I'm new here and to cc

[Sam Shoun]

The odds of a gun grab as you describe are less than low, they are statistically 0.

However I have seen stories where a CC person has had their firearm taken from them during the course of a crime.

I'm not saying OC is the best thing for everyone, gotta do what you are comfortable with, but generally a criminal that sees someone carrying a firearm will move on to a softer target.

I can easily hold my tongue on the issue of open carry, but not on the abuse of probability.

The probability of a typical individual in a reasonably low-crime area being attacked at all is quite low--presumably even lower for those with a mindset to avoid being targeted. The probability of a gun-grab in an attack (whether concealed or openly carried) is therefore also quite low. But the fact that one is aware of multiple cases of such gun-grabs at all (via the limited sampling of events that make it into prominent news media, the sampling further reduced to those events which make it to one's awareness) is actually a statistical indication that, within the context of these unlikely attacks, gun-grabs happen with significant frequency.

Also, risk is not probability alone--the other component is the magnitude of the result. Since the result of losing one's gun to an attacker is likely death or severe injury, it is a risk the OP is probably wise to mitigate.

 

[Pulp]

A full 50% of the two banks here in Valliant have "no guns" signage. The other 50% doesn't. I've been banking at the one with the sign for 30 years. Concealed is concealed.

 

[hrdware]

The probability of a typical individual in a reasonably low-crime area being attacked at all is quite low--presumably even lower for those with a mindset to avoid being targeted. The probability of a gun-grab in an attack (whether concealed or openly carried) is therefore also quite low. But the fact that one is aware of multiple cases of such gun-grabs at all (via the limited sampling of events that make it into prominent news media, the sampling further reduced to those events which make it to one's awareness) is actually a statistical indication that, within the context of these unlikely attacks, gun-grabs happen with significant frequency.

Also, risk is not probability alone--the other component is the magnitude of the result. Since the result of losing one's gun to an attacker is likely death or severe injury, it is a risk the OP is probably wise to mitigate.

You might just need to break that down for me so I can better understand your point. From my reading of your post, you are confirming what I said.

I agree with your first two sentences, but after that I'm lost.

But the fact that one is aware of multiple cases of such gun-grabs at all (via the limited sampling of events that make it into prominent news media, the sampling further reduced to those events which make it to one's awareness) is actually a statistical indication that, within the context of these unlikely attacks, gun-grabs happen with significant frequency.

I said I have seen stories (2 or 3) where a CC individual has lost their firearm to a criminal. So because the sample size is so small, and I have seen a couple of stories over several years, then statistically CCers loose their firearms during these crimes fairly regularly??? Is that what this means??

I made no mention of stories relating to OC gun grabs of which I only know of 1 which really wasn't a gun grab but a robbery.

I also agree with your last sentence about risk not being equal to probability. If we accept that CCers loose their firearms more frequently than OCers due to the magnitude of stories seen (although rare), then statistically speaking, wouldn't one stand a better chance of not loosing their firearm if they were to OC rather than CC??

 

[Sam Shoun]

You might just need to break that down for me so I can better understand your point. From my reading of your post, you are confirming what I said.

I agree with your first two sentences, but after that I'm lost.



I said I have seen stories (2 or 3) where a CC individual has lost their firearm to a criminal. So because the sample size is so small, and I have seen a couple of stories over several years, then statistically CCers loose their firearms during these crimes fairly regularly??? Is that what this means??

I made no mention of stories relating to OC gun grabs of which I only know of 1 which really wasn't a gun grab but a robbery.

I also agree with your last sentence about risk not being equal to probability. If we accept that CCers loose their firearms more frequently than OCers due to the magnitude of stories seen (although rare), then statistically speaking, wouldn't one stand a better chance of not loosing their firearm if they were to OC rather than CC??

I'm not making a distinction between gun-grabs related to OC vs CC, or between a gun-grab and a gun fully lost to an attacker. I'm simply addressing the implication that, since one is personally aware of only a few gun-grabs in recent years, the probability of the OP encountering one is zero.

The odds of a gun grab as you describe are less than low, they are statistically 0.

I realize your verbiage may have been selected casually, without the intent of a technical risk diagnosis. But this error, while minor, is a common one that leads to unconscious exposure to risk in many arenas of life, self-defense included.

To know the probability of a gun-grab, say for a given year, we would need every detail, with complete accuracy, of each of that year's defensive gun uses (DGU's). We could derive from that, with 100% certainty, two sets of information--the DGU's that definitely included a gun-grab, and the DGU's that definitely did not include a gun grab.

Instead, what we have largely amounts to a handful of news reports across several years of recent history. Most of us here feel confident in a few assumptions--that the media are biased against reporting on DGU's, that the media are biased against reporting on some types of crimes that are likely to result in DGU's (a number of political agendas feeding this), that the coverage of DGU's we get usually lacks relevant detail and fails to achieve nationwide news distribution. So based on these assumptions, we can believe we are missing detailed reports of most DGU's. In this case, we have three sets of information: DGU's which definitely include a gun-grab (because it's reported, shown on video, etc), DGU's that definitely did not include a gun-grab (mostly those cases caught on video), and DGU's that may or may not have included a gun-grab (due to lack of detail, or total lack of media coverage).

Consider an analogy: imagine we randomly pull sets of ten birth records from a hospital's records. We know that, in total, the hospital must deliver about 50% boys and 50% girls. But within each set of ten, what would you expect the most skewed percentage to be? Would you believe one set could be 9 girls and 1 boy? If we knew only that limited sampling, we would be tempted to make some very inaccurate conclusions.

Now imagine I've studied the news coverage for 200 of the 3.5 million cases of DGU's in the last five years (based on Kleck's low-side estimate of 700,000 per year). How skewed would you believe my data could be?

Based on the marginal data quality and limited sampling, all we can say statistically is that gun-grabs happened sometimes. We don't know how much.

I hope this is still relevant for the OP. If not, I apologize for the derailment.

 

[drew]

Based on the marginal data quality and limited sampling, all we can say statistically is that gun-grabs happened sometimes. We don't know how much.

I hope this is still relevant for the OP. If not, I apologize for the derailment.

It's a slight derailment, and I don't mind and am fine with, but that is the nature of conversation and debate. The original topic was meant to be only a musing on the nature of people not paying the slightest bit of attention to their surrounding.
As for the the topic of "gun grabs", all be it the tiniest of possibilities, it's something that I would like to remove any possibility of happening by at least an untucked shirt. As I had also said, my employers will not allow it and it's my preference. I don't really want to draw any attention.

 

[Arin Morris]

I OC with a retention holster. Just like OC or CC, do what you're comfortable with.