3 ms·

I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I know firearm companies love to talk about stories of it saving a life, b

I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I know firearm companies love to talk about stories of it saving a life, but I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.

Vecr 3y ago
For most people I think it matters if you think probabilistic deterrence is a real thing or not. Think about it like this, do you vote, even if your vote has almost zero chance of changing the outcome by normal lights?
mhb 3y ago
I think you would want to factor in to your gut feel the deterrent effect conferred by the increased likelihood that possible victim targets are armed even if they aren't.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  This is not necessarily net positive. Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side": Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
Ancapistani 3y ago
For context, I'm something of an absolutist about arms and self defense; I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been completely disarmed in the past decade. That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases. > I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint. Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party. I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical. On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone. > I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions. To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds. > My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good. I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things. The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it. I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me. In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  > I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it I think this is dangerous framing. My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents. I think its impossible to prevent those by selectively granting concealed carry permits or whatever, I believe that they outweight the positive outcomes where a firearm allows you to kill or fend off an aggressor. But I still think that you should have the right to carry even if its mostly net-negative...
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    > My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight. I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed. Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself. > this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are. > For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents. For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated. I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias. I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context. --- For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute. I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron". About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger. I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare). Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :) This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!

Vecr 3y ago

For most people I think it matters if you think probabilistic deterrence is a real thing or not. Think about it like this, do you vote, even if your vote has almost zero chance of changing the outcome by normal lights?

mhb 3y ago

I think you would want to factor in to your gut feel the deterrent effect conferred by the increased likelihood that possible victim targets are armed even if they aren't.

myrmidon 3y ago
This is not necessarily net positive. Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side": Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).

Ancapistani 3y ago

For context, I'm something of an absolutist about arms and self defense; I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been completely disarmed in the past decade. That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases. > I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint. Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party. I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical. On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone. > I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions. To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds. > My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good. I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things. The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it. I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me. In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.

myrmidon 3y ago
> I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it I think this is dangerous framing. My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents. I think its impossible to prevent those by selectively granting concealed carry permits or whatever, I believe that they outweight the positive outcomes where a firearm allows you to kill or fend off an aggressor. But I still think that you should have the right to carry even if its mostly net-negative...
- Ancapistani 3y ago
  > My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight. I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed. Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself. > this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations. I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are. > For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents. For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated. I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias. I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context. --- For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute. I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron". About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger. I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare). Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :) This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!