasn't my best work. My apologies if I came off like a shill. The fact of the matter is that I am diligent. At least in my mind. I do take precautions away from and at home. I have what are considered very reliable firearms and plenty of ammo for each. I'm a major introvert and untrusting of people so I've always been a people watcher/reader. I will most likely get some formal training in the near future as that is the next logical step for me personally. I can honestly tell you though that at least initially I will be taking it more so out of curiosity than what I feel as an immediate need. I dont feel insecure with my current knowledge and common sense. I can't really go any further in regard to training as I don't have the right to speak about it as I don't know what I don't know. Hopefully that will change soon. Enough about me...

I started this thread as I thought it would be a good topic for discussion and provoke a good exchange and food for thought amongst our INGO members. Please continue if you are inclined to do so!

@Headlessroland and netsecurity: I hadn't really considered the correlation to other interest groups in regards to the levels of fanaticism. Excellent points.

@Headlessroland: My experiences in INGO and at the range parallel yours exactly. Also the variety of opinions and levels of expertise does give us the opportunity to consider what best fits our particular application or need.