It is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.
This slogan is used to convince someone to carry a firearm for self-defense. It sounds persuasive, but is it true? Let’s examine it.
Testing Without Symptoms
To explore this topic, we must consider a similar concept used in preventative health screening tests. These tests are done when the patient has no symptoms and are usually given to those 50 or older. Here would be an example slogan similar to the mic drop self-defense one:
Better to get tested for cancer and find nothing than to have cancer and not know about it
Much like the mic drop, this is a persuasive slogan. However, a lot hinges on the “and find nothing” clause. Most people have a very simplistic viewpoint of preventative health tests for cancer. They break down the outcomes of the test like so:
- Outcome 1: You have cancer; the test detects it and reports you have cancer.
- Outcome 2: You don’t have cancer; the test doesn’t detect any cancer and reports you do not have cancer.
Yes, that is how tests are supposed to work. But, there are some complications. There are other outcomes:
- Outcome 3: You don’t have cancer; the test detects cancer and reports you have cancer.
- Outcome 4: You have cancer; the test does not detect any cancer and reports that you don’t have cancer.
These are the most common outcomes. However, there is another:
- Outcome 5: We are not sure. Something is going on. More testing is required.
Let’s call these by their common names:
- Outcome 1: True Positive
- Outcome 2: True Negative
- Outcome 3: False Positive
- Outcome 4: False Negative
- Outcome 5: Undetermined (More Testing Required)
Every test has benefits and harms. The harms are false positives and false negatives. The benefits are true positives and true negatives. The undetermined could be a harm or a benefit; we don’t know yet. Unfortunately, tests are usually presented as “99% accurate,” which is not helpful but tends to reflect the actual positive rate. We can improve things by using natural frequencies to explain the outcomes. Here would be the 99% accuracy test outcomes:
- If 1000 subjects HAVE cancer, the test will show that 990 subjects have cancer and ten subjects do not. The actual positive rate is 99%, and the false negative rate is 1%
I’ll assume the actual negative rate is the same at 99%.
- If 1000 subjects do NOT HAVE cancer, the test will show that 990 subjects do not have cancer, and ten subjects do have cancer. The actual negative rate is 99%, and the false positive rate is 1%.
To summarize, 2000 patients were tested. 1980 were correctly diagnosed, and 20 were incorrectly diagnosed.
Patient Pool Demographics
Another thing that should be covered is the demographics of the patients. For instance, if a hospital asked 1000 women aged 18 to participate in a cancer screening test, the subjects’ demographics would be that cancer is very rare for that age. This means that all 1000 subjects are very likely cancer-free, yet ten women will be told they have cancer due to the limitations of the test. In short, preventative health screenings can cause problems, especially if your risk category is low. These problems could include unnecessary surgeries or other medical procedures, which could cause a lot of stress and psychological trauma.
Unfortunately, there is another elephant in the room. Everyone assumes that a true positive result for cancer is a good thing. After all, it should lead to a longer life and more quality life experiences. However, in some instances, these early tests for cancer do not result in longer lives after 11 years. In short, with some preventative health tests, a person who doesn’t test for cancer is dead after 11 years, as well as the person who does test for cancer. Factor in the quality of life during those 11 years, and you may become convinced that you should only test when you have symptoms.
The bottom line is that any true positive preventative health test should lead to a longer, higher quality life than a person who does not take the test. Sadly, many health preventative tests do not have that result. Yes, the proponents of these tests advertise that they have a great survival rate after three or five years. Why were these particular ranges selected? Ever wonder what the quality of their lives was like during these years?
Only by examining the facts can these tests be improved or new and better tests developed. Facts allow patients to make quality-of-life decisions. They shouldn’t be hidden from view or misleadingly characterized through obscure probability numbers or misleading statistics.
Parallels with Concealed Carry
Let’s return to the concealed carry of a firearm (CCF). In my book, I develop a procedure to determine the benefits and harms, repurposing a fact box concept used by the Harding Center for Risk Literacy for health screening. You can read about these in the book Risk Savvy by Gerd Gigerenzer (whose books are excellent). I do that because there are interesting parallels between preventative health tests and CCF.
First, we want to understand the benefits and harms of CCF—the benefit ties in with the mic drop. If you happen to be up against an armed violent criminal, your ability to fight back is critical. However, there is more to it than that, as you could be facing a criminal or multiple criminals who are unarmed but still dangerous. The National Firearms Survey by William English shows an estimated 1.67 million defensive gun uses annually. That is a lot; however, less than ten percent of these incidents happen in public places, but these cases still represent a benefit.
What about the harms? Here are some that could result in injury, death, and/or criminal charges
- Interactions with law enforcement become more dangerous
- Negligent discharges in public locations
- Carrying a firearm where you are not allowed to carry a firearm
- What you thought was justified self-defense is not in law enforcement’s or the prosecution’s eyes.
Unfortunately, gathering data on these harms is very difficult as it would require a survey of criminal defense attorneys (as well as state public defenders). I do not know anyone who has done such a survey in any state. As such, by necessity, it remains speculative.
Up next is demographics. Specific individuals have a heightened risk status, perhaps due to their jobs or threats against them. In these cases, the benefits of CCF would outweigh the harms. However, all things being equal, a law-abiding software engineer living with their spouse and two kids in a good neighborhood does not have the same risks as a law enforcement officer or SWAT team member. For such a person, the harms of CCF may outweigh the benefits.
Understanding time and location is also essential for self-defense. Violent crime statistics will use rates to control for population differences. However, rates also have a downside. Smaller high-crime areas get mixed in with larger low-crime areas, with much lower crime incidents (or of a different type). The result is an overall rate for a city that may be misleading. Any long-term resident of any city of reasonable size knows the good and bad areas. From a self-defense point of view, avoid the bad areas, live in the good areas, and constantly watch to see if your neighborhood crime is beginning to increase. It may be time to move.
Conclusion
Far from being a mic drop, there is much to consider if you want to CCF. Suppose you have a normal level of risk for an ordinary civilian. In that case, you may consider improving your home and perimeter security, using simpler and safer firearms for home defense, and scrutinizing the people you know and allow in your life much more carefully. These attack vectors are far more likely to occur than a stranger who is an armed violent criminal. My book details these vectors in depth.
Another point is that law-abiding, ordinary civilians who are careful where they go and at what time, running into an armed violent criminal isn’t a common occurrence. What is more likely is running into another civilian who is overly emotional. An accidental cart bump in a grocery store could lead to an escalation. For such encounters, understanding de-escalation tactics, anger management for yourself, and simply walking away from a situation before it spins out of control becomes far more effective. For those who still want to arm themselves, less-than-lethal weapons are also an option that does not have the potential harms that firearms do.
I certainly have nothing against those who want to CCF. I still CCF occasionally, depending on the situation. What is essential is effective self-defense. The most effective self-defense strategy maximizes the benefits and minimizes the harms. It becomes a risk management decision what self-defense method you choose. Don’t let a slogan interfere with your risk management decisions.