NPR: Does carrying a pistol make you safer?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BarryLee said:
While I obviously support the right to carry and believe it makes you safer I’m not sure it results in a reduction of crime. Crime has gone down for a variety of reasons some obvious others not so obvious. For instance some believe things like the legalization of abortion have reduced crime as unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.
Click to expand...

I have heard that too. but when you really dig into the numbers.
I think what you would find is even more sinister than that.

In actuality I am pretty sure the poor people are not having abortions. They are being encouraged to have more children affecting a higher strain on the system.

The class having abortions are the lower middle class. Working class if you will.
We actually need those children to be born and become productive citizens.

So we are loosing the people who could and would do the work and replacing them with people who dont know how to work.
Its not an accident ether.
 
Skipping the memes "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy" and the one about 911 and police being minutes away, I carry because I truly feel we all have to take ownership in our personal safety...carrying that further, our country was founded on the individual and their rights and responsibilities...so yes my family and I are safer, and yes by default responsible ccw has without a doubt made us all a bit safer.
I will add that buying a firearm and getting your ccw is the easy part...but it doesn't necessarily make you safer...it's the training, practice, tactics, and most importantly the situational awareness that make you safer...and please remember those are all finite diminishing skills...they must be renewed.
 
I'm surprised that so few here have recognized the subtle bias in the NPR article. It's not overt and doesn't use the standard gun grabber tactics.

But they portrayed gun owners as racist and paranoid. They cherry-picked 3 events involving concealed carriers and none were positive for the carrier. They made it seem like having a gun was useless unless you got special tactical training.
 
Keep it on topic, please

Abortion, the "bread & circuses" approach of our welfare system, and several other topics are NOT suitable topics for discussion in this forum.

There are plenty of other places on the web to discuss them. Please stay on topic (and keep it handgun /firearms related) or we are done.

As to the OP, "does carrying a pistol make you safer?" I think that is a rather foolish question, one with a built in "slant" to aim opinion.

Carrying a pistol does NOT make you safer. Period. Particularly concealed carry. The pistol ONLY matters AFTER your reasonable efforts at staying safe FAIL. What the pistol does, is give you an option to defend yourself with. It is not a magic talisman that wards off evil. It if NOT a guarantee of successfully defending yourself, either. It is an option you use, in gravest extreme, and, indeed, (carry gun) has no real use until you reach that point.

But IF you reach that point, NOTHING else is as useful.

"does carrying a pistol make you safer"? It's a loaded question, because the honest answer must be "no". So it begs the follow up question, "then why do it??"

With the implication that since it doesn't "make you safer" there is no point to carrying it, and by extension, no point to having a pistol, at all.

RED HERRING, people.

Quite simply, the only thing(s) that "make you safer" are the choices you make BEFORE you are attacked. Once an attack happens, you have lost "safety" and THEN a pistol can be of vital importance.

Studies that "show" this or that, MAY have some truth, about overall numbers, but do NOT apply well to you, or I, as an individual. IF you are in that situation, facing someone with violent intent and a clear ability to carry it out, unless stopped, telling them, or yourself that it "can't be happening", because "crime rates are down" isn't going to do you much good at all.
 
I'd listened to both the Morning Edition & All Things Considered reports and it was really unbiased. Kind of surprising due to NPR historically being a liberal media platform.

The ATC report also talked about having to use your gun. Had 3 examples. Pretty accurate reporting. REFRESHING :)
 
It is clear that the author, and NPR have a bias. It is also clear that the comments that made the piece support that perspective. Intelligent, articulate concealed carry holders are not generally given much coverage, while those who support the anti-gun stereotype are. Racism, bigotry and paranoia are in good supply on all sides of the gun argument. The better we all are at articulating why exercising our 2A rights is a responsible way of supporting our Constitution and our way of life, the better our chances of helping the millions of Americans who are undecided on this issue.
 
I was impressed by the NPR article, very neutral. So neutral in fact the multiple forums I linked this article to; people either like it or hate it.

The article was written to let you put your own bias on the subject.

People who immediately don't like NPR call it anti-gun.
People who don't like guns call it pro-gun.
People who are pro gun find it surprisingly neutral with a touch of bias.


Very interesting indeed. :eek:
 
I would disagree...this article is similar to training a stubborn dog...you have get them to want to do what you want them to do...the author is subtly leading you where they want you to go but want you to think its a good idea.
While I freely admit to not liking NPR-I did give this an honest chance...and NPR did once again function as expected. How many rational intelligent gun owners did the author skip over to find one that admitted to profiling-looking for weird people or gangbangers? How many did he ask or how did he format questions to get the answer that carrying a gun is exciting? Just another biased article pretending to be something else...at best it was an in depth editorial.
 
Last edited:
I carry a pistol every day.

Does carrying a pistol make me any safer? No.

I have the same chance as everyone else that I will be affected by a nefarious person.




I was recently in a car accident that was not my fault. After the impact the other driver came to the driver side of my door and tried to open it, it was locked, then he tried to beat out my window; during which time I called 911.

Its not like the window was going to shatter, its laminated and tinted; I wished he would have managed to break the window really...(He was a hothead that needed to get a lesson why you don't change lanes into someone.)

Make a long story short, after he was finished getting the sand out of his vag and he stepped toward his car, I hopped out of mind and at that point is when he walked toward me, and I kept the same amount of distance between he and I.

If he decided to run toward me, we would have had a round of fisticuffs.

He finally calmed down enough to get into his car to get his insurance information and magically settled down when he saw the police arrive. (I wasn't the only one who called.)

The gun didn't make me any safer, and I wasn't about to end someones life for being a hot head.
 
The gun didn't make me any safer, and I wasn't about to end someones life for being a hot head.
Click to expand...

It did not make you any safer in this particular incident because it was not needed in this particular incident.

Would it make you safer in an incident where it was needed, where instead of a "hothead" you were dealing with a potential killer? That would depend entirely upon having it, your willingness to use it, and your ability to use it proficiently.

I would disagree...this article is similar to training a stubborn dog...you have get them to want to do what you want them to do...the author is subtly leading you where they want you to go but want you to think its a good idea.
While I freely admit to not liking NPR-I did give this an honest chance...and NPR did once again function as expected. How many rational intelligent gun owners did the author skip over to find one that admitted to profiling-looking for weird people or gangbangers? How many did he ask or how did he format questions to get the answer that carrying a gun is exciting? Just another biased article pretending to be something else...at best it was an in depth editorial.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much where I ended up, though I'll give them credit for not being so blatant, and using a little subtlety.
 
13 million is only 36% of the U.S. population. That 36% is carrying primarily because they can rather than having the need to carry. Who'd want to live some place where you had to carry anyway?
Personally, I've never felt any need to be armed while Stateside. Where it wouldn't be legal for me to have a firearm in the first place. Nobody has ever bothered me in any way. Even as a young buck wandering along the main drag in downtown Buffalo and later as an old bull doing the same thing.
Like 44 AMP says, carrying a pistol does not make you safer. Might make you feel safer, but it doesn't do much if you don't regularly practice with the ammo you use while carrying anyway. Doesn't make all the druggies, criminals and assorted loonies go away either.
 
T. O'Heir the population of the US in 2014 was 318.9 million. 13 million is about 4%. Whether or not I, or any other civilian needs to carry is open for discussion. Based on the number of violent criminal attacks every day in my country (and yours), I say that I do. I haven't needed a seatbelt for many years, but I wear one ever time I get in a vehicle.
 
The adult (18 and over) population of the U.S. is about 250 million. 13 million (if that is correct) licensed carriers is about 0.05% of the adult population. Whether that is bad, or good, or alarming, or comforting is up to you, but it is not anywhere near 36% or even 4%. Frankly, I doubt there are enough licensed carriers to make any real difference in crime, one way or another.

Jim
 
James K with all due respect, that is 5% of the adult population. I agree that is not enough to statistically make a difference...unless it does.
 
I don't care whether someone else thinks it makes anyone safer or not. It is my business if I carry and no one else's.

Some liberals have told me that the unprecedented decline in the murder rate over the past 23 years is due to better hospital emergency room treatment of gunshot wounds.

Hooo-kay. :rolleyes:
 
I don't care whether someone else thinks it makes anyone safer or not. It is my business if I carry and no one else's.

Some liberals have told me that the unprecedented decline in the murder rate over the past 23 years is due to better hospital emergency room treatment of gunshot wounds.

Hooo-kay
Click to expand...

Yup, it's your choice, and I support that 100%. I will however have to agree with your liberal friends. I believe that the ability to receive rapid and highly skilled care immediately following a shooting saves lives. It's not murder if the victim lives.
 
I believe that the ability to receive rapid and highly skilled care immediately following a shooting saves lives
Click to expand...

I believe this also. Be sure to include modern medicines in that as well.

If you look at history, before the advent of the modern medical era (which essentially began in the 1920s), you find that earlier, handguns were very, effective killers. Usually within a couple of weeks of being shot, if not sooner.

By and large, back then, if you got shot, anywhere, your odds of dying were 50%. You either lived, or you didn't, and when the bullet didn't kill you outright, infection usually did.

TODAY, very few, in the US, die from infection, thanks to modern medicines and medical care. It does still happen, but the rate of death from infection is hugely lower than it used to be. If the bullet doesn't kill you from direct damage, and you don't die of shock or blood loss before medical help arrives, the odds are pretty good you will live.

This generally holds true in developed nations, but in more remote parts of the world, you are at greater risk.
 
But they portrayed gun owners as racist and paranoid. They cherry-picked 3 events involving concealed carriers and none were positive for the carrier. They made it seem like having a gun was useless unless you got special tactical training.
Click to expand...

What would you call a "positive" outcome of having to use your CCW? Bear in mind that the author specifically was looking for people who had to pull the trigger, so instances where the bad guy runs away when he sees a gun don't count. Certified members of the internet bad@ss brigade may claim that they stand ready to mow down would-be criminals by the dozen, but in real life most people who have to kill another person have some degree of mental suffering after the fact, even if they were totally justified. It's not something that should be glossed over when we talk about the possible consequences of choosing to CCW.
 
NPR is my primary source of broadcast news, this story displayed less than their usual bias. I don't think that individual carrying reduces crime. But I do think that the collective impact of more responsible citizens carrying has a big impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top