Double Impact
New member
Any one have any Idea what the odds are that you will ever need to use your carry gun in a SD situation? (While away from home) Because home is where you'll most likely need it sooner.
What are the odds
- Thread starter Double Impact
- Start date
Any one have any Idea what the odds are that you will ever need to use your carry gun in a SD situation? (While away from home) Because home is where you'll most likely need it sooner.
'Nuff said?azredhawk44
Moderator
Many pro-gun organizations estimate the self defensive use of guns at 2 million per year.
Not necessarily defensive shootings, but situations where a defender pulling a gun causes the agressor to stop and seek alternate action.
This does not include police officers.
If there are 80 million gun owners in the US (I think this figure is low...but I'm not a statistician) then that gives you a 2/80, 1/40 or about a 2.5% chance of needing a gun in any particular year.
Over the course of your adult life of 50 years, you approach near certainty of needing a gun at some point in your life (2.5 * 50 = 125, or 125% likelihood).
However, this logic is flawed by the fact that prepared CCW oriented folks have better situational awareness as a demographic than other folks and take preventative measures to avoid armed confrontation.
Not necessarily defensive shootings, but situations where a defender pulling a gun causes the agressor to stop and seek alternate action.
This does not include police officers.
If there are 80 million gun owners in the US (I think this figure is low...but I'm not a statistician) then that gives you a 2/80, 1/40 or about a 2.5% chance of needing a gun in any particular year.
Over the course of your adult life of 50 years, you approach near certainty of needing a gun at some point in your life (2.5 * 50 = 125, or 125% likelihood).
However, this logic is flawed by the fact that prepared CCW oriented folks have better situational awareness as a demographic than other folks and take preventative measures to avoid armed confrontation.
Somehow I just dont believe that number....Youre saying you are pretty much more than guaranteed to have to use the gun in 50 years.
By multiplying it like you did, youre saying every year you dont have to use it, you are more likely to have to use it the next. I say if it is a 2.5% chance for one year, its the same for the next, so its the same for a lifetime.
I have no numbers or stats, but I think the general likelyhood is pretty low as long as youre not out looking to use it.
By multiplying it like you did, youre saying every year you dont have to use it, you are more likely to have to use it the next. I say if it is a 2.5% chance for one year, its the same for the next, so its the same for a lifetime.
I have no numbers or stats, but I think the general likelyhood is pretty low as long as youre not out looking to use it.
davlandrum
New member
Sorry, but flawed statistical logic.
The probablility something will occur remains constant given the same parameters.
If the probability is 2.5% (illustration only, I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with that number) in a year, it will be 2.5% this year, 2.5% next year, etc. It is not cumulative.
This is the trick that makes the casinos millions of dollars. It seems logical that the more times we pull the slot machine handle, the higher our odds of hitting the big jack pot, so we keep feeding the machine. The reality is your chance of hitting the big jack pot is the same on the first pull as the 1,000th pull. You have just bet the same odds 1,000 times.
The probablility something will occur remains constant given the same parameters.
If the probability is 2.5% (illustration only, I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with that number) in a year, it will be 2.5% this year, 2.5% next year, etc. It is not cumulative.
This is the trick that makes the casinos millions of dollars. It seems logical that the more times we pull the slot machine handle, the higher our odds of hitting the big jack pot, so we keep feeding the machine. The reality is your chance of hitting the big jack pot is the same on the first pull as the 1,000th pull. You have just bet the same odds 1,000 times.
SwampYankee
New member
Tophe is correct. You cannot multiply the odds the way you have. If I flip a coin and get heads, that has no bearing on the next flip. Both flips are independent events. Heads or tails, it is always a 50% chance. Now the odds of flipping 3 heads in a row is a multiplicative event that equals 0.125%. azredhawk44 is correct in saying that 2.5% probably is a general percentage that accounts for the entire populace, few of which are CCW. Oh, and even if 2 million incidents occur, how many happen to the same person who continues the same poor practices or lives in a crime ridden location? Many CCW carriers are smart enough to stay away from places and situations that require the use of a gun.
KingEdward
New member
good question.
I don't think you could really put any mathematical number to it. Some of us live in very unsafe cities. Memphis, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta. Others live and move in "safer" areas. Would a "less safe" area up the odds? Would living on an island with very little crime lower the odds?
Also, each person lives life differently. For instance, I hardly ever go out after 9pm and hardly ever frequent downtown areas or other areas that I know are bad due to police statistics or from personal experience. In other words, I try to keep risk of situations to a minimim. I enjoy life none the less. However, I know others who don't worry about any risk and all the time go down town past midnight or buy a condo in a gang infested neighborhood and think nothing of it.
If someone sat me down in a room and forced me to give odds or a percentage on having to use my CCW in SD I'd would say the odds are about
1 in 10 (or 10%) that I will have to in some fashion. Again, depends on several things. The word EVER can cover a long time period. I'm only mid thirties and plan to ccw as long as I can responsibly handle and do so.
I have put my hand on my CCW twice in the last 3 years. Once in a parking garage when approached/asked for some money and once at a gas station when two teens confronted me for money/food. Verbal warnings stopped any possible agression and there was no USE of CCW. But they knew it could happen which is why I think it didn't happen.
I don't think you could really put any mathematical number to it. Some of us live in very unsafe cities. Memphis, Detroit, Miami, Atlanta. Others live and move in "safer" areas. Would a "less safe" area up the odds? Would living on an island with very little crime lower the odds?
Also, each person lives life differently. For instance, I hardly ever go out after 9pm and hardly ever frequent downtown areas or other areas that I know are bad due to police statistics or from personal experience. In other words, I try to keep risk of situations to a minimim. I enjoy life none the less. However, I know others who don't worry about any risk and all the time go down town past midnight or buy a condo in a gang infested neighborhood and think nothing of it.
If someone sat me down in a room and forced me to give odds or a percentage on having to use my CCW in SD I'd would say the odds are about
1 in 10 (or 10%) that I will have to in some fashion. Again, depends on several things. The word EVER can cover a long time period. I'm only mid thirties and plan to ccw as long as I can responsibly handle and do so.
I have put my hand on my CCW twice in the last 3 years. Once in a parking garage when approached/asked for some money and once at a gas station when two teens confronted me for money/food. Verbal warnings stopped any possible agression and there was no USE of CCW. But they knew it could happen which is why I think it didn't happen.
Doodlebugger45
New member
Around here, it's fairly peaceful for most of the year. But in the summertime you have to worried about neighbors who come and leave vegetables on your front porch when their gardens are producting too much. I don't mind the tomatoes too much, but the people who leave zucchini on my steps are really crossing the line. That's when a guy really needs to have a 454 sitting by the door.
Distortion
New member
azredhawk44 said:
Good Lord AZ, that is not how statistics work! If you were correct, anyone could eventually win the lottery the more times they play for different drawings. In other words, the odds are the same for each different situation. It doesn't get any higher, unless some perp is specifically targeting you.
I've already used mine, on a feral dog that was getting a little too agressive in my brother's yard while I was there.
It was the one time in several months that my carry handgun was laying on the seat of my truck (under a jacket), instead of being in my holster. I'd stopped by the post office (parked next door) for my mail, and hadn't returned it to the holster yet.
I had a devil of a time getting to it without getting bit, but I finally did. I would have just gotten into the truck, but my brother and an employee were still exposed and being more or less attacked.
Never know when you'll need it, so I try to carry everywhere I can legally carry.
Daryl
It was the one time in several months that my carry handgun was laying on the seat of my truck (under a jacket), instead of being in my holster. I'd stopped by the post office (parked next door) for my mail, and hadn't returned it to the holster yet.
I had a devil of a time getting to it without getting bit, but I finally did. I would have just gotten into the truck, but my brother and an employee were still exposed and being more or less attacked.
Never know when you'll need it, so I try to carry everywhere I can legally carry.
Daryl
Let's assume there's a 2% chance (easier math) of using a gun in self defense per year. Let's also assume, it is a random action even though we all know it is not. As others mentioned, you cannot simply add 2% together and figure that in 50 years, there is a 100% chance you will use one. Nor is it true that over your life, there is only a 2% chance. There is a 2% chance in any given year, but the longer you live the higher the chances of needing to use a gun.
So, what would the chances be over 50 years?
The formula would be 1 - (49/50)^50. In other words, find 49/50 to the 50th power and subtract it from one. I don't have time to do the math now. For an explanation using dice, look at http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html but ignore the first answer. It is wrong.
So, what would the chances be over 50 years?
The formula would be 1 - (49/50)^50. In other words, find 49/50 to the 50th power and subtract it from one. I don't have time to do the math now. For an explanation using dice, look at http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html but ignore the first answer. It is wrong.
I would also have to believe that each individual's % chance would vary depending on their physical appearance. 6'-6" 250#s most people look the other way let alone initiate physical confrontation. Situational awareness goes for the BG's also. One peek at the Gorilla that just walked in the house will most likely have them reconsidering their intended target. That is why scumbags target seniors so often. Easier targets for the most part.
Okay, I did the math on the formula in my previous post here. If 2% of the population needed to use a gun for self defense each year, then over a course of 50 years, there would be a 63.6% chance you would need one.
As mentioned before, the 2% per year is a BIG assumption and the calculations rely upon random chance which would not be the case in real life.
As mentioned before, the 2% per year is a BIG assumption and the calculations rely upon random chance which would not be the case in real life.
If we use the 2% probability in any year (rather questionable, since that would mean 6 MILLION occurances every year...but we'll use it for simplicity). Next, we'll assume a 50 year period. The simplest method is to use a binomial distribution. This will give an overall probability for random events repeated multiple times. ("Success" being a defensive gun use, in the model)
If you have excel, you can enter " =1-binomdist(0,50,0.02,1) "
The "0" represents the number of successes
The 50 is number of trials (50yrs)
0.02 is the probability
"1" means it is cumulative (number of succcesses or less)
So, that is the probability of 100% minus the probability of NOT having a DGU in 50 years; which is the probability of having one or more DGUs.
Now, if we use the NCVS estimate from the DoJ (1993 version) and US census info, we get 108,000 DGUs per year out of a population of 253,996,000. That is a 1 year probability of 0.000425 or 0.0425%. Running that probability through the above formula gives a probability of 0.021 or a 2.1% chance of using a gun to defend yourself in the next 50 years. Now, the NCVS data is usually considered a low estimate.
Of course this assumes a LOT--constant crime rates, accurate DGU estimates, equal probability (which we know is NOT true), and a few other things.
I'm glad I took that Stats class
If you have excel, you can enter " =1-binomdist(0,50,0.02,1) "
The "0" represents the number of successes
The 50 is number of trials (50yrs)
0.02 is the probability
"1" means it is cumulative (number of succcesses or less)
So, that is the probability of 100% minus the probability of NOT having a DGU in 50 years; which is the probability of having one or more DGUs.
Now, if we use the NCVS estimate from the DoJ (1993 version) and US census info, we get 108,000 DGUs per year out of a population of 253,996,000. That is a 1 year probability of 0.000425 or 0.0425%. Running that probability through the above formula gives a probability of 0.021 or a 2.1% chance of using a gun to defend yourself in the next 50 years. Now, the NCVS data is usually considered a low estimate.
Of course this assumes a LOT--constant crime rates, accurate DGU estimates, equal probability (which we know is NOT true), and a few other things.
I'm glad I took that Stats class
Shadi Khalil
New member
I think that the chance you will have to use it are very slim. The chance you may have to pull your gun might be higher but the chances of the threat/attack stopping without a shot being fired are also high too.