CCW 24/7 or now and then - who is safer to others?

1 - people with a CCW who carry all of the time are safer to be around

2 - People with a CCW who carry depending on circumstance and variables are safer to be around.

I was shooting for a poll (pardon the expression) but I’m not sure I’m doing it right. And I’m just flat-out curious about what other people think. Like someone who drives every day can be better at it and safer for the rest of us than a “Sunday Driver” do you think someone who makes it a daily habit to carry (legally of course) poses less of a risk than people who “sometimes do, sometimes not”.

I know - everyone should carry, no one should carry, guns are good and guns are bad. All that is a given. But of these two choices, who is the best in your opinion?

Define, “all of the time.” I carry most of the time I’m out and about, the exceptions being when I’m statutorily not allowed to (courthouses, polling places, bars, 30.06 signs, etc…). That said, I was all set to fly to Maryland to pick up a new-to-us car and drive it back. MD isn’t CCW friendly at all. I was annoyed at the idea at having to drive back 1500 miles or so, and bumping around MD for a day, sans pistol, but it didn’t really bug me enough to not want to go through with the sale. And I think I’d skip going to the beach, if it meant that I’d have to carry in a swimsuit. It’d be my luck for the damned thing, holster and all, to fall out while I was surfing. Though pkbites is right—the micro .380s are really, really tiny. So you could carry one easily if you wanted to, I guess.

The big determinant for safety, as I see it, is whether the carrier is constantly handling their pistol or not, not how often they carry. E.g., the genius police officer in KY who managed to shoot himself while he was in the elevator. Why on Earth was he f*(king with his pistol then? Why do it at all?

Mine sits in a holster unless I’m cleaning it or shooting/dry firing practice with it. Period. It’s not shooting anyone, wrapped in a holster. There’s just no need to mess with it. If I need to carry it, I stick the holster in my pocket or waistband. Even with a more complicated, tuckable holster, I’m not messing with the pistol: I usually take the entire assembly and place it where I need to, and then adjust the clips just so. When I don’t need to carry it, I place the entire assembly someplace safe. Buy a quality holster and the pistol won’t come out of it until you want it to, and the pistol will be just fine.

This really isn’t that hard, IMHO.

What brought up the subject, if you don’t mind me asking?

While I would prefer the not listed option 3 (no guns nearby) I would cross my fingers and go with option 1 and place my trust in the person that should be more aware of the proper handling of a handgun.

As a side question, how difficult is it to obtain a permit for one of these (CCW) ? I would guess it varies by state but I would hope it is at least similar to a drivers license.

My logic may be off, but I chose the second option. My thinking is that someone who carries all the time is likely to become complacent or thoughtless or forgetful.

On the other hand, the person who only carries under certain circumstances, assuming no criminal intent, is likely to be more aware, therefore more careful.

In my ideal world, no one would feel that carrying a weapon was necessary, but I know that’s a dream.

You qualify for all the time as I’m considering it.

What brought the subject up is just my brain and the other threads about CCW lately. I’m thinking, IMHO, that back when I carried as a matter of course (back in my more rural days) that maybe my skills were a little better for it. And I’m just curious what other people think/feel.

I left out many option threes like yours, it depends on the person, just where am I and a lot of others because I am more curious about the “black and white” I posed. I’m sure one of you may come up with a better poll in the future. In a way I’m looking for the “knee jerk” response.

As for the second part - that could be another poll all its own. In PA a CCW is basically fill out a form. If you can legally buy a firearm (pass the instant background check required) you can get one. In Ohio, it is more like a drivers license where you have to pass a course of training and demonstrate some basic skills. The mileage very much varies state to state.

Totally non-scientifically-supported opinion, but of the news stories I’ve seen, I recall there being more stories of people who carry all the time accidentally shooting themselves in the foot than I do for people who rarely carry. For instances of intentional shootings, the majority of them seemed to be people getting shot who shouldn’t be. With that as the sum total of available data, I feel I’m safer around people who don’t have guns than those who do. On your poll, the second option is the only on which offered “fewer people with guns,” so that’s what I went with.

I prefer full time people to be around. Professional types. Full time IMO is best since no conditions were put on part time. Twice a week or twice a year?
Plains clothes LEO’s

This is the scary part for me. Maybe it is all you have. :eek:

That is sort of a bias in a two choice poll I accepted when I set it up. I understand the feeling and thank you for the participation. Its filling in some points in my thoughts the other threads didn’t.

Need an option for “It doesn’t matter / Inconclusive,” which is what I suspect that data would say, if we had any. Do we have any?

As pro-gun people like to say, guns are everywhere and incidents are rare. 11 million CCW permit holders in this country, and we’re not exactly inundated with stories of CCW holders accidentally or intentionally shooting someone they shouldn’t have. Plenty of fodder for the “Stupid Gun News of the Day” thread, but I don’t think it amounts to a serious risk. I’m certainly not concerned on a daily basis about accidentally getting plugged by Joe Carrier, whether he’s a full-timer or not.

On the other hand, I think the odds of a CCW permit holder using their gun to protect me from a mugger/robber/invader/spree killer are also rare, probably more so, and again I don’t think it really matters whether they’re a full-timer or part-timer. Also again, plenty of fodder for the vigilante justice column in the NRA magazine, but not enough to suggest that I should really care about the proficiency of my anonymous “protectors” (implied roll-eyes).

I’m gonna vote for part-timers because I’d like to think that they’re actually considering their circumstances and the risks a little better, but I don’t think I have any statistical reason to feel that way.

I know you are looking for a black and white answer but B&W just doesn’t work if neither optioin is valid, and for me they are not. My comfort level is based solely on the person carrying. To give a fictional example, in the old TV series “The Andy Griffith Show” Sheriff Andy Taylor rarely carried a firearm but was highly responsible and purposeful when he did. OTOH, Barney Fife carried always and was constantly firing on accident. I know, it was a comedy series but still, the greater point is valid. It’s the person, not the frequency.

This is one of the main issues I have with the whole gun discussion: the numbers are insane, all over the map, and not too reliably-reported. If we had generally-accepted, reliable stats one way or the other, it would go a long way towards making a solution that’s acceptable to both sides. But until then, every time we discuss anything, the questions come up: exactly how many guns are there? How many owners? How well-trained are they? How many defensive gun uses are there, and how are we defining defensive gun use? I can guarantee you that most of the people reading this post are just dying to post a link answering some of these questions, and I will bet you a dollar that their answers will not match. With all this wiggle room in the foundation of the discussion, there’s no way anybody can come up with a sensible answer.

That said, I think steronz stated my case better than I did.

I agree with a lot you have said & I also think steronz made some very good points as well.

How do we know for sure?

IMO, it is about education, K-12, education, attitude and for me is the big problem of who says so.

If the laws on the books were enforced now, felons, repeat offenders, really insane people, ( yeah, there has to be a line or some thing so more than one person can make the call ) yet, how/why do up get to lump me into it?

Define intelligent weapon control… Not me…

If we go by some test of the actual fear level of the whole world, we would have a starting place.

Not going to need to worry about that for a long long time.

So much variation… :confused:

It varies wildly from state to state. My state is on one extreme. It is technically possible to get a concealed carry permit but effectively impossible. Even those who need a weapon for work such as bonded armed security guards are licensed to only carry at work and must lock the gun away while going to and from the job. The only people I know who can carry are current and retired law enforcement. On the other end there are states where if you don’t have a felony record it means automatic approval.

That is pretty much how I feel so I didn’t vote.

They also can be a real bitch to shoot depending on ammo. Which is why I only carry one when a baby Glock is even too hard to conceal (and open carry isn’t a good choice).

Very close to my opinion. There’s simply multiple factors I don’t know that affect what ultimately are small risks (negligent discharge vs no weapon to protect me from a violent act). It’s kind of like asking if I should wear a rain coat on July 1st this year.

Well, if it was really Barney Fife the risks are less small… He wouldn’t be carrying around me for long.

Something like a Hogue Handall Jr really cuts down on the perceived recoil on my Kahr, IMHO. Even when firing stuff like Corbon or Buffalo Bore. It’s not my first choice for shooting a hundred rounds, but not flinch-inducing to do so, again IMHO. I understand some of the others are an actual pain though, like the Bersa Thunder. Fit is a giant part of it, and impossible to figure out until you actually shoot one.

Reliability is my biggest annoyance with the mouse guns, not recoil. I’m still not happy with mine, but it is better than not having it at all. I was really hoping the Glock 42 (.380) would be as utterly reliable as my Glock 30 (.45ACP). Nope, which is a bummer. I’m eager to see though if they make a similar model in 9mm though.

Anyway, I agree with Ethilrist’s point about firearms risk and benefit stats being all over the place, as well as FairyChatMom’s point about familiarity breeding contempt. We’re dealing with very small numbers of instances, if we’re talking about negligent discharges from a CHL holder, and inferences drawn from a small event total can be misleading. I have no idea whether the risk per unit time is so much lower from the habitual carrier, due to established safety habits, that it makes up for the much greater amount of time the habitual carrier potentially exposes others to the risk of an ND.

The Kahr is slightly beefer than say a Kel Tec. Try shooting a 105grain through a KT.
That sucker barks. But the next round down is a .32. Nowhere near the stopping power of a .380.

I guess I CCW every day…

  • .".

Assuming that’s a pen, I did see some once that were chambered for .32acp and could still write as well. I believe there is some sort of heavy federal tax/registration with them. Obsolete muzzle-loader style or pre-1898 are fine but hidden modern ammo pieces get to be REAL expensive.

But that brings up another variable that differs from state to state. In some states what we are calling here (on the Dope) a CCW includes things other than firearms. For a larger (than say 5 inch blade) knife not visible all the time its the same license as a pistol. I do know one person who got a CCW to cover the boot knife he always has on him.

The evidence is overwhelming that having a gun is a risk factor in itself. Thousands and thousands of incidents have happened, where the gun carrier gets shot for having a gun, shoots themselves, gets mad and shoots others, or has a negligent discharge. We are advanced primates - you included.

With that said, obviously, if you’re in a place you have to visit as part of your daily life where having a gun would deter would be attackers, or let you shoot your way out of a bad situation, then carrying ccw is probably a net positive. Are you a bail bondsman? Social worker? At risk youth councilor? Pack a piece. Otherwise, leave it in a safe or don’t own a gun at all.

Don’t believe the bullshit. Sure, you could get attacked at Luby’s or at a local high school - but while the risk factor is there, the risk to yourself from having a firearm is greater.