“This report presents official estimates of nonfatal criminal victimizations reported and not reported to police from BJS’s [Bureau of Justice Statistics’] National Crime Victimization Survey.” The full report is available here. I encourage everyone to read it. Why? Here is an example:
How many violent victimizations in 2023 involved a firearm?
Many people would answer something like 90%. The real answer: 9%
What is trigger finger discipline? Well, it comes up quite a bit on semi-automatic weapons that have the hammer cocked (typically done automatically), a round chambered, and the safety off. In this state, the amount of pressure needed to depress the trigger and fire the weapon is very low. If you are not ready to fire, your trigger finger should be straight, outside the trigger guard, and typically on the receiver (above the trigger guard). This behavior allows you to be safer in what is essentially called Condition 0 (round in chamber, hammer cocked, safety off).
Unfortunately, pistols and revolvers have many different operation types, complicating trigger finger discipline in various ways. Let’s cover revolvers first.
The first two are often combined in modern-day revolvers. I’ll denote them as an SA/DA revolver.
The revolver summary: 1. SAO, 2. SA/DA, 3. DAO.
Firing a revolver smoothly and accurately in DA/DAO mode takes a great deal of practice. In my experience, SA/DA revolver owners almost always fire in SA mode if the external hammer is of any decent size. They may occasionally fire in DA mode but certainly do not put in the practice time to do so for self-defense or hunting situations. In most cases, owners of DAO revolvers need substantial practice.
SAO revolvers are the simplest, so it is interesting that they bring us to our first uncomfortable truth:
When one fires a revolver in SA mode, one typically does not practice trigger finger discipline. One practices hammer discipline.
I’ll explain. Let’s cover one-handed shooting first. If your SAO or SA/DA revolver is in your hand, your trigger finger will be in the trigger guard. The reason is for proper grip on your firearm. You are not going to easily cock the hammer back in SA mode when your finger is not inside the trigger guard. Effectively, if you did so, you would only have three fingers gripping your gun, which would be awkward. You may end up dropping it. At the very least, you won’t have a proper shooting grip.
Two-handed shooting is a bit different, but at least for me, the result is the same. With two-handed shooting, I always use my off-hand to manually cock back the hammer. Not everyone does. This allows me to have a proper grip on my revolver (with my shooting hand) that does not move. In this instance, my trigger finger is inside the trigger guard. If I cock the hammer with my off-hand and do not fire immediately, then the trigger finger goes outside the trigger guard. However, I am always manually cocking the hammer with the intention of firing immediately. Otherwise, the hammer remains down.
What about DAO revolvers or shooting an SA/DA revolver in DA mode? I’ve found that on the revolvers I shoot (usually 44 calibers or larger), the trigger travel (the amount needed to revolve the cylinder) and the pressure required are sufficient safety mechanisms. Furthermore, at least for me, shooting smoothly and accurately is extremely sensitive to trigger finger placement on the trigger with DA/DAO firearms. Moving your trigger finger back and forth and putting it in the wrong location is disastrous for a first shot, so much so that I’ve never quite been comfortable with shooting DA first and then shooting SA afterward in an SA/DA firearm.
These observations form the basis of our uncomfortable truth: When shooting a DAO revolver or an SA/DA revolver in DA mode, trigger finger discipline is usually not followed due to the inherent safety mechanisms associated with a long trigger throw and heavier trigger pressure.
And, as a preview for our next section, here is our third uncomfortable truth: Do not believe that training on a simpler weapon (such as a revolver) will allow you to learn to operate a semi-automatic firearm more easily. In fact, it may mean an increased chance of a negligent discharge due to the inherent differences in trigger finger discipline.
Glock re-invented the SAP market many years ago with a polymer striker-fired offering. Things have not been the same since. I suspect the goal was to have the simplicity of a DAO revolver with the capacity and reloading speed advantages of a SAP. They succeeded admirably as most of the SAP market is Glock or similar to the Glock design.
Unfortunately, one of the first things people do with a Glock is drop in a better trigger. They feel they are justified because Glock has a trigger safety. While this trigger safety protects the user from drops, they should not be equivocated with a manual safety. In short, the combination of a lighter trigger and no manual safety means the Glock user must practice strict trigger discipline. Any failure to do so will eventually result in a negligent discharge.
Interestingly, the various combinations associated with revolvers are also associated with SAPs. Let’s go through them, but to make things easier, assume the chamber is loaded.
For SAPs, there is an additional type:
For this post, I’ll skip over the complicated considerations of SAPs, such as the various condition levels and other considerations like a magazine disconnect safety or a de-cocker. Instead, I’ll focus on trigger finger discipline for an SAP with a manual safety.
Firstly, drawing an SAP from a holster always requires discipline with the trigger finger until you have a target in sight. In short, your trigger finger will be outside and above the trigger guard.
However, a variation comes in when you decide not to fire but to remain at a ready or low-ready condition. Some shooters engage the manual safety and keep their trigger finger on the trigger. To shoot, they disengage the manual safety. Other shooters do not engage the manual safety and use trigger finger discipline.
This leads us to our last uncomfortable truth: Variations in SAPs can impact trigger finger discipline. If you have multiple types of SAPs in your collection, these differences could increase the chance of a negligent discharge. For ordinary civilians, carrying in Condition 3 and practicing trigger finger discipline will be the safest way to handle the multiple variations of SAPs.
In this post, I discussed how I keep my identification separate from my wallet. Specifically, I’ll keep my identification inside an armband high on my arm (summer) or my wrist (winter, with long-sleeve shirts).
I’ve learned that when I’m in the car for long periods of traveling, the armband can get uncomfortable. There seems to be an easy solution: just put the armband in the vehicle within easy reach. The problem with this approach is that it is easy to forget your armband in the car. Since I also have a backup car key in my armband, there could be a call to AAA if I leave my primary car keys in the car too.
One adjustment I made that works well for the cars I drive is putting my armband around the shifter for the automatic transmission (NOTE: this approach may not work as well for a stick shift). Using this approach, I feel the armband when I put the car in Park, and it serves as a reminder to take it with me. ]
As I’ve discussed before, if you get pulled over by law enforcement, make sure you are in a safe location, put the car in Park, roll down the windows, shut off the car, and, if applicable, remove the keys from the ignition and place them on the dash. When the law enforcement officer approaches the passenger side window and asks for identification, you should tell him you have it on the shifter. Alternatively, another approach is to remove it from the shifter and place it on the dash before the officer exits the car. Either way, the goal is to have a safe interaction. Remember, the officer doesn’t know you and has to assume you are a bad guy until proven otherwise.
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.
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:
Yes, that is how tests are supposed to work. But, there are some complications. There are other outcomes:
These are the most common outcomes. However, there is another:
Let’s call these by their common names:
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:
I’ll assume the actual negative rate is the same at 99%.
To summarize, 2000 patients were tested. 1980 were correctly diagnosed, and 20 were incorrectly diagnosed.
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.
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
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.
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.
There is an article in CONCEALMENT magazine, Issue 38, called “FLYING ARMED – Air Travel with Firearms” by Dave Merrill. Dave says:
In this article, we’ll demystify the process, drawing from the collective hunders of times members of our staff has flown with firearms.
I think the article is an excellent resource and has very good advice, particularly for someone who is going to be flying with a firearm for the first time.
I wish these types of articles would be free, but I was not able to find it on recoilweb.com, so you’ll need to purchase the magazine. Luckily, there are a couple of other good article in that issue, so I think it will be worth the money.
One such article is “TRAVELING ARMED – Other Considerations and Logistics” by Annette Evans. She does a very nice summary of things you should be considering when traveling with your firearm, especially in your car, with multiple destinations. Some may allow firearms, some may not. I cover similar ground in my book.
Another such article is “THE BEST, WORST OPTION – A Problem-Solving Framework to Prevent Negative CCW Outcomes” by John Johnston. John says
Defending yourself with a gun isn’t a good outcome. In fact, defending yourself with a gun is a very negative outcome. To be clear, people should defend themselves when forced to. But what we need to fully comprehend is using a gun to protect oursevles is only a good outcome compared to the worse option of being killed or seriously injured during a violent encounter.
emphasis in original
I don’t think I’ve read wiser words in a magazine article before.
The report is here.
I encourage you to read the report. I will briefly mention some things I found interesting.
Here are some modifications to products that I think would be very valuable for those interested in self-defense.
When it comes to violent crime, there is what I would call a disinformation matrix. Surprisingly, this matrix is formed unintentionally by pro-gunners, intentionally by anti-gunners, by media coverage, by statistical terminology, and sadly, by an abuse of language. What this disinformation matrix does is prevent an ordinary civilian from truly understanding violent crime risks and effective defenses against said risks.
I count six inputs violent crime disinformation matrix
Let’s talk about each one.
An ordinary civilian introduced to violent crime terminology will assume physical injury is much more common than it is. The reason is that everyday terminology conflicts with the meanings of violent crime statistics. For instance, if you ask an ordinary civilian on the street something like: “Aggravated assault is considered a violent crime. If someone were a victim of aggravated assault, what is the likelihood that they were physically injured? 100 percent, 80 percent, 67 percent, 33 percent, 20 percent, or 0 percent?” A response of 100 percent or 80 percent would be common (the actual value is 33 percent). The terms “violent,” “aggravated,” and “assault” often sway an ordinary civilian to say that a victim would definitely be physically injured in such a crime. Unfortunately, the statistics terminology doesn’t mean those things. “Aggravated” means “the offender used a weapon,” and “assault” means the victim was attacked or put in fear of an attack. Just to confuse things, “aggravated” can also mean a victim was severely injured by an attacker who did not have a weapon.
An ordinary civilian, if they went to the movie “Assault on Precinct Thirteen,” would not expect the movie to be about a guy with a rifle slung on his shoulder, standing across the street from a police station and yelling with a blowhorn that he was going to kill a police officer to be the entirety of the movie. An ordinary civilian is going to expect the movie to be about a bunch of people attacking the police station with weapons and, based on the title, likely injuring and killing several officers. However, from a violent crime statistics perspective, if the guy yelling at the police station with a rifle slung on his shoulder put one officer in fear, that would be an aggravated assault.
Another point of confusion is that statistics terminology and criminal charges are not the same. For instance, there is no “aggravated battery” in statistics, nor is there “attempted murder.” Both would be classified statistically as aggravated assaults.
This influence on self-defense training is extremely positive most of the time. Because of this influence, American civilians have access to the best self-defense training in the world. Since self-defense training is given to ordinary civilians, this influence only works if law enforcement and ordinary civilians have a common enemy. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Based on law enforcement officers killed statistics, their most dangerous enemy is an armed stranger who has a violent history. In contrast, when examining violent crime statistics for civilians, 98 percent of violent crimes are aggravated assault, robbery, and rape. In these cases, when the civilian victim is physically injured, firearms are rarely used. Also, the offender is often someone the victim knows, and the crime happened at a place the victim felt comfortable, such as their home.
Furthermore, law enforcement often has tasks that civilians don’t have. For example, they may raid a home because the occupants are buying, selling, and distributing illegal drugs. Raiding a home isn’t something ordinary civilians do. Weapons considerations for these tasks often influence civilian purchases and tactics, such as complex high-capacity firearms and carrying with a round in the chamber.
Lastly, law enforcement officers have considerable protection from the law if they make a mistake because they have a duty to protect the public. Ordinary civilians taking law enforcement training may think they have the same protections. They do not.
A few years ago, William English published the results of the National Firearm Survey. This survey was intended to improve on Gary Kleck’s survey results from the 1990s regarding defensive gun use (DGU). Defensive gun use is when a potential victim uses a firearm defensively to prevent said victimization. Many of these instances were not reported to the police, so a survey has to be done to get an estimate. This survey was primarily cited by concealed carry articles to show that an estimated 1.67 million DGUs happen each year.
Unfortunately, what is rarely reported is that close to 80 percent of DGUs happen at the home or the property of the home, and 82 percent of the time, the firearm is not discharged. Furthermore, less than 10 percent of the time do DGUs happen in public, even though the percentage of concealed carriers is much higher.
Another study done by Claude Werner shows that when a civilian does discharge their firearm, the offender is usually at arm’s length, an average of two shots are fired, and the speed of the draw wasn’t a factor.
In short, these statistics support extensive home and property security, simpler firearms for ordinary civilians, and safer carrying and storage of firearms. Sadly, these statistics are not mentioned in most concealed carry articles, perhaps because they would interfere with selling the ever-popular and profitable concealed carry insurance.
Firearm statistics are often shown to promote gun control laws, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is no exception. In their firearm facts page, they simply add up all firearm deaths and give the number of firearm deaths per day. The CDC includes things like suicides, justifiable homicides, and accidents in their calculations. Some portion of these statistics are also criminals killing other criminals due to the buying, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs. For the CDC, intention does not matter when it comes to firearm deaths.
What about DGUs? Unfortunately, the CDC ignores its own research, Gary Kleck’s research, and William English’s research and simply says more research needs to be done. One gets the impression that when a study shows the number of DGUs to be really low, that research is what will be cited regardless of the study’s quality. However, it may be the case that the CDC will use an existing high-quality DGU study, but they will count the results as contributing to firearm violence!
Not only are the CDC’s statistics and DGU omissions seriously misleading, but they also don’t cover an important fact (yet another omission): When a victim is injured in the violent crimes of aggravated assault, robbery, and rape (a total of 98 percent of all violent crimes), firearms are rarely used. Another omission is that 50 percent of the time, a suicide victim uses something else other than a firearm.
We can see the writing on the wall. Extremely restrictive gun control laws will drastically increase non-firearm criminal victimizations because ordinary civilians won’t be able to use a firearm to protect themselves (NOTE: DGUs prevent victimization because the offender usually doesn’t have a firearm, and the potential victim does). Remember, our best DGU statistics show that 1.67 million victimizations were avoided. If those potential victims didn’t have a firearm, the result would be a massive increase in non-firearm victimizations. In addition, extremely restrictive gun control laws, rather than reducing suicides, will simply change how suicide victims kill themselves. With only a single measure in place, the number of firearm deaths per day, all of these horrible outcomes will seem like a CDC success story around the passage of extremely restrictive gun laws. I doubt they will be motivated to correct it.
Many ordinary civilians get news from television, social media, or websites. In many cases, these sites are advertising-oriented rather than subscription-oriented. As such, user engagement matters because a news story’s exposure determines how much to charge for advertising space. For television, the Nielsen rating system measures a news program’s exposure. For social media and websites, it is the number of likes, shares, comments, and engagement metrics like these.
There is an old saying about news: “If it bleeds, it leads.” Another saying is, “Dog bites man isn’t news, but man bites dog is.” Essentially, we are drawn to these styles of stories. Obviously, however, the fact that we are drawn to these stories doesn’t mean that they are probable. Just as we are drawn to lottery winners and big casino jackpot winners, doesn’t mean that playing these games automatically means a big cash payment. In fact, the opposite is true. Someone’s money pays the light bill at the casino, which is the usual situation.
Given the not-so-wonderful facts about human nature and the need to make money selling advertising space, it is no surprise that story headlines and content strive for engagement. Novelty, blood, content designed to provoke inflammatory comments and shares, and borderline false headlines are part of today’s news landscape.
Unfortunately, these factors often lead to the base rate fallacy. For example, a viral video shows a concealed carrier defending themselves against a criminal, leading to the criminal’s demise. Such a video may drastically increase the number of people wanting to carry concealed for self-defense. Unfortunately, there is no indication of the base rate. Justified homicides by private civilians are a few hundred a year, about the same as the number of million and multi-million-dollar lottery winners annually. Even our best DGU statistics show only single-digit percentages for DGUs that happen in public. Carrying a concealed firearm is not a free lunch, as violations of the law can be common, such as carrying in prohibited places, negligent discharges, and more dangerous law enforcement encounters. All of these may be more common than justified homicides and can cause a lot of legal problems for a concealed carrier.
Defensive choices are risk management decisions that require solid information on which to base your decisions. Sadly, the engagement bias often results in good information being buried and effectively ends nuanced discussions that are important for your risk management decisions.
Imagine me and a friend are relaxing by the pool. I tell my friend, “Drug violence is getting out of hand. My grandfather came home from his doctor’s appointment, took a bath, and then took his own life by deliberately overdosing on his prescription medication.”
Something about that description seems off. The term “drug violence” usually makes people think of criminal violence due to the buying, selling, and distribution of illegal drugs. A grandfather committing suicide by overdosing on his prescription medication doesn’t seem to be an instance of “drug violence.”
Sadly, this is not the case for “gun violence” or “firearm violence.” A grandfather coming home from a doctor’s appointment, going to their gun cabinet, and committing suicide with a firearm is presented as “gun violence.” Statistically, over 25 percent of suicides by firearm are by people 65 and over. In other words, on Medicare. Almost 75 percent are over 35.
We don’t use the terms “rope violence” for murderous stranglers or “vehicle violence” for people who are speeding and causing injuries or death on the road. The more an inanimate object is demonized, the more your rights can be taken away. The people who hate firearms have made a lot of progress with the term “gun violence.”
I was reading some violent crime studies. One of them began with this sentence: “Gun violence is a public health problem.” It is a simple statement that hides an incredible amount of complexity. I do not know if the authors intended this or not. Let’s go through this sentence.
First, the word “violence.” What does this word mean to you? Well, I suspect most people encountering the word “violence” in this sentence would think of crime. Creating the phrase “gun violence” seems like criminals with firearms attacking people and injuring them. As a test, think of “drug violence.” I think most people would have an image in their mind of criminals protecting their distribution network for illegal drugs. Interestingly, something like “alcohol violence” really doesn’t have the same impact. This phrase may have caused different images in one’s mind during Prohibition, but for now, the phrase “alcohol violence” may result in someone asking you for clarification on what you mean. Do you mean a bar fight, or perhaps a father who comes home from work, gets loaded, and then beats up his family?
“Drug violence” is also not completely transparent in meaning. Imagine if one of your friends told you “drug violence” is getting out of hand. You ask, “What do you mean?” He says that his grandpa came home and committed suicide by overdosing on his prescription pills. I suspect that wouldn’t quite ring true to you as being “drug violence.” This raises a question that may not have occurred to you: What is meant when someone says: “[inanimate object] violence?”
The phrase “[inanimate object] violence” is generally confusing. Inanimate objects are, well, inanimate. They don’t jump up and do things on their own. People are required. When people are involved, intention matters. For example, a person who is practicing fast draw and accidentally shoots himself in the foot. Is that “gun violence?” Similarly, a justified homicide by a woman who used a firearm to avoid being raped by a larger unarmed man. Is that “gun violence?” Lastly, a homeowner who pulls a gun doesn’t shoot it but is able to make an assailant run away. Is that “gun violence?” Sadly, people who use a phrase like “[inanimate object] violence” mean that they do not see any use for that inanimate object, so anything that happens with it is “violence.”
When you read a statement like “Gun violence is a public health problem,” and you think that they mean, “People using firearms to engage in criminal activity is a public health problem,” you would be wrong. What they actually mean is this: “Any person using a firearm that results in intimidation, injury or death, regardless of intention, is a public health problem.” This includes suicides, accidents, justified homicides, and the like. It should include defensive gun uses as well, but some people don’t find defensive gun uses to be a valid category, and they do not want to call attention to them.
Also, the words “public health problem” should cause concern. In the article I saw, there was no footnote indicating a reference. Unfortunately, both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) articles on gun violence read like anti-gun propaganda. Ultimately, until a source recognizes the following essential points, you should take what they say with a grain of salt.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics used the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data to run a report on carjackings. The report covers the years 1995-2021.
I will note a few interesting details from the report, but I encourage you to read it fully yourself.
A couple of things were shocking. Almost 40 percent happened at or near the victim’s home. This suggests, to me at least, some planning was in order here. For example, driving around neighborhoods looking for cars, finding a target car, and then planning a carjack when the victim was on their way to work or leaving at some scheduled time. Interestingly, the carjack rate where the victim’s marital status was divorced/separated or “never married” is the same (0.17). It is possible that the “known offender” (26%), or perhaps dileberately not identified (10% was that the victim offender relationship is unknown) is an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend. It is also possible that these make up the majority of cases that happen at or near the home.
Some things I thought were missing in the report:
I cover defenses against robbery extensively in my book. I feel there are still other options for self-defense, but the report would need to be expanded.
