I did a quick check, and we are talking about 500 people, on average over the last 10 years were killed annually by accidentally discharged firearms. Of course, not all of these were from someone carrying concealed, but we could use that figure. There are something like 3 million Americans who have carry conceal licenses. I was struggling to find a stat that low as a comparison, but I found that on average 500 children die a year in the US from…balloons. Of course, more than 3 million children play with balloons each year, but it gives some perspective on the amount of risk we are talking about.
So, even if we take all of the accidental shooting deaths, attribute them to people who carry conceal, you are talking about a pretty low probability. This isn’t to say I think it’s necessary (my own personal assessment), but from a risk perspective it’s a pretty low probably event. Of course, so is the need for it, so from a risk/reward perspective it’s a wash…IMHO and all.
Why is that the only situation? A concealed firearm is an excellent choice for the smaller and weaker among us who would like to have an equalizer versus those who intend using their superior physical strength and speed to get their way.
You make it sound like every draw of the weapons is like Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, where they draw and shoot in the blink of an eye and every shot (fired at the bad guy of course) is a hit. The reality is more like the Storm Troopers from Star Wars…lots of shots and few hits. Even in the military this is true.
I remember going to a seminar where the fire arms instructor played a scene from The Men Who Stare at Goats, where the officer was in Vietnam and noticed that most of his men were shooting at one lone Viet Cong running at them…and they were all missing. The fire arms instructor went on to say that this is actually pretty realistic, and gave some ridiculous statistic for, in war with trained personnel, there were a lot of shots fired per hit. Not even per kill, per person hit. I don’t recall exactly what the figure was, but it was in the hundreds of shots fired per hit.
Basically, the answer to your question is that just by having a gun you will almost certainly either scare off the other guy (even though he has a gun too) or panic him enough to make him miss. And you will probably be so panicked in return that you will miss as well and be lucky if one or both of you don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
This is just another thread by an anti insisting justification for exercising ones rights. Those on that side of the argument would have us believe that gun related crime is the fault of non-criminals owning/carrying firearms and would like to present reasons why such people should not be armed. Except their reasoning is flawed and their conclusions are ridiculous.
One figure for US effort in Vietnam was an estimate of 45,000 rounds per kill. A death might be the result of more than one hit, though deaths were a fairly small % of casualties but small arms bullets hits were more likely to cause death then more numerous hits from artillery or mortar fragments, depends if you count machine guns, one side’s assessment of other’s casualties could be inflated, etc. So loads of room for error in such figures, but most such estimates are in the 10k’s, some in the k’s, some 100k or more, definitely nowhere near 1% no matter how you count.
However, modern infantry combat has typically been at ranges of few a 10’s to few 100 meters against enemy soldiers lying down or behind cover, very often firing without seeing a specific human target, the object of one side’s fire often just to suppress the other’s in order to allow maneuver, again depends if you count machine gun fire (which expended a lot of the rifle caliber rounds). It’s altogether non comparable to few meters range civil self defense situations.
But by far the most important difference is that any study justifying the usefulness of guns for civil self defense relies on a vastly greater number of cases where the user does not have to even fire, let alone hit, to get out of a dangerous situation. Such studies are controversial, but IMO there often simply are no reliable studies or statistics on politico-socially controversial things, guns being one but far from the only one. The idea of many ‘disinterested social scientists’ on hot button issues is questionable IMO, and many studies are by advocacy groups. Therefore I’m not citing any particular study as being true. I’m just saying, the argument in favor of guns for civil self defense doesn’t necessarily rest on hit %.
I think the risks vary a lot by person deciding whether to carry. For me, the risks of caring a gun are unreasonably high.
one of my goals in life is to avoid ever killing someone. If I did draw a gun in self defense, there’s a risk I’d use it. And if I used it, I might kill someone. Yes, I’d rather be robbed or raped than kill someone else.
depression runs in my family, and I’ve suffered bouts of it. My grandfather killed himself in a moment of depression because he had a gun handy-by. There’s a non-trivial risk I would do the same on some gloomy day. A very large fraction of suicides are impulsive, not carefully planned, and there’s a strong correlation between the availability of firearms and suicide.
But other people have different life goals and different suicide risks. They might be able to carry much more safely than I can.
(I do have a distant cousin who killed his girlfriend when his firearm accidentally discharged as he was cleaning it or something. But I am a responsible enough person that I don’t think it’s have any significant risk of that.)
The reality is more like the Storm Troopers from Star Wars…lots of shots and few hits. Even in the military this is true.