Evaluating Threat

There are several states that have some variant of an open carry law – basically a rule that says that people are allowed to openly carry guns (within various limitations). Most of the ones that allow it require some sort of restriction, usually a license of some sort. 

From smartgunlaws.org:

Open carry advocates seek to normalize the carrying of firearms in public places, and often use open carrying to protest what they see as unjust state firearms laws.  While members of the open carry movement argue that they are just “exercising their rights,” the open carrying of firearms intimidates the public, wastes law enforcement resources, and creates opportunities for injury and death due to the accidental or intentional use of firearms.

I recently got into an argument about guns, weapons and threats, and finally was able to articulate why the sight of a weapon is not welcome. 

First, we are going to be talking about people.  Yes, other things and creatures can be evaluated as threatening, but for the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about people.

Second, your mileage may vary. The examples that I will be giving will come from my own experiences, but I hope that they are broad enough to make my point.

Third, this is going to touch on some sensitive subjects.  Please note that when this happens, it is because I am trying to make a point.  If it is sensitive to you, you have been warned.

When evaluating threat, the basic question is usually, “Is this a threat or not?” This means that in threat assessment, you have two stages: threat and not a threat.  Please note that this is not threat or innocent – innocent is not the same as not a threat.  A grizzly bear can be completely innocent, but is still a threat if you are close enough. 

To that end, imagine that you have a check list:

Threat	Not Threat

(For the purposes of this exercise, the Threat column includes Potential threats) If there are no checks, then the situation is likely not a threat to you.  If there are more checks in the Not Threat column, the situation is likely not a threat to you. Only if there are more checks in the Threat column, would you have a rational basis for reacting as if the situation is a threat to you. 

We all have certain biases that will put checks into the Threat column.  Women usually put a check in it when they interact with a man. White supremacists put a check in the column when interacting with a black person. Homophobes will put in a check when they think that the other person is gay.

Raised in the Kingdom Identity movement, and being a woman, I would automatically start with three checks in the column when meeting a black man: he was a man, he was black, and he was a thug.  It would not matter what reality said –that was the starting point.

During the interaction, if he acted like a normal person, that would put a tick in the Not Threat area, and the longer he acted like a normal human being, then the more ticks he would get in the Not Threat, so that by the end of the interaction, it would weigh heavily in his favor that he was not a threat. 

Nearly all women put a tick in the threat box when they meet a man.  She could be a barista, a lawyer, a doctor, a waitress, or any other profession, but her experience is likely that she has been harassed and/or threatened by a man, so she starts with a tick in the Threat box.  Other factors, such as perceived attitude or race may add ticks to the column, and the man has to overcome those ticks, to get to an even number of ticks, which defaults to Not Threat.  It’s reasonably easy, of course, for most people to get there – all they have to do is be decent humans during the interaction. 

With a visible weapon, though, it’s different.

The interaction starts with the first three ticks (Gender, Race, Perceived attitude):

Threat	Not Threat
X
X
X

Suddenly the Threat is higher. There is a weapon, weapon is assumed loaded, another tick goes for perceived attitude, person may use weapon, person knows how to use weapon properly, and person may accidently hurt me. 

Threat	Not Threat
X  X
X  X
X  X
X
X
X

Yes, the last two contradict each other a bit, but this is still the kind of thing that is going to go through an average person’s head when they see an openly carried gun. 

So, when the interaction starts, I am already feeling very, very threatened, because I do not know the person on the other side of the interaction, and have no way of knowing if they are a peaceful person or someone intent on causing harm. 

In addition, that weapon that I see is going to mean that even if they act in a perfectly normal and charming way, they are going to be much slower in adding ticks to the Not Threat column.  There can be mitigating factors, but a visible sight of a weapon causes the evaluation to tilt as I have illustrated.  To a certain extent, even, they may never be able to overcome the Threat column in my head. 

Today, if I am in a grocery store, with a basket full of groceries, I am going to walk out if someone comes in with a visible weapon.  And, because I follow the news, if that person is an older, white, male, I am going to get out even more quickly.  The worst domestic terrorism has been caused by older, white, males than any other group. 

Think about your experiences. What would fill that threat column –before the introduction of weapons?

And now evaluate: is it valid to feel that threat?