Do you carry at home - Why do people feel safe at home?

[rantingredneck]

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 .


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

[tepin]

i dont wear at home but keep the gun with me in the room

[DonR101395]

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]

I always have my gun within reach at home. I really wish I could carry elsewhere. NJ sucks.

[TexasSeaRay]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pax

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]

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]

Originally Posted by pax

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ) 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]

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]

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.

.

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

RR

[TexasFats]

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.