In my book, I used the “fact box” to discuss the benefits and harms of concealed carry. The fact box was created by the Harding Center for Risk Literacy. I first read about them in the book Risk Savvy by Gerd Gigerenzer. They were developed to help people determine the risk of specific health tests, like early detection tests for cancer. I recommend you read all the books by Gerd Gigerenzer.
What could be wrong with early-detection cancer tests, such as mammograms? This could be explained in two words: False Positives. For example, assume you are diagnosed with cancer, but it is a non-progressive kind. It won’t kill you until you are 136 years old, long after your life expectancy. Unfortunately, many hospitals will treat this non-progressive cancer as though it were progressive. As many of you are aware, cancer treatment can be a horrible thing to go through. One should be sure that it is necessary.
The benefits of such early detection scans must outweigh the potential harms of false positives. For mammograms, the benefit is one out of every thousand women compared to women who do not get a mammogram. This is a small number. Furthermore, early detection scans promise more years of life for the patient. This extra life is a testable hypothesis. It turns out the same number of deaths occur over eleven years between early scan patients and those that do not get scanned. This is not a ringing endorsement, even for an early detection test as popular as mammograms.
The fact box is also an excellent idea for self-defense methods. Each self-defense method has benefits and harms. As long as we do good research on populating the fact box, it becomes an essential strategy for evaluating self-defense tactics. However, something important is missing, and that is context. Going back to our health example, a woman with hereditary risks of breast cancer would likely require different early detection processes or treatment options than a woman without those risks.
Context is especially relevant when considering self-defense tactics. Let’s consider an extreme example. Two countries are at war, and you are a spy with critical information that will turn the tide of the war in your country’s favor. You’ve memorized this information and destroyed the paper documents. However, if the enemy captures you, they may torture you and obtain that information. The enemy could easily win the war if they can force you to talk. The self-defense method you choose is to wear an explosive vest with the detonator already pushed in. If you are surprised and knocked unconscious, the vest will still explode, you’ll die, and the secret is safe. If you can make it to your leadership, you can tell them the information and hope they have an excellent bomb expert who can diffuse it before your thumb tires out.
Now, if a normal everyday person with the same violent crime risks as other normal everyday people were to tell you that they wear an explosive vest as their self-defense tactic against violent crime, you would not want to hang out with the guy. If he blows himself up, he’ll take you and anyone else in the vicinity, including the criminal. Worse, he might accidentally blow himself up and anyone else in the area buying groceries or getting fuel. The harms would outweigh the benefits for everyday civilians.
So far, context is about determining your threats and your level of risk. There is another thing to watch out for, which is context-shift. This shift is common in self-defense methods. For example, many self-defense advocates will glean everything they can from tactical law enforcement teams. However, these teams are focused on something other than self-defense. After all, they may be raiding a house or stopping a bank robbery. These are offensive missions. As such, it is often an untested assumption that what is suitable for offensive missions must also be good for self-defense. This assumption may not be valid when comparing S.W.A.T. teams to everyday ordinary civilians.
Another factor in context is the laws of your state. Many laws receive public support because they are “tough on crime.” This often means for drug or gun crimes, there are mandatory prison sentences. Regarding mandatory sentencing laws around guns, there can be a problem. For example, what a concealed carrier thinks is a defensive gun use could end up being an aggravated assault charge. Depending on your state, an aggravated assault with a firearm could result in a mandatory prison sentence if convicted. Because of this extreme penalty, most civilians will want to avoid a jury trial, hoping for a plea bargain. The reason is that if a jury convicts, the judge cannot do anything because of the mandatory sentence law. It is another reason why civilian defensive gun use often goes unreported. If the offender runs away without injury to him or you, why invite further scrutiny, especially if it can land you in prison?
Ultimately, that gets us to tactics. You can choose one or more self-defense tactics based on the fact box and context. I go through a preliminary fact box for concealed carry in my book. However, you can create one for any self-defense method or tactic. Unfortunately, most individuals focus on weapon-specific issues, like ease of concealment, number of rounds, cartridge, and so on. For ordinary civilians, there are some other key questions you should answer as well:
- Are there any laws restricting the weapon or its capability?
- Can there be valid business restrictions against the weapon?
- If you have the weapon on your person, what would be the experience if you were pulled over by law enforcement for a traffic violation?
- Are there any travel restrictions regarding the weapon?
- Are there weapon-specific mandatory sentences regarding the use of the weapon?
Remember that ordinary everyday civilians will likely never experience a violent crime. These five basic questions represent what they will need to deal with much more often. For example, making a mistake with a firearm during a traffic stop (e.g., reaching for your wallet and the law enforcement officer sees your gun) could have life-altering ramifications.
Ultimately, a self-defense method should result in either a neutral or positive value for you and your loved ones. Perhaps it saves a life or prevents a criminal victimization. However, it should not have any negative value for you or your family. There should be no increased risk of suicide or horrible accidents. Much like the health fact box looks at several years, your self-defense fact box should as well. The positive or negative value your self-defense method has on your life and the lives of your loved ones is a testable hypothesis.