This week I am working on Chapter 7 of my book on American gun culture. The chapter is called “Pascal’s Wager and Guns.” The core idea is one I wrote about six years ago, so I am re-posting my original thoughts on Pascal’s Wager today.
I have heard a lot of sayings about guns and self-defense in the last couple of years. The most popular are surely “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” and “When seconds count, police are just minutes away.”
I recently heard a new one, though. I liked it because it was reminiscent of Pascal’s Wager.
As Wikipedia explains it, Pascal’s Wager “posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).”
The self-defense and gun ownership version: It’s better to own a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not own it.
This highlights the risk assessment that often goes into self-defense gun ownership. It is not the probability of needing a gun that matters; it is the possibility. The cost of having a gun and not needing it is much less than needing a gun and not having it. So, even if the odds of needing a gun are very low, it is a wise to place your bet on ownership.
Gun Culture 2.0 
[…] response to my recent post on gun carrying as akin to Pascal’s Wager, a colleague pointed to a song called “Pistol Pistol” by the Detroit-based rap group […]
LikeLike
[…] consequence of needing a gun and not having one is large. This is what I have previously called the self-defense gun ownership version of Pascal’s Wager: It’s better to own a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not own […]
LikeLike
[…] In particular I think alot about assessing risk in the decision to carry a gun, notably what I call gun culture’s version of Pascal’s Wager: “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have […]
LikeLike
[…] other): “It’s not the odds, it’s the stakes.” He implies what I call Pascal’s Wager in armed self-defense in saying that you can carry your gun for 35 years and never have to use it once and not be any […]
LikeLike
[…] But there are potential costs to not doing things as well. There’s a potential cost to not being willing to fight, and there’s a potential cost to being willing to fight but not being well-trained. As with so much of personal protection — and life more generally — it comes down to complex risk calculations. Seeklander clearly falls on the side of most in the gun training industry: hope for the best, prepare for the worst; it’s not the odds, it’s the stakes; better to have and not need, than to need and not have. […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Alertness: Principles are based on dealing with low odds, high stakes […]
LikeLike
[…] include my thoughts about assessing risk in the decision to carry a gun, notably what I call gun culture’s version of Pascal’s Wager: “It’s better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.” I also […]
LikeLike
[…] It’s a complicated calculus, but one that many gun owners and carriers solve in favor of having a gun even if you don’t need it, because that is better than needing a gun and not having it. […]
LikeLike
[…] It’s a complicated calculus, but one that many gun owners and carriers solve in favor of having a gun even if you don’t need it, because that is better than needing a gun and not having it. […]
LikeLike
[…] the issue of risk, risk management, and risk mitigation in connection with guns for years now. I originally posted about Pascal’s Wager over 6 years ago now. What can I say? I am a slow […]
LikeLike
[…] just finished a draft of my book chapter on “Pascal’s Wager and Firearms.” It’s all about risk, risk assessment, and risk management in relation to firearms. From there […]
LikeLike
[…] just finished a draft of my book chapter on “Pascal’s Wager and Firearms.” It’s all about risk, risk assessment, and risk management in relation to firearms. From there I […]
LikeLike
[…] includes Tamara Keel on “can’t lose a fight you’re not in,” the idea of Pascal’s Wager applied to self-defense, and John Steinbeck’s saying that the brain is the final […]
LikeLike
[…] for this video includes Tamara Keel on “can’t lose a fight you’re not in,” the idea of Pascal’s Wager applied to self-defense, and John Steinbeck’s saying that the brain is the final […]
LikeLike
[…] and at greater length in a chapter of my so-far spurned book, low odds/high stakes is part of the gun culture version of Pascal’s Wager. While some people no doubt respond to Pascal’s Wager with religious fanaticism — shoot first […]
LikeLike