TexasCHLforum.com

Safer, not sure. Better prepared with more option, yes!

meyerch5 wrote:yes.

...

wait, I thought this was a poll...

mcscanner wrote:Safer, not sure. Better prepared with more option, yes!

Statistically, it should not make any difference whether you have a gun or not. Often times victims are in the wrong place at the wrong timw, which will happen whether you have a gun or not. IMO, your internal SA is probably more important then the mere presence of having a weapon when it comes to becoming a victim or staying safe. The presence or a gun neither increases or decreases your chances one way or the other.

It does however, without debate, increase your options on how to respond. That fact alone makes me a fervent 2a supporter.

Mavs00 wrote:

mcscanner wrote:Safer, not sure. Better prepared with more option, yes!

Statistically, it should not make any difference whether you have a gun or not. Often times victims are in the wrong place at the wrong timw, which will happen whether you have a gun or not. IMO, your internal SA is probably more important then the mere presence of having a weapon when it comes to becoming a victim or staying safe. The presence or a gun neither increases or decreases your chances one way or the other.

It does however, without debate, increases your options on how to respond. That fact alone makes me a fervent 2a supporter.

Brother - You've gotten very serious now that you're out of the waiting room...

Mavs00 wrote:

mcscanner wrote:Safer, not sure. Better prepared with more option, yes!

Statistically, it should not make any difference whether you have a gun or not. Often times victims are in the wrong place at the wrong timw, which will happen whether you have a gun or not. IMO, your internal SA is probably more important then the mere presence of having a weapon when it comes to becoming a victim or staying safe. The presence or a gun neither increases or decreases your chances one way or the other.

It does however, without debate, increases your options on how to respond. That fact alone makes me a fervent 2a supporter.

Wow that was well said and exactly what I have been saying. SA is your first line of defense.

While an increase in CHLs occurring along with a decrease in crime does NOT definitely prove that the one caused the other, it does prove something else. It proves that an increase in those carrying does NOT cause an increase in crimes...which is something anti-2A lib-progs love to claim.

Safer? I'm not sure that's entirely the point, even if it's true.

I carry because better men than I gave what it took, more than anyone has a right to ask, to keep this county secure. My gun is the constant companion of my walks because I am blessed to live in a free country and because, despite my critics, I'm responsible in the ways that count.

Ask a philosophical question, get a philosophical answer. Safer? Sure. But that's not the point.

meyerch5 wrote:Brother - You've gotten very serious now that you're out of the waiting room...

Hahaha.. Actually. I'm new to Texas carry, but not CC. I'm a former MP, and I used to have a CCP in the "peoples republic of NYS" back in the late 1990's- early 2000's. Then spent some time in NM (constitutional OC state). Just moved to TX about 9 months ago. Spend half that time in the "waiting room".

Well, carrying a handgun may or may not have any bearing on a situation you may find yourself in, but it certainly can have an effect in the way you respond...or survive. I would say it makes you safer, but not totally safe (as in bullet proof.)

Mavs00 wrote:

meyerch5 wrote:Brother - You've gotten very serious now that you're out of the waiting room...

Hahaha.. Actually. I'm new to Texas carry, but not CC. I'm a former MP, and I used to have a CCP in the "peoples republic of NYS" back in the late 1990's- early 2000's. Then spent some time in NM (constitutional OC state). Just moved to TX about 9 months ago. Spend half that time in the "waiting room".

NYS must make Texas seem pretty easy.

I'm glad you're out of the waiting room. I'm hoping to be out soon. I've been in TX 11 years and it seems like half of that in the waiting room...

I'm soon to be new to CC, but not to firearms. I liked your points. very well said.

I wear a helmet every time I ride my motorcycle. Am I safer while doing so? I have never needed my helmet while riding. I sincerely hope that I never do. Am I foolish to wear something I hope never to need? Does it make me safer even if I never need it?

JALLEN wrote:Why does anyone put any credence to government statistics?
Statistics prepared by the ultimate user who will be disadvantaged if the statistics are fiddled have some chance of being reasonably accurate and useful.
Government statistics are compiled and prepared by bureaucrats directed by whoever is running things at the moment, whose biases may not be known.

Because antidotes and gut feeling are frequently wrong.
You're certainly right that statistics can be manipulated to meet a goal, but they can also be taken as straight data and retain objectivity.
There are (some) government-employed researchers that do that.. IE - research and don't start with a goal and then back the data in to support it. Some might call them scientists.

Statistics from politicians, I see it exactly as you've presented it...

Interesting NPR article. Surprised most of you didn't castigate the source.

Seems to me it's all ancidotes and provides a range of experiences. It doesn't answer the question that was asked in the title...

cb1000rider wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Why does anyone put any credence to government statistics?
Statistics prepared by the ultimate user who will be disadvantaged if the statistics are fiddled have some chance of being reasonably accurate and useful.
Government statistics are compiled and prepared by bureaucrats directed by whoever is running things at the moment, whose biases may not be known.

Because antidotes and gut feeling are frequently wrong.

67.3% of statistics are misleading, and the rest flat wrong.

Anecdotes and gut feelings are wrong less frequently, 16.7%, according to one study. When they happen to be right, they are termed "outliers" in scientific parlance.

Anecdotal evidence is often the antodote for bogus statistical analysis designed to impress and mislead.

You're certainly right that statistics can be manipulated to meet a goal, but they can also be taken as straight data and retain objectivity.
There are (some) government-employed researchers that do that.. IE - research and don't start with a goal and then back the data in to support it. Some might call them scientists.

Statistics from politicians, I see it exactly as you've presented it...

Interesting NPR article. Surprised most of you didn't castigate the source.

Seems to me it's all ancidotes and provides a range of experiences. It doesn't answer the question that was asked in the title...

JALLEN wrote:67.3% of statistics are misleading, and the rest flat wrong.

So what part of the statistics is that statistic in? The misleading or the flat wrong?