Man with concealed firearm spoils carjackers fun.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Good. Same here.

"Unfortunately, the carrying of a weapon has a virtually zero effect on that likelihood [of becoming the victim of a violent crime]."

Got a cite for that? I recall reading that resistance with a firearm offered the best probability of avoiding harm in a violent crime scenario of any resistance method (including non-resistance). This was a good few years ago, however, and I don't recall the source. I'll look for it.

"The likelihood of a positive outcome is so remote for the majority of those who carry, in fact a negative outcome is more probable. "

Same request: source? I've seen lots of claims along the lines of "you have more chance of being shot with your own weapon than of shooting an attacker," but those claims never take into account defensive scenarios that do NOT include firing (which I think there is reason to believe constitute the majority...certainly my one and only DGU (defensive gun usage) went down like that).

There are, unfortunately, no reliable (or even vaguely adequate, IMO) statistics on crime prevention via civilian firearms. I consider every piece of research I've ever seen on this matter to be deeply methodologically flawed - and yes, that includes the ones that cite very high numbers of DGUs. The Achilles Heel of these studies lies in non-reporting of such incidents to the authorities...and it's my opinion that this occurs very frequently. I think a lot of generally law-abiding people have absolutely zero desire to involve the police in any aspect of their lives unless it's unavoidable. Studies that rely on official stats *grossly) under-report...and studies that rely on interviewing people w/o any way to verify their claims are subject to a huge "bullshit factor."

The upshot on this particular point is that each of us has to ely on an assessment without solid empirical backing...and we've arrived at different conclusions. No problem! =)

"I don't remember too many where lives were in danger until the "victim" decided their shit was worth more than a human life. "

How on earth could you possibly have even the slightest inkling of what the offender's intent was? Only the attacker has such knowledge. Absent the ability to read minds, the closest thing to reliable data on this point is that fewer offenders physically harm their victims than only rob them. However, a very significant minority of such criminals do assault, rape, and/or murder their victims (as a glance at crime stats makes utterly obvious). The question then is whether or not one considers that probability to be sufficient to justify arming oneself against it. That decision is influenced by one's situation (location, occupation, gender, etc.) and one's ability to prevent attack by other means (that is, are you physically capable of effective hand-to-hand self-defense, etc.).

I do not believe one is ethically required to assume that the potential attacker doesn't intend significant injury. As stated above, such intent is present in a statistically significant number of instances. That removes the "is your stuff worth a human life" question from the equation, as it's not my stuff I'm basing my decision on. It's my life vs theirs...and that's not a question I spend more than an instant answering.