PDA

View Full Version : Do you carry at home - Why do people feel safe at home?


Para Bellum
April 22, 2008, 02:32 PM
Do you carry at home - Why do people feel safe at home?

I do carry at home. I felt safe at home and in my firm until a guy stormed my firm and stabbed an employee repeatedly into the head until the folding knife broke. My buddy survived with big luck and massive surgery.

Before that event I didn't carry at home or at work, but on the way (sounds so ridiculous now). I had the gun(s) in the safe at home, holstered it to get to work, put it into the safe at work and holstered it again for the way home. I felt safe indoors. For NO REASON.

I am safe on the way. Sitting in my strong and fast car, how could a BG hurt me before I run him over or drove away? Now I carry 24/7, of course also when driving - you never know.

By the way, recently we have a problem of organised burglery/robbery-crime taking place deliberately while patrons are home. That makes it easier for the BGs to get the safes etc open by torturing wifes or kids instead of drilling holes into hardened steel. You are not safe indoors. If you carry, carry.

dwatts47
April 22, 2008, 02:47 PM
I can't say that I always "wear" at home, but my nightstand gun is NEVER out of sight/reach no matter what room I'm in.

ZeSpectre
April 22, 2008, 03:00 PM
Why?

This....
http://www.wfsb.com/news/13736066/detail.html

or this...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4555778

or this...
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6063190

and the list goes on and on and on.

primlantah
April 22, 2008, 03:20 PM
**** happens. I have seen it. I know people who have been victims. I have known bad guys. Bad guys dont care where you are or who you are if you have what they want. If a bad guy comes to my home while im home they will leave with extra holes. Keep your weapon handy always.

pax
April 22, 2008, 03:23 PM
Well, most of us "feel safe" at home, or it wouldn't be home. :)

I certainly feel safe in my own home, but concealed carry is my default setting. I put the gun on when I get up in the morning and take it off when I go to bed at night -- regardless of where I am going to be during the day.

As for being safe (as opposed to feeling safe) in your own home, check out these stats from the US Dept of Justice:

Of the 207,240 rapes and sexual assaults in America in 2004, 30% happened inside the woman's own home.


Of the 83,920 rapes and sexual assaults committed by a stranger, 42% happened inside the woman's own home.


Of the 99,130 incidents of completed robbery in which the victim was injured, 31% happened inside the victim's own home.


Of the 895,340 cases of aggravated assault, 18% happened within the victim's own home.


pax

Yellowfin
April 22, 2008, 03:25 PM
I carry at home because at least that's one small--extremely small--area around here where I am as free as I am everywhere in the Free States. It does make my sidearm more readily available for defense in situations that happen quickly, and I do value that, but for me it is at very least a matter of principle that I be at very least as close to a free man as I can when I am at home. I have a right to anywhere and everywhere else, but it is not recognized here. :mad:

TheNatureBoy
April 22, 2008, 03:39 PM
No!

SilentHitz
April 22, 2008, 03:45 PM
I carry at home, because this is MY home. Your home should be the one place where you can find relative refuge from crime, but it's just not like that anymore.

I remember growing up in a home where the windows were open (no air conditioning) and the doors unlocked, and never had an incident. You can't do that now in most places. I keep a pistol within arms reach no matter what room I'm in. Criminals place no value on human life, so I put no value on their's if they are bold enough to break in my little corner of the world...IT'S MINE, not theirs.:mad:

Bond007
April 22, 2008, 03:53 PM
Having a loaded firearm (and they're all loaded) nearby demands responsibility and diligence, requirements I sometimes want to be able to avoid while relaxing at home.

At home I primarily rely on, living in a "safe" neighborhood, good neighbors, good locks and minimal awareness. However, I don't believe my home is a fortress, I make sure there are rooms one could run to quickly where one could easily gain access to a properly secured firearm if needed.

cschwanz
April 22, 2008, 04:28 PM
I never did when i lived with my parents b/c there was always easy access to a loaded gun if needed. Now that I'm on my own and have my carry permit, i do. My Ultra Compact is on my hip right now as I'm typing this. I didn't that often before i got my permit b/c it was a hassle to take it off everytime i wanted to leave the house, but now that i have it, its gonna be on me no matter where i am(other than school and places as such)

MrClean
April 22, 2008, 04:38 PM
I carry... almost everywhere. I'll be sworn in on the 17th of May and have even more reason to carry at that point. But I've pretty much always had something close at hand. Times aren't like they use to be. You have kids that have no value for human life at all, can see that every day in the news. Then you have adults that are just a drain on society and keep getting let OUT of prison. Just saw a clip today where a woman was arrested for DUI.... she had 18 prior DUI arrests!!!! EIGHTEEN!?!?!??!?! Why was she not in jail still? How many does a person have to kill to be held accountable? Do we wait UNTIL she kills? Apparently so.

I feel safe in my home. As safe as possible. Let me conclude by saying I'm not a vigilante'. In my prayers (not daily, but I try) I normally ask that I never have to take someone's life or even be faced with that decision. So if I am ever faced with that decision, I feel sure that there will be no other way when I pull that trigger. It's my responsibility and duty to take care of my family. That includes taking care of ME so that nobody else raises my kids but me and my wife.

I wish time was turned back and Bad Guys were easily identified and handled swiftly and firmly. The more society becomes "politically correct" they worse it will get. Bad Guys are bad. Period. I don't give a rat's patootie what color they are or if they are female.

yea yea... preachin to the choir. hehe
ya'll take care out there

grymster2007
April 22, 2008, 04:41 PM
...but for me it is at very least a matter of principle that I be at very least as close to a free man as I can when I am at home. I have a right to anywhere and everywhere else, but it is not recognized here.

I'm not far up the road from you and I feel the same way.

At home, I have at least five firearms I can get to in a hurry and sometimes I carry one around the house with me. We live in a very nice neighborhood, but the houses are secluded. I have to travel and work unarmed, so at the least I make sure I feel comfortable in my home.

Wildalaska
April 22, 2008, 04:50 PM
I usually walk around in my Thunderwear with My M1A strapped to my back and my S&W 44 in the pouch.....:rolleyes:

WildsarcasmmodeoffAlaska TM

Of the 83,920 rapes and sexual assaults committed by a stranger, 42% happened inside the woman's own home.

Not to pick on you personally Pax, but if you assume 85 million households in the US, that is a...hmm....lets say .0004% chance of that happening in an average home.

Point: Stats can't justify everything.

Lurch37
April 22, 2008, 05:01 PM
I usually walk around in my Thunderwear with My M1A strapped to my back and my S&W 44 in the pouch

Lets hope you mean a holster pouch right? :D

Avenger11
April 22, 2008, 05:09 PM
What's the barrel length on that S&W 44?:D

Wildalaska
April 22, 2008, 05:24 PM
What's the barrel length on that S&W 44?

I try to alwys by 2 1/2 inchers so I don't get too envious:cool::D

WildmrsnubbyAlaska ™

hoytinak
April 22, 2008, 05:40 PM
I don't usually carry at home unless I'm outside in the yard but while inside there is always something within a couple feet of me.

rantingredneck
April 22, 2008, 05:42 PM
Ruger SP101 in a fobus right now. Mossberg 500 standing in the corner loaded but unchambered.

Avenger11
April 22, 2008, 05:56 PM
Allow me a sentimental moment. I grew up in a time and place where you never locked your doors, left your keys in the car, took your deer rifle to school and Mom never worried unless you were late for supper.Guns were for hunting or targets, not home defense. Home defense, tactical anything was not in the lexicon.
Flash forward 50 years and today I live in a gated community guarded 24/7, car is equipped with anti-theft everything, have a monitored alarm system,got my CCL, keep gun in the nightstand and the car, and the Grandkids can't go outside without adult supervision because according to the CPS web-site we have six predators living within a two mile radius.
Do I feel safe? It's all relative to the times and your enviroment. I tnink over reaction to perceived threats is as dangerous as the threat itself. Raw statistics, not put in perspective, prove nothing.
The chance of any of us experiencing a real threat is very low, about the same as you winning the Lotto!

starshooter231
April 22, 2008, 06:13 PM
Yes I wear at home (unless I'm sleeping). Just because I feel safe at home does not mean that I am safe at home. I would rather be safe than sorry.

starshooter231

pax
April 22, 2008, 06:53 PM
WildAlaska,

Yup. But it's a sure bet that there are at least approximately 35,247 people -- per year -- who thought the same way.

Sure would suck to be one of them, when it's so simple to just get dressed in the morning and stay dressed 'til bedtime.

pax

ZeSpectre
April 22, 2008, 07:07 PM
Allow me a sentimental moment. I grew up in a time and place where you never locked your doors, left your keys in the car, took your deer rifle to school and Mom never worried unless you were late for supper.Guns were for hunting or targets, not home defense. Home defense, tactical anything was not in the lexicon.

It's funny how similar my growing up was to Avenger's and yet so different. My reminiscence would go more like this...

Allow me a sentimental moment. I grew up in a time and place where you never locked your doors, left your keys in the car, took your deer rifle to school and Mom never worried unless you were late for supper.

Guns were for hunting or targets, but also for defending your home and livelihood and you kept your guns ready and close at hand because cattle rustling and threats via wild animals were not just some set of cowboy movie cliche. (and no, I'm not kidding, we actually had "rustlers" trying to steal our beef cattle more than once!)

The chance of any of us experiencing a real threat is very low, about the same as you winning the Lotto!
Funny thing about that. For whatever reason I lead a semi-charmed life. What I mean is that lots of weird and sometimes dangerous things happen in my vicinity ALL THE TIME. The charmed part is that the weird stuff almost never happens directly to ME but even so it's like some kind of super weird area effect.

YZR
April 22, 2008, 07:19 PM
I live in a safe neighborhood too but my S/W 642 is strapped to my side as I type.
I have it, it's legal so why not?

mavracer
April 22, 2008, 07:47 PM
properly prepaired is having a gun accessable in every room in the house,yet you still must carry in case your attacked in the hallway.;)

TexasSeaRay
April 22, 2008, 07:51 PM
Hell, no, I don't carry while at home.

I've survived war and missions where you weren't supposed to, being shot three times, being stabbed, punched by more bad guys than I can--or care to--remember, and threatened with everything under the sun and then some.

I'm still here and plan to be for as long as I care to be.

I keep several firearms readily available at all times. We also have a Doberman and a German Shepherd, both imported from Europe, that will tear your lungs out and then shove them back up your butt if you mess with us.

Jeff

Wildalaska
April 22, 2008, 07:51 PM
Yup. But it's a sure bet that there are at least approximately 35,247 people -- per year -- who thought the same way.

Sure would suck to be one of them, when it's so simple to just get dressed in the morning and stay dressed 'til bedtime.

I don't where seatbelts either...

WildbutihaveaguninthegloveboxAlaska ™

pinkerpv
April 22, 2008, 08:01 PM
I carry everywhere i go and at home; even when I'm working in the yard, riding the garden tractor or sitting watching the TV or working at the computer. I feel safe at home but after reading and hearing about home invasions and robberies, I am not taking any chances. There is a rental house next door with new tenants in it every six months. Several families at a time, so I'm not taking any chances.

orionengnr
April 22, 2008, 08:11 PM
Yes, I do.
As someone on another forum says, "Carry 24/7 or guess right." I go along with that theory.

The chance of any of us experiencing a real threat is very low, about the same as you winning the Lotto!

Only one person or group of persons wins our state lotto, and there is not necessarily a winner every week. There are a Hell of a lot of people in this state that experience a real threat each day, so this statement is beyond prepostrous.

markj
April 22, 2008, 08:52 PM
Nope, a weapon is always close to hand tho. Grandma shot a man in the 50s tried to come in her back door. He dies right there. Now I live out of the city in Iowa, land of CCW have 4 dogs and a lot of land around me. I just wont let my self live in fear like that. No reason to. Very confidant of my abilities and training. Why arent you? Get a dog. Life is better with a dog to give the early warning.

Wild, in the shower they called me drip dry, too short to shake :) Now dont ask me about the true deff of juicy fruit :)

Carry at home? Next someone will post about aiming a rifle ata kid wearing black :(

Swampghost
April 22, 2008, 09:17 PM
I'm rarely more than a few feet from one. A lifelong friend of mine (also a SS Agent) helped me secrete them where I can find them but most crooks and kids won't look. BTW, my youngest kid is 24 and trying for the SEAL team so I'm not too worried about the kids finding them, my daughter is a pretty mean shot too.

Terrierman
April 22, 2008, 09:51 PM
I do not carry at home and I do feel safe at home because I live in a low crime rural area, folks around here DO keep and bear arms and everybody knows it, I am not a criminal and do not hang out with criminals, and I have ten Jack Russell Terriers that do not allow anyone on the property without major cain being raised. Of the assaults that occur in homes, I wonder how many are carried out by total strangers in more or less random distribution in low crime rural areas. I suspect that number makes the odds of that happening to me infintesimally low. However, I do keep a .22 magnum rifle in the closet for armadillos in the back yard, an 870 is also there for anything larger and there might even be a 686 laying around somewhere.

exprt9
April 23, 2008, 03:06 AM
I don't carry at home inside the house but have one readily available. If I'm doing yard work, washing the car or taking the trash out, my P3AT will be in my pocket.

Para Bellum
April 23, 2008, 10:19 AM
"good part of town", that's where I'd go to commit a burglary/robbery/hostage-crime. Robbing the poor?

cschwanz
April 23, 2008, 11:33 AM
I live in a good part of town, yet there have been two homicides and robbery all within a half mile or so from the house. I'd much rather be safe then sorry

fbrown333@suddenlink
April 23, 2008, 11:34 AM
I can tell right now it is no fun starring down the bbl of a 44 magnum! :eek:I have been robbed while working, had my house broke onto and firearms taken(didn't have a gun safe at that time but have two now).
I have been threatend with baseball bats, knives and such. now some of you all are probably saying where the h#@$ do I live:eek:. I have lived in many states (my dad was military so we moved a lot) and back in the 60's and 70's we did not have a lot of money so we lived in some of the not so nice neighborhoods, my brother in law lived in a real nice neighborhood and was robbed at gun point so I have come to the conclusion that it can happen any where any time! BE PREPAIRED!!! Like my grandad used to say and some ones sig on here, I would rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. A firearm has saved my bacon more than once just by having it on my person, No time to go get one.
Iused to live near a nut house in Santa Clra, Ca. all kinds of @#$%^& would just come walking up to the house wanting a ride or money. So take head there is no safe place any more, and yes I too can remember when you could leave the house and vehicles unlocked and neighbors would look out for each other! Ok my rant is over:)

kayakersteve
April 23, 2008, 11:44 AM
Wild alaska -
Not to pick on you personally Pax, but if you assume 85 million households in the US, that is a...hmm....lets say .0004% chance of that happening in an average home.


It is 100% if it happens to you! Again, statistics suck!

pax
April 23, 2008, 12:05 PM
properly prepaired is having a gun accessable in every room in the house,yet you still must carry in case your attacked in the hallway. ;)

Mavracer, beg to disagree here. I do not think it is particularly smart to have guns hidden all through your house. Yeah, I'll get flamed for saying this on this board, but ... it's true anyway.

It's really short-sighted and foolish to rely on "but it's hidden" to keep his firearm out of the hands of children, visiting guests, or hurried thieves. Want to tell me all these "readily available" guns people are talking about are in a safe? Somehow I doubt it. Nobody with normal income levels purchases a separate quick-access safe for every room of the house.

Now, of course, the "but I really am a hermit" brigade is going to speak up: "Nobody ever visits me. I don't let anyone into my home. My home is my castle!" Sure, guys. You're not married, don't have a girlfriend, never have a one-night stand, don't have any kids, don't have any relatives with kids, don't have any relatives period, don't have any neighbors that ever come visit you, don't have any friends, and certainly have no friends-of-friends ... Sheesh, people, with a life like that, why do you need a defense gun? Nobody's ever going to notice when you're gone anyway! :rolleyes: :D

Proper preparation is having a gun where a home intruder cannot get his hands on it before you, yourself, are properly armed. If he comes in the front door, knocks over the plant stand and a gun falls out, guess what? You've failed to be properly prepared.

Meanwhile, a buddy of mine who lives in a "low crime" rural area had a bunch of guns stolen last year just before deer season. He left the house for fifteen minutes. Stupid neighbor kid saw him go, rushed into the house, grabbed an armload of guns, and ran off. Buddy got home within 15 minutes, but did not notice the missing guns until a couple hours later. He knew instantly who the thief had to be, lots of circumstantial stuff, but no chance of proving that in a court of law. The guns were gone beyond retrieval by the time he'd realized they were gone, since the kid (probably, based on the one recovered gun) had played it smart and taken them to the big city to sell almost immediately.

Never happen to any of you guys who hide guns in your houses, I know. You've hidden yours better than that. And you don't have any idiot neighbor kids. And a hurried thief will never break in while you're at work. Besides, you've got a dog (who cannot be bribed or poisoned). And if a thief does get in, you would not regret that it was your gun that got into the hands of a criminal. And you don't actually care one whit that your personal favorite gun might end up getting used in a murder. And you won't be sad if your firearms are stolen, even if they are never found and returned to you. So it's just silly for other people to tell you how to store your guns -- you're a free man, doggone it, and this is still a free country!

Some predictions:


At least one person on this thread has a gun "hidden" in the pouch-pocket of the recliner. Nobody will ever look there.

Or under the couch cushions. Nobody will ever look there. (Well, not for a gun anyway ... change, anyone?)

Someone else has a gun hidden in a brown bag in the freezer. Nobody will ever look there.

Someone else blinked twice when I mentioned knocking over a plant stand & a gun falling out -- but he's sure his plant-stand gun is secured well enough that it would not simply fall out. Anyway, nobody will ever look there.

At least one person reading this has a gun hidden under the mattress on the far side of the bed. And in the underwear drawer. And in the laundry hamper. (Ewwwww! Who's going to go through the dirty underwear in the laundry hamper? Just every thief who's ever ransacked a house ...) If anyone does look there, the odor alone will drive him off!

Someone else has one hidden on the top shelf of the bedroom closet. Nobody will ever look there.

Someone has one hidden underneath the kitchen sink. Nobody will ever look there.

Someone reading this just thought, "Under the sink? That's stupid! Mine is inside the oven I haven't used in three years! Nobody will ever look there!"

Someone reading this thread has a gun in a hollowed-out book (on an otherwise-empty bookshelf, no less!). Nobody will ever look there.

One of the people reading this is rolling his eyes and thinking, "Well, a thief would never think to look back & above to spot the one I've got hanging inside the closet above the door..." Nobody will ever look there.

Finally, at least one person reading this is upset at me for giving away his personal secret best gun-hiding place. No thief would have thought of it before I put it on the Internet! ;)


Proper preparation involves having a gun accessible to you, but not accessible to children, visitors, or hurried thieves. Wear 'em or lock 'em up...

pax

SilentHitz
April 23, 2008, 12:22 PM
I do not think it is particularly smart to have guns hidden all through your house. Yeah, I'll get flamed for saying this on this board, but ... it's true anyway. Not by me. I have only 3 weapons in the bedroom with me, everything else is locked in the safe. When I leave the house, 2 of those go in the safe as well. All my neighbors know I have alotta guns, and I have no intention of making it easy for anyone to access them but me.

Good advice Pax! If you can "hide" them, someone can find them. It's a game of hide&seek that has bad consequences!

Crestliner
April 23, 2008, 02:03 PM
I keep my SP101 on my person at all times, in the home, as anywhere else I go. I keep a locked up short barreled, 12 ga. s/s, in the bedroom, unlocking it when I retire in the evening. Home invasions are more and more coming into vogue, so-to-speak, so you can't be too careful. Times were a lot different 50 years ago. Being 63 now, I reflect back on those times lovingly. Doesn't mean I don't change with the times though.

Boris Bush
April 23, 2008, 02:32 PM
Dang it pax! I keep the one gun that does not fit in the safe on the top shelf of the closet in my bedroom, looks like I will have to put it in the basement ontop of the furnace duct now, found a bunch of stuff there the previous owner had there and probably forgot about...........

Mannlicher
April 23, 2008, 02:53 PM
Funny, I have a BHP on my hip as I type this. Yes, almost always I am 'packing' at home.

CajunBass
April 23, 2008, 03:21 PM
If a Ruger Bearcat counts, the answer is "yes."

bigbadbowtie
April 23, 2008, 03:43 PM
I do not and my reason may not be very good either.
I have a 90lb G-Shephard that stays in the house most of the time. She pretty much hates everyone but my immediate family. In fact the local pizza place makes me meet them at the curb. They will not get out of the car.

I have NO doubt she would at the least slow down a BG long enough for me to get to my gun.

pax
April 23, 2008, 03:46 PM
Boris,

That's okay -- you could put it in a ziploc bag and duct-tape it to the inside of the toilet tank instead. Nobody will ever look there ... ;)

pax

Wildalaska
April 23, 2008, 04:13 PM
At least one person reading this has a gun hidden....in the laundry hamper. (Ewwwww! Who's going to go through the dirty underwear in the laundry hamper? Just every thief who's ever ransacked a house ...) If anyone does look there, the odor alone will drive him off!

Hey thats where I keep my Seecamp....

I think:confused:

WildigotgunseverywhereAlaska ™

rellascout
April 23, 2008, 04:24 PM
Hey Wild,

Is that a S&W 44 in your pants or are you just happy to see me?

:eek:

WildkeepitrealuntilitgoeswrongAlaska

TexasSeaRay
April 24, 2008, 02:14 AM
Proper preparation involves having a gun accessible to you, but not accessible to children, visitors, or hurried thieves. Wear 'em or lock 'em up...

Could not possibly disagree more . . .

What visitors we do have to our place, when they bring their kids, the kids are told where they can go and where they can't. I've walked friends to the door--kids in tow--and bid them a very early good day or good night because they couldn't, or wouldn't, control their damn kids in our house.

Got an old friend of mine who was with a medium-sized city's police department. Skinny, scrawny guy--the exact type so loved by the FFL, SAS and Delta--of which he did tours with all three.

This friend of mine has guns hidden in his house to where he has ready access, but even the slickest professional burglar would be hard-pressed to find any of them inside of an hour.

And finally, I either carried or wore a gun for a living for too many years. No way I'm going to be a prisoner in my own home and keep a gun strapped to me 24/7.

I refuse to live in a state of self-induced paranoia.

I know a number of acquaintances who "pack heat" around the house. I'll also bet my airplane, boat and other toys that if someone kicked in their door, the heat-packers would freeze up and not be able to draw and fire. They'd end up getting way hurt or just plain dead.

But by God, they carry a gun.

One of the guys at our VFW told us about his brother-in-law, who is a big-talker/little-walker, getting accosted on the street down around Houston Hobby airport area. Had a gun on him, plus a backup gun, and he froze up. The two muggers beat the ---- out of him, took both of his guns along with his money and sent him to the hospital with some pretty good injuries.

I called an old contact with Houston PD, and word is HPD is p---ed because now there are two more stolen guns on their streets--but this time, courtesy of a CCW permit holder who talked big, trained big, and folded like a cheap card table when it really counted.

But by God, he carried a gun.

Preparedness, above all else, is a state of mind. My wife and I keep several firearms handy. We know exactly what we'd do if someone kicked in our door, or accosted us in the garage as we pulled in, etc.

We HAD to know that because long time ago, my LE work made both of us the target of all kinds of threats--some hollow, and others damned serious. And even then, we don't "pack heat" around the house.

Proper, prepared state of mind reinforced with "what to do if/when . . ." has served us pretty well.

It's also served all of our ex-military and ex/present law enforcement friends as well--who, by the way, don't "pack" at home but instead keep several weapons easily and quickly accessible.

Jeff

Playboypenguin
April 24, 2008, 02:26 AM
...and even a little weird. :)

I feel very safe at home. Like I have said before, I almost always feel safe everywhere I go. I am just one of those people that feels bad things happen to other people and I always manage to escape unscathed. It is one of the very few positive aspects of my personality.

That being said, I do carry daily just in case. Even though I scoff at the idea of needing it I still realize the benefits of being prepared for the worst.

While I am at home I feel completely safe but my gun still is within my reach. I do not usually keep it in the holster since I usually am sitting in the floor next to the coffee table. I keep it very close to me on the coffee table. It rests (now this is the fruity part) on a very nice 8"x10" royal blue satin pillow which (now this is the weird part) is actually the resting pillow from a guinea pig coffin...from back when I used to build the occasional cremation box and pet coffin. :)

JohnKSa
April 24, 2008, 02:33 AM
I know a number of acquaintances who "pack heat" around the house. I'll also bet my airplane, boat and other toys that if someone kicked in their door, the heat-packers would freeze up and not be able to draw and fire. They'd end up getting way hurt or just plain dead.And how would this change if someone broke in and they were unarmed? Is there something that would lead you to believe that home invaders don't injure or kill unarmed people? The news I've seen doesn't seem to bolster that idea.And finally, I either carried or wore a gun for a living for too many years. No way I'm going to be a prisoner in my own home and keep a gun strapped to me 24/7.

I refuse to live in a state of self-induced paranoia.The two do not follow, except perhaps to you and others who think like you.

There are some who think that carrying a gun makes them a prisoner, there are others who think that it makes them free. As far as I can tell it's a matter of personal preference. Fortunately there's rarely anyone forcing anyone to carry a gun if they don't want to.

And while carrying a gun may make you feel like you're in a state of "self-induced paranoia", it's a bit egotistical to assume that it affects everyone else in exactly the same way.

I don't know why it's common to assume that those who carry firearms do so out of fear.

I carry a small flashlight on my person nearly all the time, but it's not because I'm afraid of the dark.

I carry a cell phone a good bit of the time but it's not because I'm afraid of being unable to phone home.

I wear a watch, but it's not because I'm afraid not knowing what time it is or of being late.

I carry a gun, but it's not because I'm afraid of being attacked.

I have a small swiss army knife in my pocket that has tweezers in it--but it's not because I'm afraid of unwanted hair. :D

I try to be prepared for both the likely and the unlikely. Part of that is knowing what to do, some of that is having practiced what to do, some of that is having the right tools available when they're needed. I don't do it out of fear, it's just part of my philosophy of life. The things I carry come in handy on occasion, some many times a day, some once in awhile, some only VERY rarely, but there's NOTHING I carry that hasn't been used at least once.

I carry my flashlight at home, I wear my watch & have my swiss army knife in my pocket at home, why should a pistol be any different?

tc556guy
April 24, 2008, 04:33 AM
I don't usually carry at home unless I've been out and haven't had a chance to unholster yet. If I carried around the house 24/7, I am sure the wife would be looking at me strangely. Thats not to say that i don't have a firearm reasonably available around the house at any given time.

FireMax
April 24, 2008, 09:27 AM
I carry at home most of the time. It seems like a responsible thing to do. The way I look at it, if my carry gun is on my person, it is safer on my waist than anywhere else in my home. So, yes, I carry at home too most of the time.

If you think about it.... it takes only seconds for a perp to bust in a door and to confront you in your own home. My dad was killed in 1967 during a robbery in our home. He heard something in the kitchen, thought it was my older brother and got up to check. It was a burglar with a hand gun... brief struggle, one gun shot and my dad was gone. My dad did not have his weapon when he was shot.

pax
April 24, 2008, 09:52 AM
TSR,

Was going to leave this unanswered, since your post pretty much responded as predicted, and since JohnKSa did such a good job responding to it. But I think there's something to discuss here.

And finally, I either carried or wore a gun for a living for too many years. No way I'm going to be a prisoner in my own home and keep a gun strapped to me 24/7.

I refuse to live in a state of self-induced paranoia.

You know what I think would cause self-induced paranoia?

Not just getting dressed in the morning and putting your normal stuff in and around your pockets. That's not paranoia, that's just routine.

What I think would cause paranoia would be getting up in the morning and the first thing you think of before you can even get dressed, is, "Am I going to go anywhere 'dangerous' today? Should I wear my gun today or not?" By the time you've parsed that, analyzed it from all possible angles, contemplating the criminal statistics for every place you are likely to be and dwelling on the news that was on the TV last night to make your decisions, that's gonna cause serious twisted thinking. Starting your day, every day, wondering if your life will be "dangerous enough" today to justify carrying, and thinking about whether or not you are going to have to kill someone today. *shudder* No thanks!

No wonder some folks consider putting the gun on to be making themselves a "prisoner" and "paranoid." I would, too, if carrying weren't simply routine and my default setting.

To each his own! :)

pax

PS What I really don't understand is how it is "paranoid" to simply get dressed in the morning, but not paranoid to hide guns under the sofa cushions so that you cannot even slightly relax if friends drop by unexpectedly or if relatives have nosy children. Talk about being a "prisoner" in your own home! :D

grymster2007
April 24, 2008, 10:32 AM
This is going to sound very fruity...
...and even a little weird.

very fruity????... a little weird????

Other people might work real hard to make up a story like that. With you Playboy, the truth is stranger than fiction!:D

TexasSeaRay
April 24, 2008, 11:03 AM
Pax, JohnKSa,

I guess it's a matter of perception. Pax asks "am I going somewhere dangerous today?'

For some of us, that was a big "yes" every day. That was our job.

And when you see, experience and actually deal with real danger, you learn pretty quick what the difference is between real danger and perceived danger.

Something else that has been missing from this and so many discussions like it--and that is, a gun does not make you one bit safer.

Instead, a gun simply allows you to improve your odds of surviving a hostile encounter.

Again, I carried a gun for a living for too long. It never made me feel safer. Hell, the reason we carried guns was because we WENT to where the bad people/enemy was--we didn't wait for them to come to us.

Yet, back on the ship or back at the base or back at our quarters, we didn't carry guns with us. I only knew a handful of undercover agents that carried at home--and those were either the new guys or agents who'd just received the usual threats regarding them and/or their family. That is what I'd classify as real danger.

But Joe the accountant feeling a need to strap and pack around the house? Whatever. Free country and it's definitely your right. But if you think carrying a gun makes you safe, you could not be more wrong.

It makes you prepared and helps improve your odds.

THAT is part of the mindset of preparedness, along with understanding and accepting the difference between real danger and perceived danger and responding accordingly to each.

Jeff

pax
April 24, 2008, 11:42 AM
TexasSeaRay,

First you accused me and people like me of being "paranoid." Now you've twice repeated that you think people like me believe that carrying a gun makes us safe. And you've insinuated that I do not understand the difference between "real danger" versus "perceived danger."

Jeff, I'm not sure if you realize just how offensive you're being. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's difficult.

Yes, it is very true that some folks who carry firearms as private individuals do not have the right mindset for doing so. Some carry it as a magic talisman that will ward off evil just by existing, with the weird idea that as long as they are armed, nothing bad can ever happen to them. Some carry it without understanding the legal and ethical underpinnings of self-defense, and some -- sadly! -- carry simply because they really are angry at criminals and eager to exact their brand of justice.

But most of us aren't like that. Most people who carry guns habitually do so simply because we want to be prepared to cope with a criminal crisis -- both equipped (with the tools) and prepared (with the mindset) to save our own lives or at least stop the action until the professionals arrive to clean up the mess.

By continually repeating that people who arm themselves routinely & habitually are "paranoid," you've simply bought into the lie that ordinary people will never need the tools of effectual self-defense.

It's true that most ordinary people never will need to fire a gun or even display one. It's also true that those who do need a firearm or other effective defensive tool will need it very badly and very immediately.

Yes, my risk level is very low. I live in a rural area, don't have any criminal friends, don't engage in high-risk activities. My house is average for the area, neither an expensive invitation to thieves nor a slummy invitation to drug-seekers. So?

The fact that I live in a rural area means that my odds of a criminal encounter are relatively low. But my odds of a wildlife encounter are higher (saw a bear last week, 'bout a mile from the house, galumphing along the road at sunset). And if a criminal does attack, he's going to do so in the expectation that 1) the neighbors won't hear a thing, and 2) the cops' quickest possible response is a minimum of 20 minutes away -- on a good day.

So is my personal risk high enough to justify being armed? If I were carrying, as you insinuate, to "feel safe," nope. I feel plenty safe out here.

If I were carrying to lower my risk of attack, again nope. My risk of attack is low.

But if I were carrying simply to be prepared if trouble struck, well, yes. Yes it is. I don't think my risk of being attacked is particularly high, but my risk of being unable to deal with it without the tools to do so is pretty darn astronomical.

Suit yourself (you will anyway -- most folks do!). But please stop insulting everyone who has a different assessment than you do of the costs vs benefits of going armed at home.

pax

rantingredneck
April 24, 2008, 12:10 PM
I'm no criminal nor do I associate with criminals. I do not associate with those who are part of the drug culture. I've never been military or LE.

In my lifetime of 34 years, I've had a gun drawn on me once. I've drawn once and nearly drawn a second time. No shots fired in either case thankfully. I've been stabbed (upper arm, non-lifethreatening but sucked anyway). I've been the "almost" victim of 2 attempted strong arm robberies/carjackings (didn't work out so well for the "almost" perpetrators in either case). I've been bitten by a 160lb great dane.

Neither of the above incidents is something I hope to ever repeat.

My point. Trouble can find even those not looking for it. Will my carrying a gun ward off trouble? No. But it will give me one more tool in the toolkit to deal with it. Am I paranoid for choosing to keep my carry weapon on after I get home at night? No. Am I paranoid for having a 12 ga outside the safe where I can access it quickly when I'm at home? No.

Experience has taught me that you can't plan when you will be attacked.

DonR101395
April 24, 2008, 12:24 PM
We know exactly what we'd do if someone kicked in our door, or accosted us in the garage as we pulled in, etc.

I usually agree with you, but following the logic train you started with the rest of your post; you guys are going to freeze;)

clem
April 24, 2008, 01:30 PM
No, but I have loaded firearms in every room, with easy access.:D

Stevie-Ray
April 24, 2008, 03:02 PM
P32 on me as always right now. During times of high anxiety, like a helicopter with searchlight circling above, it will be much less relaxed and much heavier firepower, especially now that the weather is getting warmer, entry is easier, etc. Simply put, my comfort factor does not negate carrying at least A BUG around the house. I can't improve on what Pax has said. And somebody else has stated that you can't say when you're going to be a victim. It's that way around here. Low crime, but when it happens, everybody's shocked. Shame on me if it happens in my household and the presence of a gun could have prevented it.

Playboypenguin
April 24, 2008, 03:03 PM
With you Playboy, the truth is stranger than fiction!
What can I say...I do not like to lay my guns on hard surfaces and the pillow was just in a box in the garage going to waste. :o

VA9mm
April 24, 2008, 05:13 PM
At home there is an 870 within arms reach always. There are also 2 pittbulls on my security detail.

I try to keep my Tops 7" Bowie near me at all times as well but Im not as good about that.

jamaica
April 24, 2008, 05:19 PM
Your post asks two questions: "Do you carry at home - Why do people feel safe at home? "

To the first: Yes.

To the second: I feel safe because nothing has ever happened in 67 years to make me wish I had a gun in hand. Absolutely zero threats.

ElectricHellfire
April 24, 2008, 06:14 PM
No I do not. I have little kids and wrestling in the floor with my Glock on is just not safe nor feasable for me. Its kinda like asking if I carry while I swim.
My home is in a fairly safe neighborhood and I keep my shizz locked up at all times. I can access my guns in a matter of seconds if need be. Now if the doorbell rings after dark I'll be armed. I do carry my spyderco on me when Im around the house sometimes but thats it.

ElectricHellfire
April 24, 2008, 06:21 PM
It rests (now this is the fruity part) on a very nice 8"x10" royal blue satin pillow which (now this is the weird part) is actually the resting pillow from a guinea pig coffin...from back when I used to build the occasional cremation box and pet coffin

LOL thats awesome.

Is it fruity if mine resides in a purple and gold Crown Royale bag?

grymster2007
April 24, 2008, 06:41 PM
Is it fruity if mine resides in a purple and gold Crown Royale bag?

Yeah... that's a little fruity, but in a manlier fashion! And at least you didn't rip your gun pillow out from under some poor, dead guinea pig!:D:p

I pretty much do all the stuff pax says not to, but for this post, I strapped on the GLOCK.:p

FLA2760
April 24, 2008, 06:42 PM
yes and in respose to the following ANTI GUN propaganda.

"I know a number of acquaintances who "pack heat" around the house. I'll also bet my airplane, boat and other toys that if someone kicked in their door, the heat-packers would freeze up and not be able to draw and fire. They'd end up getting way hurt or just plain dead". :barf::barf::barf::barf:

Donovan655
April 24, 2008, 09:37 PM
I carry pretty much 100% of the time at home. It isn't because I'm paranoid, unprepared mentally, or whatever the hell other voodoo is in this thread.
It is because i've been underprepared in a violent confrontation before and swore to myself and my family i'd never let it happen again.

JohnKSa
April 24, 2008, 11:11 PM
It never made me feel safer.If someone asked me how carrying a gun makes me feel I would respond that it makes me feel prepared. Just the same as having the other items I carry on my person (or in my vehicle) makes me feel.

NOT having some of those items could negatively impact my safety, I suppose, but to date, that's not really been the case. Even the one time I actually needed a firearm, it was not related to my safety or anyone else's.

Wildalaska
April 24, 2008, 11:15 PM
If the pillow smells like a rodent, so will your gun :)

WildicanteventrytospellguineapigAlaska TM

Bogie
April 24, 2008, 11:37 PM
Gives new meaning to "mouse" gun?

I'm within 3' of a 9mm right now. I'm no more than 3-4 steps from a boomstick anywhere in my house, except for the guest room... I'm not paranoid - I just have storage and organization problems...

"Ah... This is a good spot... Let's leave it here..."

It think it may stem from when I moved a 3 bedroom house, with dining room, into a 900 square foot apartment... My bookshelves had books in them - and behind the books was the ammo, etc., etc...

Just got used to it.

Playboypenguin
April 24, 2008, 11:57 PM
at least you didn't rip your gun pillow out from under some poor, dead guinea pig!
If the pillow smells like a rodent, so will your gun
Gives new meaning to "mouse" gun?
Geez, I didn't say it was a "used" one. It was a left over from a coffin I built that never sold. :)

rdrancher
April 25, 2008, 01:28 AM
I carry at home because being prepared is a 24/7 kind of deal. There is no "time off". I've been doing it the same way for years.

rd

Wildalaska
April 25, 2008, 01:48 AM
OK so Im sitting here on the couch in my stained BVDs, one sock on and one sock off with no shirt, belly acting as a computer stand. Should I have a holster on?:D

WildperhapsawondermanbrawithapouchfortheseecampicantfindandspeakingofseecampAlaska TM

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 02:17 AM
Its a free country so folks can do as they like. Thats said, I've always thought that people who felt the need to carry a gun at home would be better served by swapping zip codes. If you're living in an area that you don't feel safe behind locked doors, then you have a problem that isn't going to be solved by just carrying.


As for being safe (as opposed to feeling safe) in your own home, check out these stats from the US Dept of Justice:
Of the 207,240 rapes and sexual assaults in America in 2004, 30% happened inside the woman's own home.

Of the 83,920 rapes and sexual assaults committed by a stranger, 42% happened inside the woman's own home.

Of the 99,130 incidents of completed robbery in which the victim was injured, 31% happened inside the victim's own home.

Of the 895,340 cases of aggravated assault, 18% happened within the victim's own home.

But as the first stat bears out, most crimes commited in the home are done by someone the victim either knows or is related to. If you look at your rape figure, more than half of all the rapes were comitted by someone the victim knew. Of the remaining number, less than half were committed in the victims home. I have no doubt that most of the cases of assault fall into this category as well.

As such, these stats aren't quite as imposing as has been suggested... unless you plan on shooting your friend/brother/father/husband.

Playboypenguin
April 25, 2008, 02:36 AM
OK so Im sitting here on the couch in my stained BVDs, one sock on and one sock off with no shirt, belly acting as a computer stand. Should I have a holster on?
First...Ugh...thanks ever so much for that mental image. :barf: :p

Second, of course you should. Doesn't Seecamp make a g-string holster? :)

rantingredneck
April 25, 2008, 02:57 AM
OK so Im sitting here on the couch in my stained BVDs, one sock on and one sock off with no shirt, belly acting as a computer stand. Should I have a holster on?

You should have an LCP in Thunderwear :D.


And having said that I sincerely hope you didn't................:eek:

tepin
April 25, 2008, 05:39 AM
i dont wear at home but keep the gun with me in the room

DonR101395
April 25, 2008, 10:09 AM
But as the first stat bears out, most crimes commited in the home are done by someone the victim either knows or is related to.


What bearing does this have on anything?

MagicMan
April 25, 2008, 11:02 AM
I always have my gun within reach at home. I really wish I could carry elsewhere. NJ sucks.

TexasSeaRay
April 25, 2008, 11:23 AM
Quote:
But as the first stat bears out, most crimes commited in the home are done by someone the victim either knows or is related to.

What bearing does this have on anything?

Reckon the bearing this has on the discussion is that those who feel so paranoid about being attacked in their own home to the point they need either constant valium or a constant sidearm strapped to them should probably start doing some background checks on their acquaintances. . .

That is, if they truly believe the statistics they like to trot out.

Jeff

pax
April 25, 2008, 12:04 PM
And there you are, back to "paranoid" and "feels so unsafe" -- both unfounded accusations that are highly offensive and have been answered repeatedly by several people.

But as the first stat bears out, most crimes commited in the home are done by someone the victim either knows or is related to. If you look at your rape figure, more than half of all the rapes were comitted by someone the victim knew. Of the remaining number, less than half were committed in the victims home. I have no doubt that most of the cases of assault fall into this category as well.

As such, these stats aren't quite as imposing as has been suggested... unless you plan on shooting your friend/brother/father/husband.

This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding both of self-defense and of the nature of violent crime statistics.

Jeff, the tendency is for people to discount all violent crimes in which the victim "knew" the attacker. He was her husband, her boyfriend, her roommate -- so her life could not really have been in danger, right? The rape "didn't count" because she knew the guy, right?

The theory here -- and an offensive one it is! -- is that a rape is somehow less traumatic for the victim if she knew the violent SOB who attacked her and threatened to kill her or maim her if she did not cooperate.

The numbers are made even fuzzier because no one parses the line between "current husband" and "violent ex-boyfriend stalker who found the victim after she had moved six times to get away."

If the victim recognized the peeping tom who had run off last week as the same guy who attacked her tonight, that violent stranger rape is classed as an "acquaintance rape," and lumped in with other "acquaintance" rapes in the stats, just as if she'd instead gotten drunk on a date and the guy took advantage of her inability to give legal consent.

Some of those "acquaintance rapes" were he-said/she-said events where who knows what really happened? But some (an unknown number, because it is not tracked, damnit) are cases where a violent and aggressive man attacks, threatens, maims and mauls his victim -- then walks or gets a slap on the wrist because some idiot DA thinks the crime somehow doesn't count since the victim "knew" her attacker.

So yeah, the numbers are fuzzy. You'll notice I reported both stats, the acquaintance stats AND the stranger stats. That was to make allowance for people who believe that when a woman gets raped, it is really a minor and inconsequential thing as long as she "knew" the guy who attacked her.

pax

pax
April 25, 2008, 12:07 PM
Reckon the bearing this has on the discussion is that those who feel so paranoid about being attacked in their own home to the point they need either constant valium or a constant sidearm strapped to them should probably start doing some background checks on their acquaintances. . .

This, of course, is as opposed to those who feel so paranoid about being attacked in their own home that they need constant access to guns hidden throughout their homes. :rolleyes:

Can we please, please, please dispense with the personal attacks, Jeff? They are really beneath you. I know you're better than this.

pax

Wildalaska
April 25, 2008, 12:14 PM
This, of course, is as opposed to those who feel so paranoid about being attacked in their own home that they need constant access to guns hidden throughout their homes.

On the other hand, there are those of us who have guns scattered everywhere because we have guns scattered everywhere...like books, vases, knicknacks...

Hell I have guns that are knick knacks :)

WildchotchkeAlaska ™

TexasSeaRay
April 25, 2008, 01:17 PM
Can we please, please, please dispense with the personal attacks, Jeff? They are really beneath you. I know you're better than this.

Please show me or point out a specific personal attack.

I'm making a blanket statement in the vein of "If the shoe fits, wear it." If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.

And, I'm being completely serious. I've asked repeatedly during discussions like this why or how I, and thousands of others just like myself, could do the deep undercover work I did with various street-level criminal organizations, and half the time, do it unarmed--yet survive. But somehow, your average accountant or cubicle worker in an office complex who lives in an average middle-class neighborhood feels that they MUST carry a gun with them 24/7--including anywhere and everywhere they go in their own home?

You can point to all the statistics you wish. I understand statistics. I have both an MA (advertising) and MBA (business) and retired early and comfortably from the advertising business--which lives and dies on numbers, research, and behavior patterns and trends.

You can tell me all about how "x" percentage of crime-class "y" occurs in the home and use those statistics to validate carrying a bazooka into the bathroom with you.

Conversely, I can take that same statistic and show you that based upon general population numbers, either the sampling or actuals polled to arrive at the percentage could also compute to something like "your chances of having crime "y" occur to you are less than one in one-hundred thousand.

Big difference between "40% of assaults occur in the home" and "you have a one in one-hundred thousand chance of being assaulted in your home" as argument and/or justification for packing heat everywhere you go in your own house or apartment--even moreso if you consider your statistical probabilities based upon both history of the sampling area and incidental occasions within that same sampling area.

Translation? We have had zero crime in our housing development area in the past twelve months. Not even a smashed car window or grafitti sprayed on a fence or fixture. Therefore, my statistical risk and probabilities of being assaulted in my own home are astronomically low--REGARDLESS of the "40% of assaults occur in the home" statistic trotted out to justify one's behavior.

Bottom line is that you do not have to justify strapping on a Glock17 with extended magazine and a backup gun just to move from your dining room to the reading room or breakfast area. It's YOUR HOUSE. You can dress up like Rambo, Lee Marvin and John Wayne all put together for all I care.

But I normally thought discussions could be two-way events rather than bandwagon "let's all agree" things, or even worse, "I disagree, but I better not speak up or I'll be beaten down" undertakings.

I happen to disagree, based upon my own views and experiences, with some of the thoughts and/or reasoning why some people feel the need to be heavily armed 24/7--especially in their own home.

NOTE that I did not say I think they should not have that right or that they shouldn't wear their Glock in the shower. Completely and totally up to them.

Maybe the post/topic should be retitled, "Those of you who carry at home, tell us why. Those of you who don't, shut up." ???

Jeff

pax
April 25, 2008, 01:21 PM
Jeff ~

Don't be disengenuous. You quoted me specifically, repeated the "so paranoid" and "feels so unsafe" accusations, and implied I am a liar who does not believe the statistics I presented.

This is an entirely different thing from simply disagreeing with another person's point. It was and is a personal attack: you called me paranoid and a liar.

I'm done talking to you.

pax

TexasSeaRay
April 25, 2008, 01:38 PM
Don't be disengenuous. You quoted me specifically, repeated the "so paranoid" and "feels so unsafe" accusations, and implied I am a liar who does not believe the statistics I presented.

Excuse me?

Take a look back at how many of my observations ended up in YOUR quoted replies, aided along by several heaping helpings of sarcasm.

I see nowhere that I implied you are a liar or that you did not believe the stats you or whoever provided--and THAT accusation by-God infuriates me.

So, two things, the first is negotiable, the second is not.

1. Don't dish it out if you're not willing to have it dished back on your plate.

2. Don't you DARE make the public accusations like you did while having the luxury of having "Moderator" hanging under your name unless you can bloody well back them up beyond ANY reasonable doubt.

YOU took this thing off topic with your childish "personal attacks" BS--and then furthered it. My contributions have been to further explain/support/defend why I feel the way I do about "Do you carry at home - why do people feel safe at home?"

Statistical discussions are almost always multi-faceted because statistics, by their very nature, are multi-faceted. Rarely does one statistic ever tell the entire tale. Gun owners looking for an honest assessment of the research, incidents and information that currently exist should have the opportunity to explore all facets of the issue.

Jeff

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 01:39 PM
What bearing does this have on anything?

Its relevant because if most attacks in the home happen from people you know or ar related to, your carrying a firearm isn't the deterrent that some claim it is because 1) odds are the person knows you're carrying 2) you aren't going to be on guard because you know them and 3) you probably aren't going to shoot your friend/relative.

As a result, the odds that you would need a firearm in your home for are much smaller. Add to this the fact that these stats aren't applicable equally to every neighborhood (stuff happens much more in bad areas than in good areas) and that even further decreases the percentage.

Hence my point that moving to a good area (and not hanging out with friends that will rape you) will be a far better solution than strapping on a gun. Sure you might successfully defend yourself, but why bother with that at when you don't have to.

Playboypenguin
April 25, 2008, 01:59 PM
Make sure you understand statistics. Yes, most attacks in the home involve a known person or family member.

However, those attacks do not mean they were home invasions. Family and friends are not likely to invade your home and attack you.

In fact, if you remove domestic violence from the mix, then most in home attacks are not from a friend or family member. You have to remember that these statistics include every single domestic call as if it was a break in when you simply look at overall acts of violence.

Pilot
April 25, 2008, 02:08 PM
I carry at home. Why not? Its where all you valuable stuff and family is located. Murphy's law demands that I carry as when someone breaks in I know it will be when I'm farthest away from a firearm.

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 02:11 PM
This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding both of self-defense and of the nature of violent crime statistics.

And what qualifies you to make that statement?


Jeff, the tendency is for people to discount all violent crimes in which the victim "knew" the attacker. He was her husband, her boyfriend, her roommate -- so her life could not really have been in danger, right? The rape "didn't count" because she knew the guy, right?

First, I'm not Jeff. Second, its not that it doesn't "count", its that the situation is so different from someone facing a traditional criminal, that the gun isn't nearly the deterrent that you think it is. Think about it. A husband is supposed to be in the home. Its not wierd for him to touch his wife, walk behind her, be in close proximity to her.

You would never let a strange assailant get that close or be that familiar. You wouldn't let your guard down. And this doesn't even get into the mental and emotional problems someone would have with shooting their friend/husband/relative.


The theory here -- and an offensive one it is! -- is that a rape is somehow less traumatic for the victim if she knew the violent SOB who attacked her and threatened to kill her or maim her if she did not cooperate.

No Pax, thats just what you read into it. There isn't anything that was written that even remotely suggests this.


If the victim recognized the peeping tom who had run off last week as the same guy who attacked her tonight, that violent stranger rape is classed as an "acquaintance rape," and lumped in with other "acquaintance" rapes in the stats, just as if she'd instead gotten drunk on a date and the guy took advantage of her inability to give legal consent.

Not even close.

Some of those "acquaintance rapes" were he-said/she-said events where who knows what really happened? But some (an unknown number, because it is not tracked, damnit) are cases where a violent and aggressive man attacks, threatens, maims and mauls his victim -- then walks or gets a slap on the wrist because some idiot DA thinks the crime somehow doesn't count since the victim "knew" her attacker.

Not only is that baloney, but it has nothing to do with my point.

So yeah, the numbers are fuzzy. You'll notice I reported both stats, the acquaintance stats AND the stranger stats. That was to make allowance for people who believe that when a woman gets raped, it is really a minor and inconsequential thing as long as she "knew" the guy who attacked her.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with my point. Its just a fallacious emotional rabbit hole.

The point is that a majority of attacks in the home happen between people who know each other. Because of this, the feasibility of using a gun isn't as advantageous as you suggest because the attacker is going to be in close proximity if not in contact with the victim, the victim isn't going to be on alert because of their familiarity, and even if an attack occurs, and the victim has a gun, they still may not be able to shoot because of their relationship with a victim.

That means the number of cases in which a person would find home carry advantageous are so small, its akin to being hit by lightning. Thats why people who feel the need to carry in teh home are viewed as paranoid. And thats why a better suggestion is to find a safer area rather than carry because its far more beneficial.

Again, its your right to do whatever you want. However I don't think there is any other area where people take precautions based on the .00001% chance of something happening. Theres just something about firearms that brings out the quirks in people. Personally I think its just a matter of people that like to carry or have a real "thing" for firearms and they are coming up with some other reason to justify it to themselves.

If you like to carry at home, just say it. Ain't nothing wrong with that. However when people try to wrap some importance around it and pretend like its "vital" based on stats that prove the exact opposite, thats when eyes start to roll.

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 02:17 PM
In fact, if you remove domestic violence from the mix, then most in home attacks are not from a friend or family member.

Yes, but thats like saying that if we remove John McCain, then Ron Paul is the next highest vote getter. (Just an example I know). Sure he may be the next highest, but hes so much lower that he doesn't really compare.

Domestic violence accounts for a majority of crime in the home. Having a firearm isn't likely to stop it for the reasons I mentioned. If we only take into account the number of traditional crimes in the home, the odds you'll need a gun are much lower. If you live in the average suburb, then your odds are lower than that. A gated community, even lower still.

Keep your doors locked, buy a dog, use some prudence in the things you do, and unless your address is somewhere in the green zone or on crenshaw blvd, you shouldn't need to carry at home.

Jkwas
April 25, 2008, 02:35 PM
I don't carry at home, but I keep a piece close by and my doors are locked.

An older co-worker told me of an ordeal he had to go thru a few years ago, and it stuck with me.
He lived in a nice subdivision, nothing bad ever happened there. He was driving home and saw some guys hanging out on his street, didn't think to much about it.
So now he's working in his garage and hears his wife screaming. He goes to see what's wrong and gets jumped by three guys who were trying to get his wife to show them where the valuables were. During the struggle both he and his wife were beat up pretty bad, and they were holding him down, trying to put-out his eyes with a screwdriver so he couldn't identify them. He wrestled free and they made their escape on foot, he got his gun and fired at them and missed. The police didn't prosecute for discharging a firearm, but they never caught the perpetrators.
He never goes anywhere without a gun.
Food for thought.

rantingredneck
April 25, 2008, 02:43 PM
He lived in a nice subdivision, nothing bad ever happened there.

That's the way most nice subdivisions are, until something bad happens there.

To all those arguing statistics, remember this:

Statistically there was no reason for cockpit doors to be reinforced prior to 9/11/2001.

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

No need to be "paranoid". Plenty need to be prepared.

BikerRN
April 25, 2008, 02:46 PM
My motto is, "THERE IS NO SAFE PLACE."

Yes, I carry at home, but not in jails or prisons. I take my guns off to sleep and shower, but have them close by. Some places are safer than others, but not even the grave is 100% safe. It's all relative.

You make your choices and take your chances.

Playboypenguin
April 25, 2008, 02:48 PM
Yes, but thats like saying that if we remove John McCain, then Ron Paul is the next highest vote getter.
No, it is not. It is like saying if you remove john McCain from the mix then Oprah is the worlds best talk show host. They are two totally different categories. You are not arming yourself to shoot your wife or brother-n-law over a small domestic scuffle. You are arming yourself to protect against home invasion. Home invasion and domestic disputes are two unrelated things.

rantingredneck
April 25, 2008, 02:49 PM
Statistically there was no reason for cockpit doors to be reinforced prior to 9/11/2001.

Actually now that I've reread that and thought about it a minute or two, there's still no statistical reason for them to be reinforced. Even with those 4 attacks and 4 planes crashed what are the chances, statistically of that happening given the total number of flights per year??

Still doesn't mean they shouldn't be reinforced.

Wildalaska
April 25, 2008, 02:57 PM
The point I have been trying to make is my own silly fashion is that there is a fundamental "wierdness" (not the best choice of words but I dont mean it as an insult, just sort of as a :cool:) with the whole concept of wearing a gun in your home....

I walk around in my BVDs....should I toss on a gunbelt too? How about when I am excersizing my right to allow my delectable and manly body to be free of clothing...just naked old me and a gun belt? SWMBO would beat me to death using deadly Japgirl husbandsubmission techniques..

Don't get me wrong, I sort of look askance at the gun stashing business too..

Maybe it's because I dont view guns as anyhting special...they are just things that are cool and are there...even SWMBO feels the same way...she was vacuming and picked up the M1A in the corner and moved it...I thought...how ordinary...here is a girl from Japan who never saw a gun for 26 years and she just moves an M1A (digicam patterned stock I may add) like it's a knick knack.

And Pax, I too have the philosophy that the gun is just something else I toss in my pocket, like getting dressed. If I can find my Seecamp, when I am wearing my pants, the gun is there. But when I get home, off comes the pants and off comes the gun....

IMHO those who obsess about guns in the bathroom and guns being carried in the home to be "ready" for something that aint gonna happen in Whitebread, USA are folks that are living in fear...I'm not gonna live like that.

WildihavecleanbvdsontodayAlaska TM

buzz_knox
April 25, 2008, 03:01 PM
Actually now that I've reread that and thought about it a minute or two, there's still no statistical reason for them to be reinforced. Even with those 4 attacks and 4 planes crashed what are the chances, statistically of that happening given the total number of flights per year??

Still doesn't mean they shouldn't be reinforced.

That's the problem with statistics; the right answer doesn't necessarily agree with the statistically correct one.

rantingredneck
April 25, 2008, 03:02 PM
WA,

If SWMBO gets tired of moving that clunky old M1A around just tell her to send it to me to get it out of her way. I know how heavy and clunky it must be for her and will reluctantly take it so that she doesn't have to suffer that chore any longer.

:D.

And thank you for at least wearing clean BVD's today :D.

RR

TexasFats
April 25, 2008, 04:12 PM
I carry at home because it is most convenient. I don't want to leave several guns lying around in different places where a bad guy might find one and turn it against me, and it is just too inconvenient for me to pick it up and take it with me every time I need to go to the can or to the kitchen for a glass of water. My policy is to never be more than arm's reach from a weapon at home. At night, there are two by my bed, and a loaded 12-gauge in my closet. The neighborhood isn't bad, but there are some bad spots less than a mile away. Plus, bad guys sometimes come to "good" neighborhoods on the idea that folks are easier prey and have more valuable stuff.

primlantah
April 25, 2008, 04:42 PM
TSR,

you are looking at it from a different view point than the average joe. First, you are almost ridiculing the average citizen for carrying a gun because they have never been in a true combat scenario. You need to bear in mind that there are many kinds of danger. Yes, the odds of something happening to average joe is slim to none. Yes, being strapped 100% of the time is probably a bit much from the POV of the person who has been in military combat looking at the white collar worker.

However, you need to bear in mind that not everyone in this country live in the same conditions as yourself. Im not saying your wrong. Im saying your being too extreme on the paranoid white collar worker thing and are actually doing the RKBA people a disservice.

I am a white collar worker. I have never been in a gun fight. I keep a gun close by always. I have been burglarized, dogs killed, and guns stolen from my home when younger. I have befriended bad guys in my younger and more reckless days. I do not underestimate the capacity of the average neighborhood thug to do evil.

I have had someone attempt to invade my home on several occasions in the recent past, some while i was there and some not. I can think of at least 2 occasions where being too paranoid, as you put it, saved myself, my girlfriend, and my belongings. Am I paranoid? to you...yes. To me... in a neighborhood where my race and social class is a minority i do stand out as a target. This is not unfounded paranoia talking, it is experience.

your set of experiences and your situation in life differ from many other people on earth thus so does your ideology.

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 04:45 PM
You are not arming yourself to shoot your wife or brother-n-law over a small domestic scuffle. You are arming yourself to protect against home invasion. Home invasion and domestic disputes are two unrelated things.

You're missing the point. Stats were put up to justify carrying at home. Said stats, at least with respect to assaults, did not differentiate between DV assaults and assaults from home invaders. If you remove the DV assaults the the number is cut in half at least, likely more. That means you now have half as much justification to carry from what was a paltry statistic to being with.

Once again, if you want to carry because you like it, thats great. However using these stats as evidence that carry in the home is warranted or necessary just doesn't pan out.


IMHO those who obsess about guns in the bathroom and guns being carried in the home to be "ready" for something that aint gonna happen in Whitebread, USA are folks that are living in fear...I'm not gonna live like that.

Now that I've gotten that mental image of you in your BVD's sitting on a bean bag chair surfin TFL with your cheeto stained fingers out of my head, +1.

Lifes to short to wear clothes all the time.

mavracer
April 25, 2008, 05:15 PM
Mavracer, beg to disagree here. I do not think it is particularly smart to have guns hidden all through your house. Yeah, I'll get flamed for saying this on this board, but ... it's true anyway.

Pax,I agree I was actually joking.Guess I should answer OP.I carry at home sometimes usually just don't take it off.
and for the record all my guns ar either locked in reloading room or in my bedroom.each of the 18 year olds have a gun in their rooms with trigger locks only me, mom and them know.
My kids were raised with the rule they can look at any gun they want just ask first,it worked for us.

Avenger11
April 25, 2008, 06:58 PM
I think many, not all, that make a living from firearms and training have a ditorted view of what the average person really needs to defend themselves. No doubt they have a personal and financial interest in their agenda but regardless of statistics skewed to their point of view, the average citizen doesn't need to carry 24/7, or keep a gun in every room, or subject themselves to a training regimen that they will seldom use and soon forget.
Life is too short to spend time obsessing about percieved threats. while a little self research and common sense will do just fine.
Thank you.

Chocobo
April 25, 2008, 07:04 PM
I carry at home because you never know if anyone might kick in your door.

JohnKSa
April 25, 2008, 09:04 PM
This is always an interesting topic.

The people against carrying at home typically have the following main points:

Assertion 1: People who carry at home are paranoid.
Assertion 2: It's pointless (or it's an over-reaction) because the chance of being attacked at home is small.
Assertion 3: It's pointless because even if you carry you might be unable to ward off an attack.

The first assertion (people who carry are paranoid) is an example of a logical fallacy called an ad hominem. Rather than discussing the benefits/disadvantages of the opposing premise, it seeks to dismiss the opposing argument by attempting to discredit those who espouse it. It is not only a logical fallacy, it is an offensive tactic and not one that lends itself to polite discussion for obvious reasons.

The second assertion is irrelevant. In spite of the fact that attacks are rare, they do happen. To imply that there's no need to prepare for rare occurrences ignores the fact that rare is not the same as never. Furthermore, the fact that an event is rare is no comfort for those unlucky enough to be affected. "They kicked in my door, raped my wife, beat up grampa, shot me and the kids will be in therapy for life--but hey, we don't mind because this hardly ever happens." RIGHT. :rolleyes:

The final assertion is also irrelevant. One prepares with the understanding that not every event can be overcome with preparation. Having fire extinguishers in your home won't do you any good if you're away from home when the fire starts or if you can't get to one for some reason. So if we follow the "logic", we shouldn't bother to buy fire extinguishers because in some instances they will be useless.

Monitored alarms are pointless if the phone lines are cut--should we get rid of the alarm system because it won't work if the phones are out? The point is that having a gun very readily available increases one's chances of being able to effectively resist. Will everyone who carries a gun at home be able to prevail in every case? Clearly not, but that doesn't mean that the practice is useless, it just means that it's not universally effective. Not surprising since nothing is.

doc540
April 25, 2008, 10:09 PM
yes

in a SmartCarry

why?

I'm not privilege to the bad guys' schedule.

DonR101395
April 25, 2008, 10:17 PM
Reckon the bearing this has on the discussion is that those who feel so paranoid about being attacked in their own home to the point they need either constant valium or a constant sidearm strapped to them should probably start doing some background checks on their acquaintances. . .

That is, if they truly believe the statistics they like to trot out.

Jeff


My point is that just because I know someone doesn't mean that I won't defend myself against them. I would hate to hurt someone I know, but if they for whatever reason decide that they wish to do me harm, I have no problem defending myself with an appropriate amount of force.



Its relevant because if most attacks in the home happen from people you know or ar related to, your carrying a firearm isn't the deterrent that some claim it is because 1) odds are the person knows you're carrying 2) you aren't going to be on guard because you know them and 3) you probably aren't going to shoot your friend/relative.

As a result, the odds that you would need a firearm in your home for are much smaller. Add to this the fact that these stats aren't applicable equally to every neighborhood (stuff happens much more in bad areas than in good areas) and that even further decreases the percentage.

Hence my point that moving to a good area (and not hanging out with friends that will rape you) will be a far better solution than strapping on a gun. Sure you might successfully defend yourself, but why bother with that at when you don't have to.

I've never had a problem in my home from visitors. I've also never been in a car accident, but I still pay the insurance;)

STAGE 2
April 25, 2008, 10:48 PM
The second argument is irrelevant. In spite of the fact that attacks are rare, they do happen. To imply that there's no need to prepare for rare occurrences ignores the fact that rare is not the same as never.

Not really. There is something valid in pointing out the fact that people who use stats to justify one action, don't take similar precautions for other hazards that are far more likely. It tells me that at the end of the day they carry because they want to and not out of some genuine fear of crime, and that they are trying to find a reason to justify it.


I've never had a problem in my home from visitors. I've also never been in a car accident, but I still pay the insurance

Cause the law requires you to.

DonR101395
April 25, 2008, 10:52 PM
Cause the law requires you to.

Nope, because I feel it's needed. I did it even when insurance wasn't required by law.

It's also not required in FL for motorcycles without a lien. I fall into that category, but still carry full coverage insurance.

Wildalaska
April 25, 2008, 10:54 PM
This is always an interesting topic.

And is almost a reductio ad absurdum topic, although one beaten to death:D

My thoughts...again.....

I repeat my question earlier? Anybody run around naked in their home? Ya put a gun on?

Y'all do the horizontal rhumba with SWMBO and have your gun belt on? Tape a derringer between your cheeks.

Its 6am and you have to take a leak...your can is right across the bedroom...strap on your Wilson Combat over your jammies?

Christmas party time.....you keep your Glock strong side under your Santa Suit?..you dont' have a drink or two, in fact you NEVER have a drink or two in yOur own home CUZ YOU ARE ALWAYS CARRYING A GUN.....24/7 365...

How about In the public gym? In the sauna? You go to them dont ya? Belly gun under the spandex?

Answer no to that bunch of questions and home carriers are blowing smoke.....and if you answer yes then I honestly and truly beleive you need to examine your life...for if you feel you have to be in condition red with a gun on at all times, if you feel that you need to make your own home into an armed camp then you have no life at all..or at least not a happy one.

And I assume that if you are carrying a gun at all times you go NOWHERE where you can't...ever....

WilditrytobebluntAlaska TM

JohnKSa
April 25, 2008, 11:09 PM
I don't have a place to carry a pocket knife when I'm wearing clothes without pockets, but that doesn't make a pocket knife any less useful. Nor does it mean that I've never needed a pocket knife while wearing clothes without pockets. NOR does the fact that I'm occasionally without a pocket knife mean that pocket knives aren't practical. NOR does the fact that I'm occasionally without a pocket knife prove that the value of having a pocket knife on one's person is overrated. It just means that it's not always possible to have a pocket knife on one's person without resorting to ridiculous strategies.

Similarly, proving that it's impossible to be unwaveringly vigilant and that it's foolishly impractical to always carry a gun doesn't prove anything other than it's impossible to be unwaveringly vigilant and that it's foolishly impractical to always carry a gun.

Which makes this...Answer no to that bunch of questions and home carriers are blowing smoke.....and if you answer yes then I honestly and truly beleive you need to examine your life......a false dichotomy.

Wildalaska
April 25, 2008, 11:43 PM
John your gettin' as bad as Applesanity :)

...a false dichotomy.

But your post supports my argument ;)

"It just means that it's not always possible to have a pocket knife on one's person without resorting to ridiculous strategies."

WildfromthetacticaltothephilosophicalAlaska TM

STAGE 2
April 26, 2008, 12:03 AM
Nope, because I feel it's needed. I did it even when insurance wasn't required by law.

And guess what the odds of you getting into an accident are compared to a home invasion.

jrothWA
April 26, 2008, 12:23 AM
to reach!

JohnKSa
April 26, 2008, 12:31 AM
But your post supports my argumentOf course--up until the conclusion.

Accepting that there are situations when it's ridiculous to carry doesn't mean that it follows that there's no value in carrying when it IS "non-ridiculous". Nor does it imply that carrying at home must include even the times that it's wildly impractical to be of value. And it doesn't follow that a person who doesn't carry when it's wildly impractical is being hypocritical.

The false dilemma you posed gives a person the choice between admitting they're not serious about being prepared (because they don't carry when it would be ridiculous to do so) or that they're crazy (because they do). Those aren't the only two options.

I don't carry when it's wildly impractical BECAUSE it's wildly impractical, but I do carry at home when it is "non-ridiculous" because it's very easy to do and because I find it simpler and more practical than caching guns around the house. Not that I EXPECT home carry (or cached guns) to pay off tonight, or even in my lifetime, but rather because there's a very tiny chance it COULD pay off at any time.

I don't have to remember where the closest gun is in this room and how to get to it. I don't have to remember where all the guns are when someone brings kids over. I don't have to spend time collecting guns or redistributing them before & after trips out of town. I always (ok, ALMOST always :D) know exactly where the closest gun is so I don't have to think about it at all. When I take it off and put it in the safe (or when I leave the house) the house is already child-proofed or ready to be vacated for an extended period.

I think that this is part of the disconnect. I (and I'm sure others) find that carrying a gun at home is the simplest and most practical way to have ready access to one. In fact it's so simple and practical that I can't find a reason not to carry at home. I suppose that if I equated carrying a gun with servitude I might have a different attitude--fortunately I don't.And guess what the odds of you getting into an accident are compared to a home invasion.Still irrelevant.

DonR101395
April 26, 2008, 12:32 AM
And guess what the odds of you getting into an accident are compared to a home invasion.

I'm not playing the statistics game. I'm playing the insurance game.
Pax is the one with the stats:D


But I'd have to say that for me personally, based on previous experience the probability is about the same. I've never had either one happen. I had also never had anyone try to hold me up either until 1989 in RiverFront Park, but I'm glad I didn't play the odds and applied for my CCW permit the day I was eligible in 88 while living in Spokane. No shots fired, but it definitely reinforced to me a need to be prepared for the unlikely. Hold ups weren't common place in the park back then, I don't know what it's like there now. It also drove home the need for additional training since I didn't feel I handled it as well as I should have even though no one was hurt and I kept my stuff. I'm just thankful that he decided he didn't want to test his skills with a screwdriver against mine with a 1911; we both would have been hurt IMHO.
The need for additional training based on the probability of me needing it ever again is low, but I'll continue to train just the same.


To make WA happy I won't say I have a gun 24/7, but I do have a firearm on me as much as feasibly and legally possible and adjust appropriately for times when a gun/knife/club is just not legal or feasible. I never could keep the derringer from rubbing my butt cheeks raw:p

Wildalaska
April 26, 2008, 12:46 AM
Of course--up until the conclusion.


John you're ignoring the naked aspects of my argument:D.....unlike Don, who, whilst I am enjoying a rare beef on rye with Russian Dressing, Swiss cheese and coleslaw, leaves me with an image of a HiPoint chafing a set of hairy male buttocks....

Its not an issue of practicality, its a worldview I can't relate to, nor quite frankly, understand....

Even the soldier puts down his weapon.

Wildhelpicantwalkwiththis629stuffedintomyfeetiepajamasAlaska TM

PS

I don't have to remember where the closest gun is in this room and how to get to it.

Now if that was me, it would be CANT remember instead of don't have to bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha...hey home invader dude, wait up, chill, I got to rummage through the dirty laundry so I can shoot your sorryass bwaaaaaaaaahhahaha...:eek:

Hmmmm....think I'll go lock the door:cool:

DonR101395
April 26, 2008, 12:54 AM
hey home invader dude, wait up, chill, I got to rummage through the dirty laundry so I can shoot your sorryass bwaaaaaaaaahhahaha...


WA,
You always make me laugh dude.


On the worldview, I grew up in small town MI and we didn't lock the doors, even when we went on vacation. I guess I've just become jaded;)

JohnKSa
April 26, 2008, 12:55 AM
John you're ignoring the naked aspects of my argument...Like that's a bad thing... :D

Wildalaska
April 26, 2008, 01:03 AM
Like that's a bad thing...

You just don't want to admit you have an ankle hoslter in YOUR Dr. Denton's .:p

WildminehavelittleS&WsalloverquitecuteAlaska TM

STAGE 2
April 26, 2008, 01:06 AM
Stage2, read post 106 on this thread, paying special attention to assertion 2 and the response to it.

I already addressed that. Sure there are people who fall victim to home invasions and crime, the odds that this will happen to the average joe in suburbia are so remotely small its ridiculous.

And like I said, the people who use the stats as a justification likely don't take the same precautions with things that are much more likely to happen. For example, if someone is going to tell me that they wear at home because there is a XYZ% chance of a home invasion, but then drive everywhere without jumper cables then it makes me wonder.

In fact I'm inclined to believe that in most cases (barring those who live in really bad neighborhoods), folks aren't really being honest when they say they carry at home for "protection". They, for some inexplicable reason, aren't comfortable with just saying they do it cause they like it. My guess is because most people would look that them funny if they did because you really don't need to carry at home.

Playboypenguin
April 26, 2008, 01:08 AM
I will agree with some that this discussion has gotten boring but I will add this one last thing. Like I said before, I do not carry at home. Mainly because it is just too inconvenient and a bit uncomfortable. When I get home the gun goes on it's pillow and stays there until I am sure I am not going back out or go to bed and then it goes into the safe.

However, I am not sure calling someone paranoid just because they decide to be prepared for a home invasion is a good idea when I carry a gun every day. It is only ever so slightly more likely I will ever need the gun out of the house than in it but I still carry it.

JohnKSa
April 26, 2008, 01:15 AM
And like I said, the people who use the stats as a justification likely don't take the same precautions with things that are much more likely to happen. For example, if someone is going to tell me that they wear at home because there is a XYZ% chance of a home invasion, but then drive everywhere without jumper cables then it makes me wonder. Yes and no.

Yes because if a person knows that two events are equally likely and feels that they are equally unpleasant and yet prepares much more carefully for one than the other there's a contradiction.

No because rational people find a fender-bender much less unpleasant than having someone hold them and their family prisoners in their own homes, torturing, raping, robbing and murdering on a whim. So even though the car wreck is a lot more probable than a home invasion, it's not contradictory for a person to be somewhat less alarmed at the relatively likely prospect of having a careless driver put his car in the shop than he is about the admittedly far less likely chance of having a home invader rape a family member in front of him.

This same behavior can be seen in reverse in lotteries. There are people who are willing to pay good money to play the lottery in the face of astronomical odds because the potential payoff is so huge and yet who wouldn't stoop to pick up a penny. We all know that the odds of seeing a penny on the ground are pretty good while the odds of winning the lottery are really bad. So if the object of the game is free money, a person should spend his time looking for pennies on the ground rather than buying lottery tickets--right? WHY would someone pick the FAR less likely event (lottery win) to focus on instead of the much more likely one (free pennies)? I don't really think it's necessary to spend a lot of time explaining this "phenomenon". :DIn fact I'm inclined to believe that in most cases (barring those who live in really bad neighborhoods), folks aren't really being honest when they say they carry at home for "protection". They, for some inexplicable reason, aren't comfortable with just saying they do it cause they like it. My guess is because most people would look that them funny if they did because you really don't need to carry at home.I like it--in the sense that I like being prepared. I like carrying a flashlight even though the chances of a power outage here aren't significantly higher than elsewhere--and I find it useful for other things besides power outages. I like carrying a pocket knife although there's really not a higher chance that I'll need to trim or cut something in my neighborhood than in anyone elses--but it's handy to have one when you need it and not have to go looking.

A gun is just one more useful tool that I carry when it's practical. One that's come in handy--although (and this is sort of important to note for the purposes of the argument) not for self-defense in my case. In other words, it's not JUST about criminals and home invasions, guns have other useful purposes.

Ok, turn about is fair play, right?

My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it.

Then again, maybe you just don't see it as a practical option and I do... ;) I think the biggest problem with this topic is that people on both sides of the issue are unwilling to take either side's comments at face value for various reasons. Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.

TexasSeaRay
April 26, 2008, 01:51 AM
First, you are almost ridiculing the average citizen for carrying a gun because they have never been in a true combat scenario.

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.

What I'm illustrating is that there are thousands upon thousands of law enforcement types who go to work every day in "plain clothes" undercover type work. In this type of work, you are dead smack in the middle of whatever criminal enterprise you're investigating.

Rarely does the undercover cop need his weapon. Many undercover assignments call for you to be unarmed, believe it or not.

What I'm trying to point out is that these folks are walking into the tiger's lair in the middle of the jungle, and while most (undercover agents/cops) are armed while on the assignment or "at work," I knew very few who, when off-duty and at home, felt the need to carry a weapon at their side everywhere they went in the house.

They knew when and where the liklihood of real and imminent danger existed--and it wasn't in their homes.

Likewise, I see and read the comments of white-collar workers who tuck their CCW in their waistband, climb into the car, drive to the office, park in the secured lot or garage, take the elevator to the office while waving at the security guard--then reverse the scenario on their way home.

No problem with that. You're outside of your home and in an environment that has many factors that are well beyond your ability to control so far as safety and your well-being is concerned.

But then that same white-collar worker gets home and isn't comfortable walking from the kitchen to the kids' room without packing a piece--in an environment in which you have complete and total control as far as safety and well-being are concerned, even without the concealed carry weapon.

The folks I raise an eyebrow at are the ones who justify their packing with statistics like "40% of all assaults occur at home."

Is that a national statistic? Is it based upon NCIC reports or is it based upon sampling? What are the same statistics for MY neighborhood? What if in MY city, only 2% of all assaults occur at home and I live in a city of over 200,000? That comes back to your odds--based upon the "inarguable" statistics--of being assaulted in your home are only one in one-hundred thousand.

I'm not ridiculing anyone except those who suffer from a bad-case of self-induced paranoia because some people simply LIKE being scared all of the time, or "being that one in one-hundred-thousand." We used to call those people "Professional Victims" and carrying a gun never seemed to help them out.

On the other hand, I have zero problems with those who carry ANYWHERE under the personal guise of being prepared.

And no problems whatsoever with the honest folks who carry around the house "because they can and/or they enjoy having a sidearm strapped on."

Jeff

Wildalaska
April 26, 2008, 02:04 AM
My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it.

Ha! projection! Those who really fear the monster are the ones who pretend to take steps...the strange rituals (posting on gun boards, putting guns on pillows, pet names for wepons) as well as having their talisman strapped on them! Garlic!

Your turn...:)

Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.

Every time I see that word angst I want to squeeze some zits, wear black and hate my parents.

WildyouguysaregreatAlaska TM

yongxingfreesty
April 26, 2008, 02:12 AM
dont carry, have it within arms reach though.

STAGE 2
April 26, 2008, 03:11 AM
This same behavior can be seen in reverse in lotteries. There are people who are willing to pay good money to play the lottery in the face of astronomical odds because the potential payoff is so huge and yet who wouldn't stoop to pick up a penny. We all know that the odds of seeing a penny on the ground are pretty good while the odds of winning the lottery are really bad. So if the object of the game is free money, a person should spend his time looking for pennies on the ground rather than buying lottery tickets--right? WHY would someone pick the FAR less likely event (lottery win) to focus on instead of the much more likely one (free pennies)? I don't really think it's necessary to spend a lot of time explaining this "phenomenon".

And guess what I think about people who play the lottery:D


A gun is just one more useful tool that I carry when it's practical. One that's come in handy--although (and this is sort of important to note for the purposes of the argument) not for self-defense in my case.

Bolded the important part. Unless you plan on showering with your pistol, sleeping with it, and carrying it while you do other things that are done in the home, then you aren't going to have it on all the time because its not practical.

In other words, it's not JUST about criminals and home invasions, guns have other useful purposes.

Ok, I give. What other useful purpose is there in carrying in your home?


My guess is that the people who oppose home carry, (particularly those who do so ardently) do so out of a misguided sense (probably partially rooted in the subconscious) that carrying at home will be an admission of vulnerability that could somehow actually increase their odds of being invaded. The same kind of reasoning that a small child uses to keep the "monster" under his bed by not looking to see if it's there and by not thinking about it.

Don't get me wrong. I don't oppose people carrying in their homes. Feel free to dance around your living room wearing a safariland and nothing else if it makes you happy. I just don't buy in to the "I do it for protection" reason.


Then again, maybe you just don't see it as a practical option and I do... I think the biggest problem with this topic is that people on both sides of the issue are unwilling to take either side's comments at face value for various reasons. Which naturally leads to a good bit of angst on both sides.

No, I honestly don't think its practical. For someone with kids its definately not. For someone with a significant other its not. A glock just isn't conducive to cuddling. Even with a single guy I don't think its all that practical either.

I am taking the other sides arguments at face value, and thats the problem. Those arguing in favor of home carry are doing so from the perspective that its either that or nothing. Thats not the case. You see the other factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is how many crimes can be stopped by a person having a loaded gun readily available. The already infinitesimally small number that we are already dealing with is once again, cut in half, or even more.

When you look at it from this perspective, the percieved benefit from carrying is so far outweighed by the hinderances that the "stats" aren't a justification at all.

Sigma 40 Blaster
April 26, 2008, 08:00 AM
This is a pretty funny thread that has almost ran it's course (I HOPE) but I thought the one where the guy from NY who still lived with his parents and could not get a permit to buy a gun because Mom didn't approve would end FAST. BOY, I was wrong.

I think the funny thing about this thread is that everyone's acting like your chances of being car jacked, robbed, mugged, involved in a hostage situation are WAY higher than being a victim of burglary or home invasion.

I see MANY posts where people proclaim that they'll likely never have to draw their concealed handgun in self-defense but carry just in case. Just like some guys have two guns, several knives, pepper spray, handcuff keys, flashlights, bug out bags, and dried beef jerky on/around their person at all times. Chances are all that is needless prognostication. Does it make us feel better? If so do it, if it makes you feel paranoid don't. Either way I don't think either side is right or wrong, "It's your thing, do what you wanna do".

I wake up, do my morning thing, dress, "strap up", and I have an additional check before I leave the house (keys, phone, wallet, gun). I go about my business, return home with the same stuff, and I remain holstered until I change into shorts/sweats/whatever. Usually my gun will go back in the safe or to a "safe zone" where I can easily access it. I might put on a smaller one if I'm going somewhere later but most nights I come home and I'm in for the night.

After dark (after my son goes to bed) I do retrieve my little friend and he lays on this computer desk since we had a tornado that knocked the fence down on the most vulnerable side of my house. Couple that with a high burglary rate, a murder or two, and a few home invasions on my side of town and yeah, it makes me sit a little more at ease.

At the end of the day the choice to own a gun is an individual choice. Many will say "You're crazy if you don't". The choice to carry a concealed gun is an individual choice, many will say "You're crazy if you don't". To an extent we're all paranoid survivalists, we just suffer delusions of different magnitudes. Telling others what should be "the bare acceptable minimum" of the delusions that we suffer is pretty ridiculous.

Respect each individual's level of paranoia, who knows, it might rub off on you one day. I like PlayboyPenguin's signature, something like laugh all you want but you know where you'll run if/when the zombies invade.

JohnKSa
April 27, 2008, 12:43 AM
Ha! projection!Exactly the point of my tongue-in-cheek example. I think that it's really hard to have a discussion when one side or the other is basing arguments on suppositions about what the other side is thinking rather than about what is actually being said.Bolded the important part. Unless you plan on showering with your pistol, sleeping with it, and carrying it while you do other things that are done in the home, then you aren't going to have it on all the time because its not practical.I don't see the relevance nor do I follow your reasoning. Is there some principle that you're aware of which states that if one doesn't carry every single moment of his existence then that entitles others to define what "practical" means for him? Or perhaps there's a natural law that indicates that if a person doesn't carry while showering then it means he's being disengenuous about the reasons why he does carry the rest of the time? Sorry, that statement simply doesn't make sense at all...Ok, I give. What other useful purpose is there in carrying in your home?The statement you're responding to wasn't intended to be limited in its scope to only home carry, but here's one example (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/family-dog-mauls-girl/2008/04/16/1208025274961.html) of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home.I just don't buy in to the "I do it for protection" reason.Yes, you've explained why you don't and I've explained why the reasoning behind why you say you believe that way is flawed.

People weigh both positive and negative occurrences based on the "value" of the event (HOW bad or good will the outcome be), not just based on the probabilities (is this a LIKELY outcome). This is not a hard concept to understand and examples of this behavior are not at all hard to find.Those arguing in favor of home carry are doing so from the perspective that its either that or nothing.Huh? Who said that?You see the other factor that hasn't been mentioned yet is how many crimes can be stopped by a person having a loaded gun readily available. The already infinitesimally small number that we are already dealing with is once again, cut in half, or even more.Wow, I'm not following this at all. It's been shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year to prevent crime. How does that cut anything "in half or even more", and how is that infinitesimal?For someone with kids its definately not. For someone with a significant other its not. A glock just isn't conducive to cuddling. Even with a single guy I don't think its all that practical either. Pax (who has children) posted that she finds it practical and explained why. Dunno what else to say other than you can't keep pretending that this is a discussion if you're going to resort to "non-tactics" such as blatant contradiction without justification or logical support.

STAGE 2
April 27, 2008, 03:32 AM
Is there some principle that you're aware of which states that if one doesn't carry every single moment of his existence then that entitles others to define what "practical" means for him? Or perhaps there's a natural law that indicates that if a person doesn't carry while showering then it means he's being disengenuous about the reasons why he does carry the rest of the time? Sorry, that statement simply doesn't make sense at all...

Its not that the person is disingenuous for carrying, its that they are disingenuous for their use of statistics to support why they carry.

If packing in your home is practical for you, then by all means, do it. However you can hardly cry foul when those of us who don't kinda look at you funny if for no other reason than the fact that it just has to be damn uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt. Hell I shouldn't even be wearing a belt. I guess the fundamental difference here isn't necessarily carrying, but home behavior in general. Assuming guests aren't over, you'd be lucky to catch me with a shirt on, much less a firearm.


Wow, I'm not following this at all. It's been shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year to prevent crime. How does that cut anything "in half or even more", and how is that infinitesimal?

And what percentage of those 2 million times were in the home? Of those, what percentage were people who carry in the home? My guess is not many at all.

The reason the figure is infinitesimal is because when you take an already statistically insignificant number and cut it in half or more, you are left, for all intents and purposes, with zero.

A perp has to choose my house, which is unlikely. He then has to break in, which is very unlikely. I have to be home at the time he is breaking in, which is unlikely. He has to be armed, which is very unlikely. And here's the kicker... it has to be just the perfect situation in which having a loaded firearm, readily accessible isn't going to be helpful, but one on your hip is. I submit that this type of situation is so absolutely unlikely that probably even can't be measured.

Why? Because I know my house. I know what are normal sounds and what aren't. I know the layout. I know where my gun is, and how long its going to take me to get there. I know where the "good" spots are and which rooms are what, and what hallways go where. And this doesn't even begin to assume things like dogs, alarms, motion lights, etc.

This is why its nonsensical to use the stats to justify carrying at home. With nothing else in life would you see a person do something based on such a teeny tiny percentage and yet for some twisted reason, if guns are involved, then the old line about, "well you'll never know when you'll need it" gets trotted out. If you're going to base your actions on that small a percentage then I'd better find a parachute in your closet just because.

I won't, however, because human nature is such that we don't bother with things that we feel are unecessary and burdensome, unless we like them. This tells me, its not the stat, but the gun itself. If we are really gpoing to put some perspective on this, I bet that some of the people who carry at home are smokers. They are going to sit here and argue that something with a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening is worth precaution, but they cant be bothered to stop something that has a 1 in 3 chance or whatever of killing them?

Thats the hypocracy.

Of course there is the other alternative that WA suggested. Namely that someone really does fear home invasions on a daily basis, in which case I submit that they have problems far beyond the reach of any solution that any firearm could provide.

Pax (who has children) posted that she finds it practical and explained why.

And why don't you asked Pax how old her kids were when she started carrying.

SilentHitz
April 27, 2008, 06:40 AM
Its not that the person is disingenuous for carrying, its that they are disingenuous for their use of statistics to support why they carry. I don't use a bunch of numbers to decide if I carry or not. I carry because of my experiences in the real world...period. Stats are just that, and you can crunch numbers to suit any needs, political polls do this all the time, as do antis to try and make a point.

Bottom line is, I carry because my over 1/2 century life on this planet has taught me a lot. One of those things is the fact you better be prepared for unexpected things, and anyone who doesn't know home invasion is on the rise, must be living on a much better planet than we live on. Silent out...

cschwanz
April 27, 2008, 10:15 AM
Man, this thread got pretty serious. In response to a few things ive read/skimmed over, i do not carry 24/7, but it is within reach. When i go out, providing i am not going somewhere guns are restricted (school, etc), its on my hip. When i come home, i dont take it off til i go to bed. I just got up a couple hours ago, yet my gun is still on my nightstand. when i leave to run errands this afternoon tho, ill be sure to strap it on.

pax
April 27, 2008, 11:10 AM
I swore off this conversation, but will answer the question of fact directed at me:

At the time I began carrying, my youngest was approaching his 3rd birthday and my oldest was approaching his 9th birthday. I have five children, all sons, no twins.

pax

RedneckFur
April 27, 2008, 11:27 AM
I've heard about folks who cary a CCW on them at home, and a few that even move a shotgun and rifle with them from room to room as they move around their house. If that makes you feel better, go for it, but its a life that I do not want.

A criminal getting in to my home is going to take some time, and make alot of noise. If i need to get a gun at home, its only a few steps to the bedroom and I can pick up whatever I like.

Wildalaska
April 27, 2008, 11:40 AM
Bottom line is, I carry because my over 1/2 century life on this planet has taught me a lot. One of those things is the fact you better be prepared for unexpected things, and anyone who doesn't know home invasion is on the rise, must be living on a much better planet than we live on. Silent out...

I assume you wear a lightning rod on your head for the unexpected lightning strike too?

I have seen reports of toilets blowing up, so I wear body armor on the can...

:)

WildcombatzoneAlaska TM

geterdun444
April 27, 2008, 12:19 PM
This is the state motto of New Hampshire where I happen to Live. I will say this I always have a weapon on my person. Not only for home and personal protection but for the peace of mind it gives me this day in age. Here if you can legaly buy a pistol you can get a CCW permit. And you know what. we have very little violent crime. Kind of funny when you know there is a very good possibility of getting shot doing something wrong you generaly wont do it.
Plus in my line of work better be safe than sorry.
Take your kids to a firearms saftey class taught by someone else beacuase veryone knows kids dont listen to thier own parents

Wildalaska
April 27, 2008, 12:50 PM
I will say this I always have a weapon on my person.

24/7 too? Whats your technique for sleeping?..... I frequently wake up when my pajama holster gets tangled in my woobie.....

Wildandigotabruiseonmybuttfromthegunbouncingupanddownwhen...Alaska TM

Playboypenguin
April 27, 2008, 12:53 PM
I frequently wake up when my pajama holster gets tangled in my woobie.....
Please rephrase that statement for my peace of mind. I know "woobie" is a word you northerners sometimes use to refer to a childhood blanket or comforting item...but to many southerners a "woobie" is something totally different. That different meaning makes your statement very disturbing to some of us. :D

Wildalaska
April 27, 2008, 01:19 PM
Please rephrase that statement for my peace of mind. I know "woobie" is a word you northerners sometimes use to refer to a childhood blanket or comforting item...but to many southerners a "woobie" is something totally different. That different meaning makes your statement very disturbing to some of us.

So did you walk out of the Terry garr, Michael keaton movie that I can never remember the title of?

WildallrightwhatsasouthernwoobiepmmeAlaska TM

woobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobie

Playboypenguin
April 27, 2008, 01:21 PM
WildallrightwhatsasouthernwoobiepmmeAlaska TM

woobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobie
PM sent. :D

PS: I think you are referring to the movie "Mr. Mom." :)

Mike40-11
April 27, 2008, 01:40 PM
To answer the original question, sometimes. It goes with me when I leave and gets put away at some point when I get home. Might be on my belt for a coupla minutes, or all night. Depends on what I'm doing and when I get around to it. If it's not on it's handy because I'd sure feel dumb if I wanted it and didn't get to it in time.

What I don't get is the hostility here. Well, maybe hostility is a bit strong, but there's some serious opinions. Carry all the time you're paranoid, go unstrapped at home you're a hopeless victim in waiting.

Do what you like, nothing to me one way or the other.

kgpcr
April 27, 2008, 02:15 PM
I dont carry at home. the odds of needing it are not there. i do have weapons stashed that i can get to if needed.

DonR101395
April 27, 2008, 02:17 PM
I dont carry at home. the odds of needing it are not there. i do have weapons stashed that i can get to if needed.

Just curious, if the odds of needing it aren't there, why have weapons stashed?

SilentHitz
April 27, 2008, 02:54 PM
I assume you wear a lightning rod on your head for the unexpected lightning strike too? How did you know that?!? ;):D

Wildalaska
April 27, 2008, 03:10 PM
How did you know that?!?

Great visual! Where are the photoshop geeks in the place!!!!!

Need a fat guy in stained BVDs (or jammies with Hello Kitty pattern) with (no shirt please)........

HK MK23 SOCOM IN BLACKHAWK THIGH RIG!!!!!

and a lightning rod on his head..bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahah:D:D:D:D:D

Most creative submission gets free gift....hmmm....OK.... WWG T Shirt or Glock 23 14 shot mag or Magul AR mag winners choice

Bonus for Glock on a rope.

WildinstigatorAlaska TM

bobthewelder
April 27, 2008, 07:06 PM
OK! I'm a fat guy, I already got the Glock, my wife and daughter are Hello Kitty fans and she has fabric and sews. Send me the SOCOM with holster and I'll get the pictures taken for your amusement. You Forgot the big pink bubble gum cigar though, I'll throw that in the pic for free.

bobthewelder
April 27, 2008, 07:20 PM
This isn't meant to offend or address anyone here in particular. That being said, carrying 24/7 and always around the house in my world I would be considered a paranoid delusional freak that friends and family would be afraid of, period. I carry when I take walks and bicycle because there have been issues on the bike trails lately. I live in a nice neighborhood, been burglarized twice. I know the next door neighbor kid and his friends did it, I just can't prove it. My home was gun free until after the second time(the first time they got in but the dog scared them off). The second time they were inside my home on the first floor, cleaned us out while we slept on the second. I now have made some security changes around the house, but I don't carry in my home. If I go camping or hiking, I carry. I don't need to carry while I mow my lawn or get my mail. I think some people take it too far......but maybe someday one of you will be packing when I'm not and save my sorry arse. I have been involved in martial arts off and on most of my life, and one thing I do..always is be aware of my sorroundings. If someone looks off, I go the other way or watch them until I'm satisfyed they are not a threat(usually gone).

DonR101395
April 27, 2008, 07:24 PM
one thing I do..always is be aware of my sorroundings.


Like when they were emptying your house literally out from under you.:p:D

Sorry couldn't pass it up.
Welcome to the forum.:)

Rant Casey
April 27, 2008, 07:28 PM
I carry at home, I carry everywhere. The only time you'll see me without a gun is somewhere that doesn't allow to legally carry a firearm. I have a glock 21 strapped to my side as I type with 13 in the mag, one in the chamber and a spare mag in my cargo pocket. Is it bothering me? Not at all, i've worn a gun daily for 5 years, I don't even notice it's there. Do I feel like a prisoner in my own home? Not in the least, I'm sitting on a good sized patch of land, in a house with a very good security system, motion sensor lights etc and a reinforced door. Now taking away all of that, if someone is near my house, or a car pulls up it in all likelyhood is not a friendly visit. No one drives up here and friends and family never show up unexpected. If someone knocks on my door I have no way of knowing their intention and I don't want to have to run to a hide spot to have a firearm ready. It's in my holster ready to be drawn and fired if someone feels the need to force there way into my house.

I've only drawn a weapon down on someone once and it was without hesitation. I'm not worried about cramping up during the moment of truth and I'm not worried about a gun being a little uncomfortable at my side. I'll take the slight discomfort over dead forever.

bobthewelder
April 27, 2008, 07:40 PM
I have motion detectors now that let me know in my house if someone is approaching. While in bed, I just turn on the TV when the alarm goes off to see if there is someone approaching, I added cameras outside as well. I keep an 870 18" pump with a Knoxx Spec Ops stock and tactical light mounted under the tube with a touch switch, and 5 rounds of TAP 00 buck and one #7 birdshot after that. I also keep a Firestar .45 loaded with Rem. GS 230 gr. HP's and a Glock 23 with 3 mags full of 180gr. TAP. Always have a Surefire 6p by the bed and with me anytime I do carry. If my doorbell rings at night, I'm ready as family and friends always call first. Even before the burglary, anyone who knows me at all knows I very much frown on surprise visits.

Stevie-Ray
April 27, 2008, 07:46 PM
The folks I raise an eyebrow at are the ones who justify their packing with statistics like "40% of all assaults occur at home."

Is that a national statistic? Is it based upon NCIC reports or is it based upon sampling? What are the same statistics for MY neighborhood? What if in MY city, only 2% of all assaults occur at home and I live in a city of over 200,000? That comes back to your odds--based upon the "inarguable" statistics--of being assaulted in your home are only one in one-hundred thousand.Well, lets take it a step further. Suppose your neighbor gets his door kicked in and is brutally murdered. It's the first murder in years in your city, but you certainly won't change your way of thinking and carry a gun in your home, because the odds are in your favor that you won't be the second of 2 in your neighborhood to have this happen, right? Personally I don't give a tinker's damn about odds; they are in my favor, also. But I also have a handicapped wife that is pretty much helpless, and I couldn't live with her being hurt when the simple act of carrying a gun that neither bothers me, nor interferes with my daily life might have prevented it. Some of us carry as much as possible for many reasons. Those that don't, need to get over it. You're starting to sound like you're the ones trying to justify the "need" to take it off.

bobthewelder
April 27, 2008, 07:59 PM
I know that wasn't my quote that you quoted, but my post did state that I don't mean to target or offend anyone. Carry at will, I'll never knock you for carrying, I just stated where I live people who knew me would think I needed a padded room or a prescription for Valium if I were to be known to carry 24/7. Wait a minute, maybe I can get some Valium out of this!

JohnKSa
April 27, 2008, 10:39 PM
if for no other reason than the fact that it just has to be damn uncomfortable.It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience....when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.Hey! I've got an idea! Don't carry at home--it solves all those problems neatly. The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home.And what percentage of those 2 million times were in the home? Of those, what percentage were people who carry in the home? My guess is not many at all.Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?And here's the kicker... it has to be just the perfect situation in which having a loaded firearm, readily accessible isn't going to be helpful, but one on your hip is. I submit that this type of situation is so absolutely unlikely that probably even can't be measured. It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.I bet that some of the people who carry at home are smokers. They are going to sit here and argue that something with a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening is worth precaution, but they cant be bothered to stop something that has a 1 in 3 chance or whatever of killing them?Ignoring your made up statistics, I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation. I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.

alfred
April 27, 2008, 11:19 PM
My Firearms are a part of me.They became such as a youth.The military taught me the same.I have no trouble living with one and do feel something is missing if it is not on me.Except for when I shower,I carry.When I shower my firearm is within arms reach.I eat,I sleep,I live carrying EXCEPT where or when it is unlawful,such as when I have ANY alcohol or legal narcotics for pain.I also carry a whistle,emergency keys and a WW2 P-38 around my neck on a cord that I shower with to keep clean.I also keep a phone within arms reach 24 hours a day when someone is not within speaking distance.And no it does not interfere with my sex life that I can tell!

Statistics are in MY favor when it comes to auto accidents,head injures,fires,eye injures,toes crushed and on and on.YET I and billions more wear safety equipment to prevent such every day.It does prevent millions of injures every year.Folks DO NOT get hurt by things that they believe will happen.They get hurt by things that they do not believe will happen.After all,who of us is dumb enough to something that you know will kill you unless you are suicidal? SAFETY!

I am 62,almost 63.Being I ain't smart or brilliant like some,I learn by experience.These views are what I have learned from experience.

I have a close friend who let his Sister in his home who was accompanied with a unknown woman.He found out the hard way that the sister had a gun in her back.A male companion waited in the car until entrance was gained.My friend and his pregnant wife were robbed at gun point and under threat of death.They were tied up and left laying on the floor.As the strange woman left,she shot my friends 8 months pregnant wife in the stomach "Just for fun" and locked the door on the way out.The sister was taken along as a hostage.Due to a uncle coming to visit,hearing the thumping of feet,and opening the door as he knew where the key was,his wife and unborn child lived.His sister survived the shootout with law enforcement.The man did not.The woman who shot his wife surrendered after running out of ammo.She then threw up her hands and claimed to be a victim of her dead companion.I have been told that this woman is out now.Perhaps your loved one is next.This happened in rural Bryan County Georgia.Look it up if you wish.

A local Craftsman who once built my boat was murdered when he answered his front door.All for his car keys to steal his car.This happened in Falkville which is divided by the county line between Effingham & Chatham county Georgia.Look it up if you wish.

I had a elderly school teacher and her husband who lived in rural Effingham County Georgia.They were robbed and beaten 3 different times by the same 3 intruders who bragged that they would be back each time.They did.They strung the time periods out and came as they wished.The couple gave up and moved off of the family farm.Look it up if you wish.

About two months ago,I was sleeping in my Easy Chair.About 1.00 am I woke to my dogs barking and someone fumbling at my front door.I hollered" If you don't come in that door,I won't blow you back out of it".They believed.They quit.They left.I heard a car leave quickly.I went to my door,opened it and shut the locked screen door that had been snatched open.I noticed my street light out.No,I did not bother my local law enforcement as I could not ID.them,I could prove no laws were broken.I did tell my electric company what happened and they replaced the damaged bulb in my street light.

There are a lot of folk on these forums.We all know that the odds alone mean that we have to have a very diverse bunch of people.Look at the names folk call each other!Some have to be right by the odds alone.How many post under the influence of different drugs?I believe that some make it pretty plain how they feel about certain illegal drugs.The united States Government makes it pretty plain about the laws on the form you sign to buy a firearm.Some on here sound like folks that I have known that did break these laws.

Dogs?I was raised with packs of dogs in the dog hunting rural south.I have never seen any two dogs that I did not think that I could kill suddenly as a teen stark buck naked.I can toll any dog or pack of dogs to any fence of my choice with a rope and a Bitch in heat.Even neutered and spayed.I can poison or kill your dog or dogs at my convenience,and make it look natural or a accident.I love dogs.I do not do these things.Our military and the military of other countries teach certain military personnel how to take out dogs.There are thousands of folk who can take care of your dog no matter how well trained or how many.

Weird?Has anyone ever known weird folk that did not think others were weird?I have not.

Take a person who feels like a prisoner in his own home if he wears a firearm in it and believes that ones that do wear one at home suffer from paranoia.WOW!Either of these thoughts will send me to my mental health center for help.I surely hope folk who feel and think like this think I need help for wearing mine indoors and not feeling like a prisoner in my home with or without it.I really do.Nothing personal,but I honestly feel this way.

Now folk who are educated,successful and quit their job to assume a very successful "James Bond" undercover role to benefit our country,yet felt a prisoner in their homes when wearing a gun.Well I do wonder if he mentioned it,they sent him to a shrink,and they retired him suddenly.Especially if he added that thing about folks who wear a gun at home being paranoid folks.I also wonder how a successful white collar worker could quit and go into the dangerous and all that was listed to be a undercover man unless he was already involved and pretty well established in the criminal business.Most have to have years of training.The undercover folk generally keep as low profile as possible during and for the rest of their lives.Most of the ones who brag of it seem to have been so deep undercover that only they ever knew of it.

To be such,have the courage and bravery that such takes and yet to feel a prisoner in your home IF you are armed?WOW! I have no understanding.

I see nothing wrong if a Japanese female wishes to vacuum with firearms and a naked Gaijin present.I see nothing wrong with a naked Gaijin wishing to have firearms at the places of his choice in his home.I see nothing wrong with this naked Gaijin roaming his home admiring his firearms while the lady vacuums with a firearm dangling from any part of his body if he so chooses.

I do not understand a person bringing up statistics about people you know being the ones most likely to commit a violate crime on anyone.I say SO?If you ain't going to shoot someone that you know for committing the same crime that you would shoot a stranger for doing,does not this make you a common murderer?I personally think that anyone who thinks knowing someone gives you the right to assault them with immunity not granted to strangers is on the way to a assault and prison or a graveyard.

I have known people and I have had and do have folk that are kin and I love.They have been told and they know that I will do my best to kill them on sight if I see them in my home.They have chosen to live a life that leaves them a danger to their selves and everyone else and have been told to stay out.I will not allow them to endanger or kill anyone in my home.Sorry later is no help and they refuse to accept any responsibility for any of their actions.

I was taught and do believe that there is a time to run and a time to stand when under fire.I have done both armed and unarmed as I thought best at the time.I have also stayed out of a gunfight when I did not know who was who doing the shooting.Cops are people.I was raised with them.I know better than to believe someone because he is a Cop or a Preacher.I personally know better.I also believe only a fool will believe he is John Wayne and should draw because he is armed.It can get you killed.I noticed no such consideration was taken on the big talk about the big talking fellow losing his guns.I was not there so I have no way of knowing if he did the correct and smart thing or he froze.

I have not condemned anyone on here.I stated my thoughts and beliefs.I really do hope some on here think the same way about me that I do about about some of you.

I think the human race is a Joke including you and I.I think that folk who take their selves seriously enough to DEMAND that others do too are the most comical of all.We tell the world much about ourselves when we post.Often far more than we think.

Most folk tell a lie long enough,they start believing it their selves.Now where else are you or I going to get this kind of entertainment for this price?I do love it when you all make me laugh.Think about it.read it again,and laugh with me.Thanks.

I do think many trust their lives and the lives of their families to a Paper Tiger that dwells only in their minds.

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING is one more reason I carry 24-7-365(366 on leap year)alfred

Nnobby45
April 27, 2008, 11:40 PM
...when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.

We all have our priorities. The last thing I want is to have my door kicked open and find myself cut off from my weapon that I just couldn't wait to take off when I got home.

Nobody need carry a weapon that pokes them in the ribs all day so they can't wait to take it off. Anybody can find a compfy arrangement if they wish.

In fact, my carry is comfortable enough so that I'm in no hurry to disarm myself when I come home.

Do I expect sudden unforseen trouble? Nope. I live in a nice neighborhood. Things like that just don't happen here.

Same as for people in my community who had their homes invaded in their nice neighborhoods where that just doesn't happen. Seems that such incidents aren't confined anymore to the bad neighborhoods.

As somebody mentioned, it's those of us who have nice homes, drive nice cars, and have Credit cards that can quickly access money from ATM's, while someone holds a gun to our loved ones' heads.

Of course, the odds are it won't be us---right?

Bottom line. If you don't want to be armed at home--don't be. No need to makes excuses to justify it.

STAGE 2
April 28, 2008, 01:15 AM
It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience.

Well it may be the surfer in me, but belts or shoulder rigs just don't reek of comfort when the only other things you're wearing are sandals and boardshorts.

Whether its concealed or not is irrelevant. You've got a hunk of steel hanging somewhere and/or protruding into something. Its just not comfortable compared to the alternative.

The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home.

And again, you've got it all wrong. I don't care whether someone else carrys at home. If it makes you happy, then do it. I just think it BS to use stats to justify carrying at home.

Do it cause you like it. Don't hide behind some sham argument.


Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?

Because I'm not the shell answer man. Suffice it to say that a majority of people that use a firearm to defend themselves in the home, aren't carrying. Thats the point I was making, and thats all thats needed to support my argument. The actual number is irrelevant.

It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.


I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable shooting at a dog thats right next to my kid or any kid. Actually given the choice between a pistol and a 2x4 I'd take the latter. Especially since such an action borders on criminal negligence if something went wrong.


Ignoring your made up statistics

There isn't anything made up about what I've said. Most people don't carry at home. Overwhelmingly when someone uses a gun to defend themselves in the home, they weren't carrying... unless you're going to tell me that make tacticool holsters for pumps and rifles.


I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation.

I get that. Completely. However when someone places such a priority on something almost guaranteed not to happen, and then ignores things that are almost certianly are, there are those of us who are going to think said people are just wierd.

So open another pack and light up and tell me how you're ready for anything that comes bursting through that door (except when you're sleeping, showering, or doing other things that prohibit you from carrying, which seems to constitute a majority of time you're at home) and how your life is worth defending, while you take steps to undermine the "preparation" you are undertaking.


I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.

No, not really. To make an analogy, carrying at home is about the same as my friend who wears a vest to every gun show "because there might be an AD". Could it happen, sure. If it did and he was hit would the vest save his life, probably.

Nevertheless, the rest of us still think he looks like a tool. Sure its his right, and sure he has a "reason", but as is clearly the case with my friend, reasons, can be silly or stupid. Pointing out that such reasoning is silly has nothing to do with preparation, and everything to do with the fact that sometimes people do silly things.

Bogie
April 28, 2008, 01:15 AM
Well, as a stereotypical Large Hairy Barbarian...

I don't really feel like I need to carry in my house.

I can pick something up from where it sits generally faster than I can figure out the rest of the dance... If someone can make it through the steel front door faster than I can get to a buck-loaded 12 gauge, I don't think the shotgun is gonna make a whole heckuva lot of difference...

JohnKSa
April 28, 2008, 02:58 AM
Well it may be the surfer in me, but belts or shoulder rigs just don't reek of comfort when the only other things you're wearing are sandals and boardshorts.If I'm dressed, I have a belt on--always have as long as I can remember.You've got a hunk of steel hanging somewhere and/or protruding into something. Its just not comfortable compared to the alternative.All I can say is that it's not UNcomfortable. Most of the time I don't even think about it.Whether its concealed or not is irrelevant.This makes no sense--have you ever carried a concealed gun? The fact that a gun must be concealed definitely places more restrictions on where/how it must be carried in order to not be visible. That almost always translates to reduced comfort unless you can get away with throwing on a heavy covering garment (which would ALSO result in reduced comfort, from my perspective.)I just think it BS to use stats to justify carrying at home.

Do it cause you like it. Don't hide behind some sham argument.This is calling several people who've posted on this thread liars. What's even more irritating is that you're calling them liars based on your claimed ability to divine their thoughts and motives over the internet.I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable shooting at a dog thats right next to my kid or any kid. Actually given the choice between a pistol and a 2x4 I'd take the latter. Especially since such an action borders on criminal negligence if something went wrong.You asked for an example, I gave you an "example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home". The point wasn't that the situation listed was one where a gun was the only solution or the best solution but that it was a situation where a firearm might be useful. I'm not going to look until I find an example of a situation that you proclaim is a perfect situation in which to use a firearm, because it's clear that is not going to happen.There isn't anything made up about what I've said.Please cite a source for the statistics that an in home self-defense situation calling for the rapid deployment of a firearm has "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". If you can't then you may feel free to admit that you did, in fact, make up a statistic, and then incorrectly contradicted me when I pointed it out. ;)However when someone places such a priority on something almost guaranteed not to happen, and then ignores things that are almost certianly are, there are those of us who are going to think said people are just wierd.You're certainly entitled to think what you want, but the fact is that kind of behavior is more normal than it is weird.Because I'm not the shell answer man. Suffice it to say that a majority of people that use a firearm to defend themselves in the home, aren't carrying. Thats the point I was making, and thats all thats needed to support my argument. The actual number is irrelevant.Your whole argument, stated repeatedly, is that statistics don't justify carrying at home. It's fine for you to admit that you're not the "answer man" and don't know the applicable statistics but it's not fine for you to simultaneously claim that you have the final answer on whether or not it's statistically justified.So open another pack and light upDon't smoke. (Apparently your remote thought divination skills are breaking down.)which seems to constitute a majority of time you're at home)And yet you still think you know what goes on in my home.while you take steps to undermine the "preparation" you are undertaking.You realize that basing your argument on things you claim I'm doing that you can not possibly have any knowledge of and on statistics that you admit you have no knowledge of is... Well, I guess this is why I keep coming back to the idea that your argument seems to be more emotional than logical.No, not really.Ummm... You realize that you contradicted me and then gave an example of a situation where you did just what I say is typical? For the record, I didn't claim that in every situation the person being ridiculed is being ridiculed unjustly. The point was, rather, that it's human nature to try to ridicule those who prepare beyond the level we feel is necessary so that we don't have to admit that they might have a point.

buzz_knox
April 28, 2008, 08:03 AM
It's threads like this that emphasize why letting someone dictate what is "necessary or needed" for another person is a dangerous idea.

geterdun444
April 28, 2008, 08:42 AM
My beliefs are simple ... Everyone has the god given inherent right to protect themselves. It is my take that for me to defend myself in these times a weapon for protection is a very prudent piece of protection. I also believe that anyone using or carrying a weapon should be required to take a weapons use course of some type. I have seen the all to true of shooting yourself in the foot saying come true on more than a few occasions for the simple fact of the people just not knowing what the hell they were doing.

rugersp101
April 28, 2008, 09:04 AM
I carry all the time, even into the bathroom. During my years in the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Ranger Training Brigade I had it constantly drilled into my head that you never let your weapon out of your hands reach. Used to sleep cuddling my M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (5.56 belt fed machine gun)
as if it were my bride, LOL! So having retired from the military I carry on that lesson learned and have an array of nasty weapons should any punks think about entering my castle. Speaking of which I am trying to petition my state to enact the Castle Doctrine law since other states are realizing we cannot and should not depend on law enforcement to protect us.

Edward429451
April 28, 2008, 09:33 AM
Yeah sure i carry at home. It has nothing to do with paranoia or stats, or comfort. It's just easier to put the belt on and leave it on rather than putting it on & off all he time or worrying if people think I'm para or not.

The gun keeps my pants up! My belt has stretched from constant gun/holster use so if'n I take it off my pants are loose...

45Marlin carbine
April 28, 2008, 09:52 AM
yes usually. I keep my Berreta .32acp in my pocket of vest, jacket or pants if I'm outside for any lenght of time. I keep my Makarov handy inside the door I went out.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 28, 2008, 10:58 AM
The statistical arguments, once again, seem to argue that the most common outcome is the one that always happens.

Since the most common DGU outcome is no shots fired - all those who carry ammo are paranoid fools. So what.

As I've said before, you make a reasoned estimate about the most extreme risk you want to be prepared for and act accordingly.

STAGE 2
April 28, 2008, 02:12 PM
If I'm dressed, I have a belt on--always have as long as I can remember.

And you're always dressed at home?


This makes no sense--have you ever carried a concealed gun? The fact that a gun must be concealed definitely places more restrictions on where/how it must be carried in order to not be visible. That almost always translates to reduced comfort unless you can get away with throwing on a heavy covering garment (which would ALSO result in reduced comfort, from my perspective.)

It makes alot of sense considering that many people that carry at home do so because they have a CCW and carry concealed when in public. They aren't going to come home, take off their CCW holster, put on one that allows for open carry.


This is calling several people who've posted on this thread liars. What's even more irritating is that you're calling them liars based on your claimed ability to divine their thoughts and motives over the internet.

No, I don't think they are liars. I think that they feel that others will think they are paranoid if they just carry at home because they like to, so they give a "factually" based reason to make it seem more palatable.


You asked for an example, I gave you an "example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home"

Then it was a weak example. I can also use my pistol to drive nails home, but its not really practical to do so.


Please cite a source for the statistics that an in home self-defense situation calling for the rapid deployment of a firearm has "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". If you can't then you may feel free to admit that you did, in fact, make up a statistic, and then incorrectly contradicted me when I pointed it out.

Cmon now. You know exactly what I was trying to say. Of course that number was made up. It is, however representative of the situation. And for the record I didn't say that there is that much of a chance of someone needing a firearm to defend themselves in their home, I said that those were the chances of a situation happening where having a readily accessible firearm wouldn't solve the problem, but carrying one would.


You're certainly entitled to think what you want, but the fact is that kind of behavior is more normal than it is weird.

It may be normal in that many people do it, but it is still inconsistent.


Your whole argument, stated repeatedly, is that statistics don't justify carrying at home. It's fine for you to admit that you're not the "answer man" and don't know the applicable statistics but it's not fine for you to simultaneously claim that you have the final answer on whether or not it's statistically justified.

Its really quite simple. Most gun owners don't carry at home. Most people who defend themselves at home with a firearm aren't carrying at home. That tells me that having a firearm accessible is perfectly adequate for addressing the tiny tiny chance that something may ever happen. The only benefit that carrying gives you is in a percentage of the teeny tiny percentage where having the firearm accessible wouldn't cut it.

People who use the stats to justify this are pointing to a ridiculously small number and saying, "yeah its small but the consequences could mean my life". I get that as well. However there are other stats that say that for every 10 miles over the speed limit you drive, your chances of a fatal accident are doubled. The same with people who have had alcohol, even if its under the legal limit. The same with people who eat like crap, drink too much (which you shouldn't do at all if you have gun on) , smoke and do other things that are hazardous.

My entire point this whole time is that people are justifying carrying because it may save their life, are doing it out of a fear they they may be injured or killed. Yet, were guns aren't concerned, they do things that place their life in just as much detriment, and intentionally face a greater statistical threat of death and thats perfectly fine.

This is both inconsistent and hypocritical. Sure you can do this, but the argument "I'm doing it because there is a chance I might be hurt or killed" isn't valid when you do things that put you at greater risk of the same harm.


Don't smoke. (Apparently your remote thought divination skills are breaking down.)

Wasn't talking about you specifically. I guarantee you there are smokers that carry at home. Thats just nonsensical.

And yet you still think you know what goes on in my home.

Not specifically, but I know you shower, I know you sleep. The odds are that you drink, on occasion if not regularly. These, along with a couple of other things prohibit you from carrying.


You realize that basing your argument on things you claim I'm doing that you can not possibly have any knowledge of and on statistics that you admit you have no knowledge of is... Well, I guess this is why I keep coming back to the idea that your argument seems to be more emotional than logical.

So you dont shower? Don't sleep? Don't drink ever at your house? There isn't a statistically tiny chance for people living in normal neighborhoods to face a home invasion? Most people don't carry in the home? People don't use long arms to defend their home?

I suppose we could take a poll, but that would be silly, don't you think.


For the record, I didn't claim that in every situation the person being ridiculed is being ridiculed unjustly.

Nor do I think that every person who carrys in the home has an invalid reason.


The point was, rather, that it's human nature to try to ridicule those who prepare beyond the level we feel is necessary so that we don't have to admit that they might have a point.

Just as it is human nature to not be forthcoming about things we do that might make us the subject of ridicule.

Stevie-Ray
April 28, 2008, 06:14 PM
The odds are that you drink, on occasion if not regularly. These, along with a couple of other things prohibit you from carrying.Wrong. It prohibits us from leaving the house carrying. Show me the law that states that you must lock up your weapons if you are going to have a drink in your own home. And please don't bother with that " the fact that drinking and firearms don't mix is simple common sense." That presupposes that everybody is going to drink to an excess. I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

Avenger11
April 28, 2008, 06:33 PM
I wish JohnKSa and Stage 2 would give it a rest. The "I said", then "He said" exchange is getting tiresome. Neither has cited any stats with legs!

alfred
April 28, 2008, 07:01 PM
I am trying to relate here.I know what Sandals(Jesus shoes)are and I can see where they would be hard to attach a firearm.I have no idea what "boardshorts"are.Could someone clue me in.

Also.I failed to mention in my earlier post.A intruder could most likely get to most guns stashed or locked up in my home before I can,being that I am a old cripple.Being my firearm is a part of me,I have eliminated arming intruders in my home with my guns.I do not find this socially acceptable or safe.I do not remember when I felt"safe or unsafe"anywhere as I never remember thinking like that when home or being fired at.Thanks.

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING.alfred

STAGE 2
April 28, 2008, 07:07 PM
Wrong. It prohibits us from leaving the house carrying. Show me the law that states that you must lock up your weapons if you are going to have a drink in your own home. And please don't bother with that " the fact that drinking and firearms don't mix is simple common sense." That presupposes that everybody is going to drink to an excess. I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

I never said there was a law. However drinking while carrying is irresponsible. It is irrelevant whether people drink to excess. You don't mix alcohol and firearms.

You certianly have a right to be irresponsible, but you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.

obxned
April 28, 2008, 07:17 PM
Several large dogs told me they would provide my first line of home security in exchange for ear scratching, kind words, and Old Roy.

Wildalaska
April 28, 2008, 07:20 PM
I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

Sure, until you pop the neighbors kid, and he cops smell beer on your breath.....

WildaslongaswearedealingwithwhatifsAlaska TM

longtooth50
April 28, 2008, 07:31 PM
It is on now. If it is off, it is on the desk or in the chair. My policy is never put a door between me & my gun.

vox rationis
April 28, 2008, 10:14 PM
I don't personally carry at home for a variety of boring reasons, but for crying out loud, why are the people that choose not to carry at home so obnoxious, and vitriolic against those that choose to do so.

It does almost seem that people are reacting emotionally against the notion implicitly suggested by the practice of carrying at home, that one might not be as safe in one's own home as one might wish :D.

JohnKSa
April 29, 2008, 01:08 AM
They aren't going to come home, take off their CCW holster, put on one that allows for open carry.They most certainly will if their CCW holster isn't as comfortable as their open carry holster. Just like they take off their suit or high heels, and change into something more comfortable when they get home.I think that they feel that others will think they are paranoid if they just carry at home because they like to, so they give a "factually" based reason to make it seem more palatable.Just as it is human nature to not be forthcoming...Where you live, what do they call it when someone is not forthcoming and makes up reasons to hide the truth? Everywhere I've been they call it lying.

You are calling some of the people posting on this thread liars based on what you believe they are thinking. I can see why you want to take this approach, it's EASY. It doesn't require you to actually do any research, it doesn't require you to find some statistics. It doesn't even require that you construct a logical argument. All you have to do is say: "You folks who disagree with me are lying to prevent me and others from calling you paranoid."

That is not a discussion, that is an insult.So you dont shower? Don't sleep? Don't drink ever at your house? There isn't a statistically tiny chance for people living in normal neighborhoods to face a home invasion? Most people don't carry in the home? People don't use long arms to defend their home?Basically what you're saying is that unless this technique can improve your safety 100% of the time while you're at home it's not worth employing. That doesn't follow. Ignoring your made up statistics...There isn't anything made up about what I've said.Of course that number was made up.Oook.Its really quite simple. Most gun owners don't carry at home. Most people who defend themselves at home with a firearm aren't carrying at home. That tells me that having a firearm accessible is perfectly adequate for addressing the tiny tiny chance that something may ever happen. The only benefit that carrying gives you is in a percentage of the teeny tiny percentage where having the firearm accessible wouldn't cut it.In order to begin to make a cogent argument from this, you would have to examine the cases where people FAILED to defend themselves with firearms and determine how often they HAD firearms in the house but could not access them in time to respond. In short, this is not a reasonable argument because you have no data to support your claim. I do agree that it is "really quite simple", however.This is both inconsistent and hypocritical. Sure you can do this, but the argument "I'm doing it because there is a chance I might be hurt or killed" isn't valid when you do things that put you at greater risk of the same harm.By your logic, the only way to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistancy is to start at the top and work your way down the list of things that are a threat to life in order of decreasing statistical probability. I suppose you won't see (or at least won't admit) how ridiculous that would be to actually implement. So, using the STAGE2 rule of reducing risk, some people would have to move to a different city or even a different country before they could justify (without hypocrisy/inconsistency) owning a firearm or wearing seatbelts.

On top of that, your argument TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that there are more people involved than the person carrying the firearm. Sorry honey, I could have had my gun on me, prevented the home invasion and defended you and the kids but STAGE2 would have called me a hypocrite since I'm overweight and don't want to diet.

You've attempted to construct an argument based on:


Statistics that you admit you don't have knowledge of
Statistics you've made up.
Statistics you've tried to manufacture out of statistics you admit you have no knowledge of and others that you've made up.
Illogical reasoning.
What you believe people are thinking.
Calling people who disagree with you liars.


I say attempted because all it is is an attempt. Basically what you're doing is coming up with a lot of creative ways to say, "This is my opinion therefore it is more correct than other people's opinions who disagree with me."Neither has cited any stats with legs!Actually I have quoted a very pertinent statistic. Here's another. Studies have shown that resisting crime with a firearm offers the best chance, statistically speaking, of remaining uninjured. If you'd like to resist crime in the most effective manner it follows that having a firearm handy is most useful.

Furthermore, I'm not making any sweeping claims that need statistical support, I'm countering the argument that most people who carry at home are either paranoid, lying to avoid being called paranoid, or ignorant of reality.It does almost seem that people are reacting emotionally against the notion implicitly suggested by the practice of carrying at home, that one might not be as safe in one's own home as one might wi**** does, kinda... ;)

Playboypenguin
April 29, 2008, 01:14 AM
I would be curious to know what a person's chance of facing a home invasion truely is...I am willing to bet it is not substantially less than their chance of using a firearm in SD during their daily activities. I am betting both very unlikely and the difference would be mathematically and practically insignificant.

STAGE 2
April 29, 2008, 02:36 AM
They most certainly will if their CCW holster isn't as comfortable as their open carry holster. Just like they take off their suit or high heels, and change into something more comfortable when they get home.

Very very doubtful. However, the overall point was that the most comfortable holster is far more unconfortable than not carrying.


Where you live, what do they call it when someone is not forthcoming and makes up reasons to hide the truth? Everywhere I've been they call it lying.

You are calling some of the people posting on this thread liars based on what you believe they are thinking. I can see why you want to take this approach, it's EASY. It doesn't require you to actually do any research, it doesn't require you to find some statistics. It doesn't even require that you construct a logical argument. All you have to do is say: "You folks who disagree with me are lying to prevent me and others from calling you paranoid."

That is not a discussion, that is an insult.

No, I think some part of them believes that there is a statistical chance that they might face a home invasion, because thats simply a fact. However I also think that they know its not going to happen and carry cause they like it.

Same reason lots of people buy trucks or 4x4s. Most people will never take it off road or use it for its intended purpose. When you ask them why they bought it they will list you all the cool stuff it can do, all the hills it can climb, and all the stuff it can haul. However deep down, most just bought it cause they wanted a truck.

Its not lying, its just not offering the whole truth.


Basically what you're saying is that unless this technique can improve your safety 100% of the time while you're at home it's not worth employing. That doesn't follow.

No, I'm saying that if your reason for carrying is the statistics, then carrying at home really doesn't provide you with much of a benefit because the nature of activities done in the home prohibit carry much of the time and the chances of a readily accessible firearm not being sufficient are slim to none.


In order to begin to make a cogent argument from this, you would have to examine the cases where people FAILED to defend themselves with firearms and determine how often they HAD firearms in the house but could not access them in time to respond. In short, this is not a reasonable argument because you have no data to support your claim. I do agree that it is "really quite simple", however.

The argument is perfectly fine. Most gun owners don't carry in the home. Most people who have defended themselves with a firearm in their home weren't carrying. I'm going to assume you agree with these two assertions (which you should).

According to the UCR, in 2006, there were 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the US. There were approximately 300 million people living in the US. That means you have a .4% chance of facing violent crime in general. However we aren't talking about violent crime in general, we are talking about crime in the home.

There were approximately 290k violent crimes committed in the home. That means you have a .09% chance of facing a home invasion. Of course this doesn't take into account high crime areas versus low crime areas, so if you live in the suburbs, your chances are lower. Furthermore, these stats don't take into account crime comitted by family members (which accounts for an overwhelming majority of assaults in the home as well as some rapes) so this lowers the percentage even further still.

So after some generous fuzzy math, lets say that someone who lives in a normal nice suburb and isn't going to shoot their wife/brother/uncle has a .045% chance of facing a home invasion. This .045% constitutes 100% of the situations that a home owner is going to face. Within this 100% there is going to be a percentage of situations that a home owner faces that simply having a gun won't be sufficient. Now since we know that most gun owners don't carry at home, and by consequence, most crimes prevented by gun owners are done by those who don't carry, only a small portion of this 100% is going to be a situation in which having a readily accessible firearm isn't sufficient.

So lets be generous and say that 30% of all home invasions are the type where having the gun in the nightstand isn't going to cut it. That means the chances of you facing this situation are somewhere around .01%.

Contrast this with the 9% chance americans have of developing some form of serious heart disease, or the .1% chance of dying from a smoke related illness, or the 40k plus people killed every year on the road and you see where the inconsistency lies.

Simply put, you can't say "I carry at home because I value my life" and then take other actions that work in immediate contradiction to the valuation that you've professed.


On top of that, your argument TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that there are more people involved than the person carrying the firearm. Sorry honey, I could have had my gun on me, prevented the home invasion and defended you and the kids but STAGE2 would have called me a hypocrite since I'm overweight and don't want to diet.

Whether there are more people involved has nothing to do with the odds of facing a home invasion.

And again, whether someone does it isn't the issue. I don't really care. But yes someone is a hypocrite if they carry to defend their life, but then undermine this in other areas of their life.

Both you and I know that there isn't any other area in which someone would take a precaution based on a .01% chance of something happening, and yet with guns, people somehow find the gumption to be vigilant. I'm fairly certian that this has more to do with the "mystique" or novelty of packing a gun than any genuine concern of facing a home invasion.

JohnKSa
April 29, 2008, 03:21 AM
Both you and I know that there isn't any other area in which someone would take a precaution based on a .01% chance of something happening and yet with guns, people somehow find the gumption to be vigilant.You don't read the news, do you. The prospect of home invasion and what can result (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304496,00.html) is so unthinkable that people are motivated to take precautions against it in spite of the very low chances of it actually happening to them.

Yes, I'd venture to guess that there are very few things that people would prepare against when the odds were so slim--then again, there isn't much in this world that compares to having someone beat you with a bat and leave you for dead, tie your wife and daughters to their beds, rape them, douse them in gasoline and then burn them.

Why don't you talk to Dr. William Petit Jr. about statistics? I'm sure he'd be comforted by knowing that what happened to his family was extremely rare as, no doubt, any of us in his situation would be. :rolleyes:I'm fairly certian that this has more to do with the "mystique" of packing a gun than any genuine concern of facing a home invasion.I can see that--you're so certain that you're completely unwilling to be dissuaded by facts. Which gets us back to the comment by Son of Vlad Tepes.So lets be generous and say that 30% of all home invasions are the type where having the gun in the nightstand isn't going to cut it. That means the chances of you facing this situation are somewhere around .01%.I don't agree, I think the number is probably smaller, some of your assumptions are pretty generous, but I do agree this is a huge advance from making up statistics like: "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". Simply put, you can't say "I carry at home because I value my life" and then take other actions that work in immediate contradiction to the valuation that you've professed.Ah, there is where you are completely, totally and unredeemably wrong. One CAN do that and one can even justify it beyond question.

1. You've artificially restricted your premise to help your conclusion. No one's saying that it's EXCLUSIVELY about preserving their own life. It's about preventing a home invasion, a crime which often encompasses things that most people would consider FAR worse than simply dying.

2. Most people don't live alone. Therefore their actions benefit others besides themselves. So even if we accept the idea that it's hypocritical for someone to worry about self-defense but not heart disease or lung cancer, it is clear that they could still be tremendously motivated defend others without creating a contradiction. Example: Frank doesn't really care much about his cholesterol level but, believe it or not, would REALLY be upset if he had to watch someone break into his house and rape his wife.

3. It's possible for a person to be apparently unconcerned about their physical well-being (overweight, smoker, risk taker) and yet still be legitimately concerned about having someone else kill them. It's the difference between giving all your money away to bums on the street vs having them mob you and empty your pockets of your life's savings. Either is equally financially devastating, but the two outcomes are far from equivalent.

4. Many do not consider dying of disease to be as forbidding as a violent death. Example: Mary refuses to give up smoking but is, oddly enough, still adamantly opposed to having a home invader tie her up, pour gasoline on her and burn her alive.

STAGE 2
April 29, 2008, 03:59 AM
You don't read the news, do you. The prospect of home invasion and what can result is so unthinkable that people are motivated to take precautions against it in spite of the very low chances of it actually happening to them.

Unless you make a practice of sleeping with your gun or staying up till 3am every night, carrying wouldn't have done anything to prevent this crime.

Yes, I'd venture to guess that very few things that people would prepare against when the odds were so slim--then again, there isn't much in this world that compares to having someone beat you with a bat and leave you for dead, tie your wife and daughters to their beds, rape them, douse them in gasoline and then burn them.

Why don't you talk to Dr. William Petit Jr. about statistics? I'm sure he'd be comforted by knowing that what happened to his family was extremely rare as, no doubt, any of us in his situation would be.

Well, the first thing I'd ask him is whether or not he owned a gun. Then I'd ask him if he locks his doors, has an alarm system, and/or a dog. As I said above, carrying would have done nothing to prevent this crime, so this example is little more than an emotional appeal.


I can see that--you're so certain that you're completely unwilling to be dissuaded by facts. Which gets us back to the comment by Son of Vlad Tepes.

Facts such as what.

I don't agree, I think the number is probably smaller, some of your assumptions are pretty generous, but I do agree this is a huge advance from making up statistics like: "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening".

Not as much as you might think. You have to remember that the final number I arrived at doesn't take into account the time that people are actually carrying in the home. Assuming an average person with a normal job getting 7-8 hours of sleep, on an average weekday more than half the time they are home they are going to be unarmed. This combined with the overly generous numbers I was using make outlandishly small percentages a definate reality. So while it may not be the number I posted, both you and I know that practically speaking, the difference between .000001% and .00000000000000000000000001% is nothing.


1. You've artificially restricted your premise to help your conclusion. No one's saying that it's EXCLUSIVELY about preserving their own life. It's about preventing a home invasion, a crime which often encompasses things that most people would consider FAR worse than simply dying.

Actually several people have said its about protecting their life. Sure there are really nasty things other than death that people can face, but I don't recall any of the home carry advocates talk abour rape or gasoline or anything else. All I heard was "to protect my life".


2. Most people don't live alone. Therefore their actions benefit others besides themselves. So even if we accept the idea that it's hypocritical for someone to worry about self-defense but not heart disease or lung cancer, it is clear that they could still be tremendously motivated defend others without creating a contradiction. Example: Frank doesn't really care much about his cholesterol level but, believe it or not, would REALLY be upset if he had to watch someone break into his house and rape his wife.

But then we get into the issue of if they really cared about defending others, then they wouldn't artifically shorten their own life because this obviously precludes them from defending the ones they love.

If frank croaks because he was sucking down steak and eggs everyday that doesn't do his wife much goos when the bad guy comes knocking.


3. It's possible for a person to be apparently unconcerned about their physical well-being (overweight, smoker, risk taker) and yet still be legitimately concerned about having someone else kill them. It's the difference between giving all your money away to bums on the street vs having them mob you and empty your pockets of your life's savings. Either is equally financially devastating, but the two outcomes are far from equivalent.

Possible yes. Possible without being hypocritical and inconsistent, no. Your example of the money isn't analogous. In one case the person wants to give all their money away and in the other case they dont. Here, people are making the statement that their life is valuable and they are going to take precautions to guard against an implausible harm.

A better example would be someone who refuses to place their money in a bank because they fear losing it because of another depression/fraud/shady dealing, but then leave it sitting all around their house. Sure they've eliminated the problem of a bank losing their money (even though the odds of this happening are slim to none) but they've put it at risk of being stolen, lost or destroyed. The overall fear is losing your money. The irrational fear is losing your money thats in a bank. The more rational fear which isn't being guarded against is letting it just sit there. If you're trying not to lose your money, you don't defend against one measure and not against the other if you want to be consistent.


4. Many do not consider dying of disease to be as forbidding as a violent death. Example: Mary refuses to give up smoking but is, oddly enough, still adamantly opposed to having a home invader tie her up, pour gasoline on her and burn her alive.

Hey. I can only work with what people give me. If people make the caveat that they don't want to die a violent death at the hands of another, but a slow death over time is acceptable, then I guess I dont have an argument. But thats not what they say.

However I think you know that this isn't the case. People don't want to die period. Granted someone in your home at 3am puts a much sharper point on the issue than does a pack a week over decades, the end result is the same.

alfred
April 29, 2008, 04:45 PM
I do believe that the post on this thread could be well used to argue that the Paranoid,Mentally ill and Bull Manure proficient own firearms.Wow!Just look at what many think of each others mentality alone.

Folks,I find you very entertaining.This is a awakening.I had no idea that so many think the way some do on here.Thanks.

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING!alfred

Wildalaska
April 29, 2008, 05:00 PM
Folks,I find you very entertaining.

Thats what we are here for, to amuse you:D

WildyukyukyukAlaska ™

bobthewelder
April 29, 2008, 07:03 PM
Alfred, you pretty much summed it up. I think more padded rooms are in order here. I got to go to the store and get some more aluminum foil, the dog ate my hat!

TripIII
April 29, 2008, 08:47 PM
Wow! Great debaters. How does one follow that up??? For what it's worth...

I've been able to live almost 50 years with only one home invasion (while I was not at home), and one instance of someone milling around and banging on my apartment window at 2:00 a.m. who promptly left when he got no response (I was armed). My current residence has not been broken into, but many others in the (middle class) neighborhoods in which I have lived...have (during the day). I have owned a gun since I graduated and moved away from home. Home invasions happen frequently in this mid to large sized town. So does murder. Regardless I still feel pretty safe at home, but, I know it is not secure. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood.

Now I shoot for fun, recreation, fellowship, and to ensure I am competent with my favorite firearms.

I am a stand up citizen, with a clean record and the wherewithal to purchase and train with firearms. The local government and law enforcement trusts me to carry a concealed weapon...

And I carry it at home...and it's not always comfortable, but it is always comforting...

Oh! And I don't smoke, eat junk food, drive fast, sky dive, gave up my Triumph Sprint ST, don't cheat on my wife, or engage in homosexual sex. I have attended church, work out religiously, take my vitamins...and am doing everything I can to live as long as possible... except for an occasional alchoholic beverage or two...sometimes three...but that is when I leave my gun in the safe...

...So am I O.K.???? At least consistent? ...Don't answer that. I was just being facetious.

JohnKSa
April 30, 2008, 12:25 AM
Unless you make a practice of sleeping with your gun or staying up till 3am every night, carrying wouldn't have done anything to prevent this crime.Irrelevant. The crime was not cited to give an example of when home carry would have prevented a crime but rather to illustrate WHY people are very concerned about home invasions, and legitimately so. That was patently clear from the context of my post and also from the context of the quote to which I was responding. Being intentionally obtuse is not an effective debate tactic although it can be used to artificially prolong a discussion.Actually several people have said its about protecting their life.Disengenous. You intentionally and incorrectly restated what I said to support your argument. No one has said it is EXCLUSIVELY about protecting their life and that is what I posted.Sure there are really nasty things other than death that people can face, but I don't recall any of the home carry advocates talk abour rape or gasoline or anything else. All I heard was "to protect my life".That is simply not true. A quick search of this thread will reveal that it has not only has "rape" been mentioned repeatedly, it has been mentioned repeatedly by YOU.Hey. I can only work with what people give me.Besides being ridiculous, this is intellectually dishonest. Even had it NOT been mentioned previously on the thread (which it was) as soon as I put it on the table it became part of the debate. It is absolutely not possible to justify self-imposed tunnel vision by attempting to propose that because no one had previously broached the idea that people might be concerned with more than simply losing their own life, it's not a valid concern.

Clearly, for some reason, you have a lot wrapped up in trying to win this argument, but if you won't or can't debate in a straightforward manner there's no point in having a discussion with you.

The thread will continue as long as those posting on it can remain polite.

STAGE 2
April 30, 2008, 01:41 AM
Irrelevant. The crime was not cited to give an example of when home carry would have prevented a crime but rather to illustrate WHY people are very concerned about home invasions, and legitimately so. That was patently clear from the context of my post and also from the context of the quote to which I was responding. Being intentionally obtuse is not an effective debate tactic although it can be used to artificially prolong a discussion.

Not really. The context of your post was to put an emphasis on being doused in gasoline, burned alive, and all the other gory details to drive the point home about how "serious" home invasions can be. I'm not sure if they keep stats on how many folks are barbecued but I'm going to venture a guess that the chances of facing such a scenario are actually somewhere around that nice long number we were talking about earlier.

Either way, we are back to percentages again. Only with firearms are people concerned with odds that are literally about the same as being struck by lightning.


Disengenous. You intentionally and incorrectly restated what I said to support your argument. No one has said it is EXCLUSIVELY about protecting their life and that is what I posted.

And what other reason could there be for carrying a firearm but defending yourself from the threat of serious bodily injury or death?

That is simply not true. A quick search of this thread will reveal that it has not only has "rape" been mentioned repeatedly, it has been mentioned repeatedly by YOU.

Not in the context of carrying. Which of course makes sense as an overwhelming majority of members here are guys.


Besides being ridiculous, this is intellectually dishonest. Even had it NOT been mentioned previously on the thread (which it was) as soon as I put it on the table it became part of the debate. It is absolutely not possible to justify self-imposed tunnel vision by attempting to propose that because no one had previously broached the idea that people might be concerned with more than simply losing their own life, it's not a valid concern.

Clearly, for some reason, you have a lot wrapped up in trying to win this argument, but if you won't or can't debate in a straightforward manner there's no point in having a discussion with you.

I'm not looking to win anything. I'm not going to convince you more than you are going to convince me. That said, the stats do support the idea that worrying about a home invasion, especially if one is prudent and has a firearm in the home, is a wholly irrational fear. Similarly, convincing yourself that carrying at home will be of a benefit isn't something that the statistics bear out. Given the practical problems of carrying at home this shouldn't be surprising in the least.

So like I said, if carrying all the time floats your boat, then by al means have at it. However people shouldn't get testy when others point out that folks who carry seem to be spinning their wheels for nothing.

Wildalaska
April 30, 2008, 01:57 AM
And I don't smoke, eat junk food, drive fast, sky dive, gave up my Triumph Sprint ST, don't cheat on my wife, or engage in homosexual sex. I have attended church, work out religiously, take my vitamins...and am doing everything I can to live as long as possible... except for an occasional alchoholic beverage or two...sometimes three...but that is when I leave my gun in the safe...

Well I smoke, drink, drive fast, will be chasing skirts as the Doc presses the paddles on my chest and wish I was gay so I could have some style. I avoid churches and synagogues, am a fat lazy slug, and realize that no matter how healthy I might be, I'm gonna keel sometime. I can't find my gun to carry it at home :)

WildimpackinabutterknifeinmyjammiesAlaska TM

3 gun
April 30, 2008, 02:10 AM
Put it on with my pants. Take it off with my pants. Sleep with it at arms length.

gc70
April 30, 2008, 09:07 AM
However people shouldn't get testy when others point out that folks who carry seem to be spinning their wheels for nothing.

Carrying a gun, at home or otherwise, seems like a purely personal decision. It is not surprising that someone who has made that decision gets testy when others attack the sensibility, rationality, and even honesty of that decision.

Different people can, and do, make honest, rational assessments of the same circumstances and reach different, and equally valid, conclusions.

geterdun444
April 30, 2008, 10:12 AM
I want to start this by saying that I am not an advocate of violence. At this point in my childrens lives (which they are 15 and 14 years old) and what the current school systems is enforcing at the school ground as school policy I feel it is my obligation as a parent to teach my children how to defend themselves. One of the schools policy's that i do not agree with is the fact that if there is a fight between 2 students they both get the same punishment ( school suspension) even if one is clearly the agreesor and one only trying to defend himself. As was the case with my son and another student. My son was using a computer in the school classroom when another student walked up to him and slamed his head into a computer monitor. He then proceded to try and smah my sons face. It was at this point my son started to defend himself with fist and feet. This has been a bone of contention with myself and the boad since it happened. While my son was home for the week the school called me to ask me to come in for a sit down meeting. At the time of the phone calll my son and I were at the gun range shooting some rounds and practicing are skills. The principal ask me where my son was all the while people were shooting in the backround. He got more than a little ****** when i told him I was teaching my son something other than to lay down and die when being attacked. End result was police intervention between the school and myself. Newspaper article about parent teaching son to shoot and protect himself while son was on suspension for fighting. ( I am a certified weapons and special tactics instuctor) this isn't over yet with the school board and myself. But I feel much safer in my house knowing that everyone in it is confident in thier own knowledge on how and when to use a firearm. After all 3 guns are better than one

mpage
April 30, 2008, 02:31 PM
While I don't 'pack' inside my own home, I do often move my 870 so that it's more within reach. There has been a dramatic rise in burglaries in my general area in the last two years, with a disturbing number of those being 'hot prowl' incidents, i.e., when the person is home. These have happened at night as well, when the crook knows damn well that someone's bound to be home. Someone's gotten into my garage too.

There have been a couple of arrests, but the incidents have not stopped. This must be a harbinger of things to come.

GPossenti
April 30, 2008, 03:01 PM
I don't own a gun, yet (waiting for the next gun show) but my first line of defense is and always will be my dog. She can hear the mailman coming from a few houses over. I've started rewarding her for barking at strangers so she'll always alert me. She can hear things that I can't, and she lets me know.

At that point there are no surprises.

Desertscout1
April 30, 2008, 05:17 PM
Put it on with my pants. Take it off with my pants. Sleep with it at arms length.

+1
If I'm awake, I'm carrying gun...365 days a year, no exceptions.

bobthewelder
April 30, 2008, 06:41 PM
TrippIII, it isn't a home invasion unless someone is home. That would be a burglary.

TripIII
April 30, 2008, 07:50 PM
it isn't a home invasion unless someone is home. That would be a burglary.

O.K. That makes sense.

Stevie-Ray
April 30, 2008, 10:16 PM
I never said there was a law. However drinking while carrying is irresponsible. It is irrelevant whether people drink to excess.Irrelevant my butt! Spoken like somebody that doesn't drink a drop. Or even take cough medicine, for that matter. Either that or, I'm quite sure that after a party at your house where you might have had only 1 or 2, your firearms remain locked up as you retire. After all, if somebody kicks in your door at 2am, you can't do anything to protect your family anyways; you've had a drink or 2. And as you've preached: You don't mix alcohol and firearms. Maybe he'll respond favorably if you just yell, "Go away and come back tomorrow, I've had a drink tonight!"
You certianly have a right to be irresponsible, but you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.You're right, and in the above situation, I would call YOU the irresponsible one.

Sure, until you pop the neighbors kid, and he cops smell beer on your breath.....:rolleyes:Well, if it's the neighbor's kid, he busted through 3 locks to get in. This thread is really bringing out the folks that can't stop at one. But I'm glad you guys know your limitations. Just don't think everybody is like you.

Wildalaska
April 30, 2008, 11:21 PM
Just don't think everybody is like you.

Hell I learned that when I graduated law school lol:D


WildgosearchoutthesagaofspiffinthewronghouseAlaska TM

STAGE 2
May 1, 2008, 01:10 AM
Irrelevant my butt! Spoken like somebody that doesn't drink a drop.

How exactly do you gather that I don't drink from the fact that i've said that carrying and alcohol don't mix. If anything it seems that someone who does drink is in the position to make that assessment.


I'm quite sure that after a party at your house where you might have had only 1 or 2, your firearms remain locked up as you retire.

If there's a party at my house, then yes my firearms are secure. When I go to bed my ready gun is where it needs to be. In no circumstances am I wearing a gun if I'm drinking.


After all, if somebody kicks in your door at 2am, you can't do anything to protect your family anyways; you've had a drink or 2. And as you've preached: You don't mix alcohol and firearms. Maybe he'll respond favorably if you just yell, "Go away and come back tomorrow, I've had a drink tonight!"

Joke all you want. If you're boozing then you shouldn't be carrying.


You're right, and in the above situation, I would call YOU the irresponsible one.

So because I believe that you shouldn't mix a substance that impairs both your motor functions and your judgement with a deadly weapon, I'm irresponsible. Ok :rolleyes:

Wildalaska
May 1, 2008, 01:36 AM
Speaking to the younger guys (I'm way too old for this) how do you "carry" at home after you've been out with the boys, pounded down a pizza, a dozen shots of Jaeger, half a dozen beers, three lap dances two chilidogs and that last shot of Mezcal with worm for dessert, then spend the rest of your semi conscious evening safe and sound in your castle (of course lurking home invaders are everywhere) and your head in the porcelain god whilst you scream Huey and beg for death.... (that Jaeger and Mezcal combo trickling out the nose are the worst although the pink hotdog floaters are quite declasse n'est-ce pas?)

Cat got your uvula (or just burnt to a stub by stomach acid)?:D

I hereby submit, therefore, that NOONE carries 24/7-365/the life of a man and this thread is hereby absurd :)

WildnotevencountingthelackofresponsetomyearlierpointsAlaska TM

And I don't want to hear any holier than thou types claiming...Duh, I never been THAT drunk :)

bobthewelder
May 1, 2008, 05:57 AM
In my state carrying and alcohol mixed are a crime and will get your ticket pulled forever.

geterdun444
May 1, 2008, 06:15 AM
That same law is also here in new hampshire. that is unless you are part of the OLE' BOY'S network....then it just cost you a couple beers at the bar..

bobthewelder
May 1, 2008, 05:40 PM
Our law states that if over 50% of the establishments income is derived from alcohol sales, it is illegal to carry in that establishment anyhow. If you go to a private party and drink while carrying, you are breaking the law. Our first incident of any kind with CCW (this is our first year) was a DUI on a motorcycle. Didn't matter that his weapon was in the saddle bag, he lost both his permit and his gun, not to mention his operators license.

geterdun444
May 2, 2008, 11:59 AM
Well bob drinking is a no no with any firearm permited or not. But I realy think mixing stupid with a firearm is way nore critical

bobthewelder
May 2, 2008, 04:46 PM
Our second offender is in the paper today. He decided that he would go out in his back yard and practice on a bucket. BTW, he lives in the city, in a housing addition. He's not a very good shot either, when officers arrived they found shell casings and one hole in the bucket. I doubt the Colt Drfender was to blame.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/doc481b3f20d98c9794055674.txt

Mainah
May 2, 2008, 06:14 PM
I would be curious to know what a person's chance of facing a home invasion truely is...I am willing to bet it is not substantially less than their chance of using a firearm in SD during their daily activities. I am betting both very unlikely and the difference would be mathematically and practically insignificant.

I agree. I don't carry at home, I'm not making any judgements about those who do, but I don't. My greatest fear is coming home and looking down the barrel of my 870 because I interrupted the neighborhood tweaker while he was ransacking my house.

So I tend to focus on securing my guns with locks more than anything.

geterdun444
May 2, 2008, 06:24 PM
Well bob sounds to me like I would seriously be thinking of where I was living. Or being dam sure something was in reach.
As for leaving weapons at home unsecured well I dont tink thats a realy good thing.
I am of the thinking that if you are leagaly able to purchase firearms then you are legaly and moraly obligated to make sure they are kept in a manner that will not harm anyone else

bobthewelder
May 2, 2008, 10:40 PM
geterdun44, I live in a nice part of a town of about 230,000. Where did the unsecured weapons thing come from? My weapons are always secured as I have two children 6-8 in the house. You have lost me, I know i'ts Friday night, so time for YOU to lock up yor guns obviously.

Th0r
May 3, 2008, 07:52 PM
I don't carry at home, nor outside. As the law in the UK prevents me from doing so...

Personally I don't quite see the point in carrying at home. Yea, it might save you on occasion but I think it would cause more trouble that it is worth to be honest.

Why?

Because it creates an unnecessary sense of tension and paranoia.

What I do understand is having a gun around, within easy access so that one can defend him or herself.

alfred
May 3, 2008, 08:02 PM
Now that I realize that we have lawyers and law school graduates on here I realize why I am seeing some of the things that I read!

Laughing is extremely painful for me.You folks are truly keeping me in tears from the pain.You are worth it.I cannot think of a better way to die!

The funniest are the ones who appear to take their selves serious.I have been accused of being one who would argue with a fence post.Well.I think some of you have me beat.

Some of my medication leaves me somewhat addled and confused.Much of this thread makes more sense to me when I am addled and confused and much less when I am off of my Medication and straight.I do wonder what some of you are on.

Thanks to all.This is the best entertainment that I can find.You folk are great for this shut-in.

Please keep up the great work!

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING!alfred

DonR101395
May 3, 2008, 08:03 PM
Because it creates an unnecessary sense of tension and paranoia.

Why is that? I do it all the time and never feel tense or paranoid, neither does my wife, neither did my kids before they grew up and moved out.

Edward429451
May 3, 2008, 09:32 PM
Because it creates an unnecessary sense of tension and paranoia.


I felt a little hyper-aware of carrying a gun for ~2 weeks when I first started carrying, after that it just feels the same as carrying a bic lighter or a pocket knife, nothing, just there if I need it.

Playboypenguin
May 3, 2008, 09:37 PM
I felt a little hyper-aware of carrying a gun for ~2 weeks when I first started carrying, after that it just feels the same as carrying a bic lighter or a pocket knife, nothing, just there if I need it.
Same here. I am not sure what took longer. Becoming physically comfortable with carrying or psychologically comfortable.

Desertscout1
May 3, 2008, 09:41 PM
Because it creates an unnecessary sense of tension and paranoia.
That has GOT to the dumbest thing I've ever heard!

bobthewelder
May 3, 2008, 10:24 PM
Desertscout1, reverse it and it makes perfect sense! You carry at home due to a sense of tension and paranoia. Send all unused Valium to Alfred.

geterdun444
May 4, 2008, 05:46 AM
Well bob the unsceured weapons comment was actualy aimed at someone else. It was my bad to not include the name it was not aimed at you.
I live in a nice small town of about 35 thousand quite a bit different fron your size.
We do have our own set of problems tho. With opening day for turkey season the police were just picking up a bunch of out of staters that come up here to hunt. They see a resident carrying and automaticaly think they can also. Problem being is they dont have permits to carry. They lose thier weapons, and also thier right to ever own a gun again also that big money they just paid for thier license to hunt.

Desertscout1
May 4, 2008, 08:17 AM
Must be tough to have to get a permit to open carry.:rolleyes:

thrgunsmith
May 4, 2008, 09:03 AM
It hurt and it sucked, statistically I'm probably never going to have to face that again.
Still, I carry nearly all the time, if I'm dressed I am packing.
I'm sure some consider that paranoia.
I do not base my personal decisions on other peoples opinions.
I moved away from NY and CA to a place where I can freely enjoy my rights, to me it is a matter of choice, I know a gentleman who is a great shot, a competitive level pistol marksman and a truly great rifle expert as well.
He never carries.
He doesn't care that I always carry, I could care less that he doesn't.

If you are concerned about me carrying a gun at home, please stay up all night worrying about it, write your political representative, gnash your teeth, pull your hair out...just keep me out of it!;)

bobthewelder
May 4, 2008, 12:01 PM
Worry about it, naw. I suppose if I moved from Harlem to SanFrancisco I might carry at home as well.

geterdun444
May 4, 2008, 04:16 PM
Desertscout here you can walk down the street with a long gun but pistols are a big no no unless you have your permit. My opinion is a motivate person with a long gun can do a hell of alot more damage than a similarly motivated person with a pistol.

alfred
May 4, 2008, 05:30 PM
Please keep your Valium.From your post,I believe you are in far more need of it than I am.I have been promised all of the "Morphine that I will need when I think I need it".I have been and will stay away from such as long as possible.

Besides,I heard Valium was for folk with problems.I have never had a problem that I can remember.Now I have been accused of "being the problem" many times.To me this means that others have a problem,not me.I do not believe that you can have a problem unless you allow something to be a problem to you.

I would just turn the Valium over to my local police department as I don't have a prescription.They would most likely turn it over to the feds,trace it back and bite the donor.

I hope that they do not read your post and arrest us all for unlawfully attempting to distribute prescription drugs or such on here.

I was once in jail and facing 105 years for "Saying NO to Drugs".It cost me thousands.The Crooked Cop was allowed to resign and I was promised that he would never work in law enforcement again.They lied!A few months later he was back a cop somewhere else and being charged with RAPE.The last I heard he was selling used cars.As for me,I have to go through the crap every time I renew my permit.Why?Because every one including my lawyer claimed it was someone else's job to straighten it out!My piece of paper from the prosecutor saying that "the witness admitted lying" and that they "believe the charges to be false" is just a piece of paper.

Thanks,but once was enough for me!

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING!alfred

JohnKSa
May 5, 2008, 12:07 AM
Ok, I think this one's done. PMs to follow for some lucky participants.