Gun and Kids at home

[pax]

That was why I decided to carry the gun on my body at home. I could picture no circumstances in which I would leave my babies alone in the same room as the intruder, even for a few moments, and even if the weapon I needed was in a different room.

pax

[doofus47]

oldmarksman

Regarding "are in your home explicitly to do you harm, not rob, not do anything profit-related", how would you know that? Why would you believe that whatever their original motive for entering might have been, they would not become very dangerous if encountered?

There is the "ninjas jumping through my window" block buster movie scenario. I would expect that if the poster knows the relative odds of that happening in his neighborhood and has decided that a few seconds of unlocking is sufficient then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

There are neighborhoods where I would carry all the time, even at home. Apparently, that poster doesn't live in one of those.

We all do what we think is best.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by doofus47:

There is the "ninjas jumping through my window" block buster movie scenario. I would expect that if the poster knows the relative odds of that happening in his neighborhood....

Considering that we have not had a break-in of an occupied home in our neighborhood for years, one might tend to downplay the risk.

BUT-- there have been a few very terrifying moments for some residents in essentially identical neighborhoods not far away.

So--I choose to mitigate the risk. Doesn't take much to do so.

It's not just the odds--consider the stakes.

....and has decided that a few seconds of unlocking is sufficient then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

That the likelihood of a violent break-in may be low tells us nothing whatsoever about what would unfold in the event. Why would more time be afforded to the resident because a break-in is less likely?

There are neighborhoods where I would carry all the time, even at home. Apparently, that poster doesn't live in one of those.

Since criminals are very mobile, and since valuables are more likely to be found in "better" neighborhoods, that's an iffy assessment to make.

We all do what we think is best.

Yes, and for almost fifty years I "thought" that keeping the gun in the bedroom was "best".

But I hadn't really thought about it at all.

[45_auto]

Since criminals are very mobile, and since valuables are more likely to be found in "better" neighborhoods, that's an iffy assessment to make.

Why is it an "iffy" assessment? I would think that it would be obvious without a government study that "worse" neighborhoods have higher crime rates, and you would be more likely to need a gun.

The Poverty-Crime Connection

High Crime Rates Among Poor: Why

It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes. Beyond a simplistic answer of "poor people want/need more stuff so they have to take it," what are other, more researched answers? Oscar Newman offered several in "Creating Defensible Space" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996, $15):

#• A one-parent household headed by a female is more vulnerable to criminal attack.
• Families with only one adult present are less able to control their teenage children.
• Young teenage mothers are often victimized by their boyfriends.
• The criminal activity by the poor is tolerated, if not condoned, among the poor.
• The poor, and particularly the poor members of racial minorities, are unable to demand as much police protection.
• Committing crimes against residents in rundown and "ghetto" areas requires minimal skill and risk.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news...me-connection/

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 45_auto:

Why is it an "iffy" assessment? I would think that it would be obvious without a government study that "worse" neighborhoods have higher crime rates.

It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes.

Committing crimes against residents in rundown and "ghetto" areas requires minimal skill and risk.

We were not discussing crime rates in general. We were discussing the unlawful entry of occupied residences.

We have to distinguish between muggings, street robberies, auto theft, and the like--all easy, and likely if enough of the residents are lawless--and burglaries. In "better" neighborhoods, there is a higher likelihood that homes will contain cash, jewels, salable electronics, credit cards, and even someone who can be taken to an ATM than homes "where the poor are concentrated".

Greater chance on a better return on investment, and burglars know that.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

We were discussing the unlawful entry of occupied residences ... In "better" neighborhoods, there is a higher likelihood that homes will contain cash, jewels, salable electronics, credit cards, and even someone who can be taken to an ATM than homes "where the poor are concentrated".

Greater chance on a better return on investment, and burglars know that.

Hard to believe that you obviously have access to the internet, but make statements like that with absolutely ZERO research. You really believe that Bill Gates is more likely to be burglarized than some drug dealer in the "hood"?

If they know that, why do they concentrate on the lower income households?

In the real world, the number one item that burglars are after is drugs (or cash to buy drugs). Here's a hint: if you're ever out of town and need a drug fix, you'll be MUCH more likely to find them if you cruise the government projects or low income neighborhoods rather than the gated, high security neighborhoods. It's not that hard to understand, burglars figured it out a long time ago.

US Department of Justice:

„http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf

From 1994 to 2011, households with an income of $14,999
or less were victimized at a higher rate than households
with higher incomes.

Research tends to discredit your theory, I doubt that you'll find very many burglars living in high-income neighborhoods.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/new...cfe0b7262.html

The average offenders travel less than a mile to commit the crime," Spelman said. "Offenders usually don't steal outside their front door because they are too vulnerable. But they don't want to go too far away because they don't want to go (to the) trouble. The average victims are almost as poor as the offender.

Probably not many burglars living within a mile of Bill Gates, and I doubt if he's really worried about Paul Allen (or anyone else on the "100 richest people in the world" list) sneaking in to burglarize him.

The income vs burglary statistics from the "Prison Index" also discredit your theory.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/burglaries.html

Victims of crime: Who is at greatest risk?

Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income under $7,500: 67.0
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $7,500-$14,999: 44.2
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $15,000-$24,999: 38.9
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $25,000-$34,999: 37.1
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $35,000-$49,999: 30.9
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income between $50,000-$74,999: 24.1
Number of burglaries per 1,000 households with an income of $75,000 or more: 23.1

It would appear that research by the the author of "Residential Burglary" also disagrees with you:

The largest change occurs between incomes of $150,000 and $200,000. Those households making more than $200,000 per year are significantly less likely to be burglarized. Above this level, home owners may install more sophisticated security protection, they may work out of home offices, or they may have housekeepers at home most of the day. Whatever the case, a relatively large drop occurs in the proportion of homes burglarized at these higher income levels, with no significant difference in the lower income categories.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5t...0level&f=false

But hey, you posted it on the internet so it must be true, right? Don't let the facts interfere with your assumptions.

[Doyle]

I agree with 45_auto. I almost never see a news story about a home invasion in an upscale neighborhood but hear about home invasions in "the 'hood" all the time.

[Mainah]

I'd imagine that most street level drug dealers report very little income. And in my experience they represent the most likely victims of a home invasion, by far. That might even out 45's statistics.

[adamBomb]

There is the "ninjas jumping through my window" block buster movie scenario. I would expect that if the poster knows the relative odds of that happening in his neighborhood and has decided that a few seconds of unlocking is sufficient then I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

There are neighborhoods where I would carry all the time, even at home. Apparently, that poster doesn't live in one of those.

We all do what we think is best.

haha yes no ninjas jumping through any windows near me. I am at a point in life where I can afford a nice house in a nice part of town. There is virtually no crime here. Having said that it can obviously always happen but I am way outside my city limits where all of the crime happens. I also have an alarm so that would give me those few seconds and more than likely scare someone off in the first place. Now places I lived at in my 20s...I had a gun on my nightstand because i live in the city.

[OldMarksman]

Research tends to discredit your theory, I doubt that you'll find very many burglars living in high-income neighborhoods.

Of course not. Why would anyone think otherwise? I'ts not where they live, it's where they work.

The Brownsville article speaks of 7,574 thefts and 1,442 burglaries . we've already discussed the former; invasions of occupied homes are the real issue for the defender.


45,you have listed some stats by income level. I cannot imagine anyone subsisting on less than 7,500, or even 15,000 even in 2001, but set that aside. If you read your "Prison index" book more carefully you will fined that if you exclude the castles of Gates and co. there is no real reduction in burglary rate as the value of the home increases.

The DoJ stats show roughly the same rate in rural areas as in urban. One would conclude that burglars are mobile The suburban rate is about 25% lower than the urban--not all that much. Would you adjust your security planning on that basis?

Yes, drugs are a much more likely target downtown. But crooks who have learned something about the up-scale contents of suburban homes , from whomever, do get around.

Not long ago I happened to be sitting near some tracks unarmed in a great neighborhood, and found later that a couple had been bound and robbed about two blocks away.

We have shootings, robberies, car jackings, car theft, muggings, and kidnapping in the "hood" all the time. They present little risk to me.

The likelihood of a home invasion where I live is less than remote; the stakes are what define the risk.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

there is no real reduction in burglary rate as the value of the home increases.

Obviously I don't know where you live or your experiences, but where I live the more expensive (greater than $200,000) homes experience MUCH less burglaries than the lower income areas. In eight years as a sheriff's deputy the only time that I was called to a nice home was a kid's bike missing from the garage. My experiences are in line with the statement from the "Residential Burglaries" study previously cited (shown again below). Average home price around here is about $125,000, so a $200,000 home is more than 50% above the average.

Residential Burglaries
Those households making more than $200,000 per year are significantly less likely to be burglarized.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5t...0level&f=false

Possibly crime is more prevalent in your county. Latest stats I could find here show 26 robberies in 2013. That made news because it was a big increase. There have been a total of 8 homicides in the 28 years that I have lived here.

The only category that saw an increase was robberies. Numbers show 26 robberies were reported in 2013, compared to 15 in 2012 and 20 in 2011. Nationally, the rate for solving violent crime in 2012 was 46.8 percent, according to the FBI. The sheriff's office clearance rate that year was 89.1 percent

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

Not long ago I happened to be sitting near some tracks unarmed in a great neighborhood

It more and more appears that we're coming from a different perspective. By tracks I'm guessing you mean train tracks. NONE of what I consider "great neighborhoods" have tracks in (or even near) them. Around here, the value of the homes drops as you get closer to the tracks. I can't imagine any kind of benefits a neighborhood could offer to have people voluntarily put up with that kind of noise.

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

The likelihood of a home invasion where I live is less than remote; the stakes are what define the risk

Interesting viewpoint. Screwy statement. How do the stakes define the risk?

I define the stakes as being my life or my families life, no matter what the risk. Dead is dead in my world. Makes it an easy decision to live in a safe area. The risk can be a motor vehicle accident, suffocation, drowning, falling, suicide, poisoning, electrocution, assault, etc, etc, etc. The stakes don't have any effect on the risk (stakes = lives I care about) from my viewpoint. As I stated, dead is dead. I evaluate the risks and make an appropriate response. The stakes remain the same.

Approximately twice as many people commit suicide by guns every year as are murdered in total by every other means. If the stake is your life and you believe that the stake defines the risk, the best thing you can do concerning firearms to minimize the risk to your life is to make sure that there are no guns available to you.

Your loved ones are about as likely to die from a fall as from an assault. Do they wear a bubble suit and helmet all the time? Remember, the stakes define the risk, right?

Do you wear a helmet in your car? Doing so would do IMMENSELY more to decrease the risk of death (50% to 70% of deaths in car accidents are from traumatic brain injury) than any amount of guns you may carry. I don't believe that I've EVER seen anyone wearing a helmet in a car on the road. Hard to believe that everyone in the worlds's perception of safety vs reality is that far off. Perhaps your viewpoint is slightly skewed?

Risk of death during the next year:

Intentional Self-Harm(All types).......1 in 9,096
Assault (All types and cases)............1 in 16,325
Self-harm by firearm......................1 in 16,831
Car occupant.................................1 in 17,625
Death from Falls............................1 in 23,162
Assault by firearm..........................1 in 24,342

http://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/r...atasources.php

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 45_auto:

The likelihood of a home invasion where I live is less than remote; the stakes are what define the risk

That's very basic risk management.

One characterizes risk in two dimensions: the likelihood of occurrence, and the severity of the potential consequences.

I assess the likelihood of a break-in of my occupied home on any one day as far less than remote. Over an extended period, the probability is, of course, much higher. In fifty-one years, it has happened.

I consider the potential consequences of being attacked by violent criminal actors in the home, should it happen, as extremely severe.

So, the question is one about how and whether to mitigate the risk.

There are several possible means, all very easy to do, so I mitigate the risk.

Approximately twice as many people commit suicide by guns every year as are murdered in total by every other means. If the stake is your life and you believe that the stake defines the risk, the best thing you can do concerning firearms to minimize the risk to your life is to make sure that there are no guns available to you.

That's silly in the extreme.

If a person wishes to commit suicide, and I do not, he need not have access to a firearm.

Access to a firearm clearly does not increase that risk for me.

Your loved ones are about as likely to die from a fall as from an assault. Do they wear a bubble suit and helmet all the time? Remember, the stakes define the risk, right?

That is a very serious risk, for me.

The question becomes what and how to mitigate it.

A "bubble suit" would not be either practical or effective, would it?

So--I stay off ladders and off of ice.

Do you wear a helmet in your car? Doing so would do IMMENSELY more to decrease the risk of death (50% to 70% of deaths in car accidents are from traumatic brain injury) than any amount of guns you may carry. I don't believe that I've EVER seen anyone wearing a helmet in a car on the road.

You are somehow assuming that a helmet would be an effective means of mitigation.

If it were, we would likely see more of them.

But what is needed is a means to prevent violent acceleration of the head, linear and rotational, in any direction.

We have airbags in all kinds of places.

Now, if you could have a system that would restrain the helmet from moving in the event of a collision, that would be effective. That's the current state of the art in motor racing.

Bu I cannot use one in my car, so it is not on the list of possible mitigation techniques.

[jimbob86]

"There's lies, there's damnable lies, and then there's statistics."

"Any data, sufficiently tortured, will say anything a statistician wants it to confess to."

Your loved ones are about as likely to die from a fall as from an assault. Do they wear a bubble suit and helmet all the time? Remember, the stakes define the risk, right?

Pure-D statistical poppycock: I know because I get to fill out NARSIS forms... I'll wager the VAST majority of deaths due to "falls" are extremely frail geriatric patients, most of whom, IME, did not in fact "fall and break their hip", but rather were shambling along, and their old brittle proximal femur broke, and of course they fell over, or they have some other underlying issue (CHF, COPD, Diabetes, etc) and stood up too fast, momentarily lacked sufficient O2/glucose to the brain, and suffered "syncope" (fainted) ..... and probably broke a hand, wrist or forearm if they tried to catch themselves, or cracked some ribs (brittle bones, you know), or whacked their head on the way down .... and when you are a frail, geriatric type person, you don't bounce back from that like a little kid (who probably falls 1000 times more frequently)...... most of these folks are in for rough patch, at the very best .....IME, they really are "on their last leg" ....but when you fill out the form, "cause of injury" is not checked as "osteoporosis", "COPD", or "poor balance" or "one foot on a bananna peel and the other over the grave"..... it's "ground level fall" .... when the doc/coroner writes it up, cause of death, "injuries due to a ground level fall" ..... if they linger in the hospital awhile, they can add a "complications due to injuries from a ground level fall"....

..... dunno if it supports the "odds" or the "stakes" crowd, but these are the folks that often rely on canes and walkers...... and for good reason.

Approximately twice as many people commit suicide by guns every year as are murdered in total by every other means. If the stake is your life and you believe that the stake defines the risk, the best thing you can do concerning firearms to minimize the risk to your life is to make sure that there are no guns available to you.

This is also statistical BS^ ...... People that shoot themselves REALLY meant to kill themselves.... if they had no access to a gun, they would find another fool-proof way to go about it. In my (limited) experience, it seems to me that many people who REALLY want to kill themselves, but do not have a gun, do so in a car- I can find no other logical reason for a driver doing 100+mph and missing a bridge or hitting an embankment or veering into a head-on with a larger vehichle- ..... and such things get "classified" as a "motor-vehichle accident" but really could have been just a suicide, or murder/suicide ...... insurance often pays, and sometimes pays MORE, for "accidental death/dismemberment" in a "motor-vehichle accident".... where they may well not pay anything for a death by suicide.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jimbob86:

I'll wager the VAST majority of deaths due to "falls" are....

Don't forget people who have to take anti-coagulants.

..... dunno if it supports the "odds" or the "stakes" crowd, but these are the folks that often rely on canes and walkers...... and for good reason.

I recently found out that a walking stick can help. Try Brazos Walking Sticks.

Good mitigation for the risk of falls, and, I think, for making muggers think twice.

[OldMarksman]

By the way, it occurred me some years ago that, when one goes out through necessity onto ice covered walks and parking lots, (1) the likelihood of being attacked by violent criminal actors is probably reduced significantly; and (2) not only is the likelihood of falling higher, but the potential consequences are probably higher if one is carrying a handgun, due to the possible injuries that landing on it may cause.

There are probably several ways of mitigating that increased risk. The one I chose was to not carry under such circumstances.

Within the home? Most burglars would probably prefer to stay in, too.

[Mannlicher]

no kids at home, just the wife and I. All my guns are kept in one of several safes, but the one within reach at night is not.
During the day, I usually have one on me.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

One characterizes risk in two dimensions: the likelihood of occurrence, and the severity of the potential consequences.

Likelihood of an accident in a car = highly likely
Severity of the potential consequences = extremely severe

You are somehow assuming that a helmet would be an effective means of mitigation.

If it were, we would likely see more of them.

Sounds suspiciously like the arguments against seatbelts back in the 1960's. My experience in counting on the public concensus to make a rational decision on safety has been that it has a very poor record.

Originally Posted by oldmarksman

Now, if you could have a system that would restrain the helmet from moving in the event of a collision, that would be effective. That's the current state of the art in motor racing.

Bu I cannot use one in my car, so it is not on the list of possible mitigation techniques.

Why not? What prevents everyone from using one in your car other than inconvenience?

[OldMarksman]

45, it is well known that serious brain injury in auto accidents (and in football, for that matter) is made much worse by acceleration of the head and movement of the neck.

Regular helmets reduce the risk somewhat,, but not significantly.

New racing systems restrain the head. The car must be signed to work with them.

I cannot see how one could reasonably design systems that people could afford that would work with front seat and back seat passengers. Even if it were practical, the extreme restriction of in head movement, while an acceptable penalty on the track, would add considerably to the risk of accidents in normal traffic.

Right now, the most effective risk mitigation systems we have include multiple airbags, harnesses, body crush zones and rigid cabins, headrests, shaped seatbacks, effective seat mounts and structures, seats that move to prevent whiplash, headrests, and, of course, multiple collision avoidance systems.

And they are very effective indeed. They reduce the likelihood of serious accidents in cars, and they reduce the potential consequences extremely significantly.

[Big Shrek]

I'll toss out a few statistics that will point out that criminals are invariably stupid.

The average Convenience Store has around 15-20 cameras...so does the average bank.
CS are supposed to have a max $50 in the register and a drop safe...on a busy day when the clerk forgets, maybe a few hundred.
Banks have thousands at the counter at each slot.
Conviction for robbing a CS gets you up to 25 years in average State Pen, hard time.
Conviction for robbing a bank gets one 20 years average in a FEDERAL pen...easy time.

Why do CS's get robbed a thousand times more than a bank does??

Stupid crooks. Really stupid crooks. So stupid it boggles the frakkin mind.

It is why they rob local homes...its EASY. They know the neighborhood. They don't think outside the box.
They're just thinking about that next fix, that next 40oz, that next hooker. That's it.
Its why most ghetto folks never even try to leave the ghetto...and if they do, they find another ghetto in another city.
The mindset alone keeps folks in the ghetto.

It takes real intelligence to get out of it...not schooling, but intellect.
Which again, is difficult due to how ghetto's work...stupidity is rewarded while intelligence is scorned.
And that's the real problem. No politician will ever be able to legislate people out of stupidity.

So how does that equate with home burglary??
Make your home a hard target. Burglar bars, alarms, big dogs...all reduce the chance of making you a mark.
A simple burglar bar front & rear door that has a double-key lock THAT YOU USE is hugely effective...
also give you time to get said pistol from said gun box/safe if need be
Because, as was mentioned before, criminals are lazy and stupid...if things are difficult, they move on!

[OldMarksman]

Three serious crimes involving occupied homes that I can recall were committed by persons with knowledge of the valuables inside. One resulted in death to a resident. Watch what's visible when you have workers in; watch what you put out on the curb on recycling day.

We had not had a break-in on our little suburban street until residents started announcing their journeys on social media.

[jimbob86]

Conviction for robbing a CS gets you up to 25 years in average State Pen, hard time.
Conviction for robbing a bank gets one 20 years average in a FEDERAL pen...easy time.

Why do CS's get robbed a thousand times more than a bank does??

Because they know that the State courts are swamped and the States' resources are finite (they can't just print money and deficit spend on a continuing resoloution like the Feds) and they can likely plea down to a slap on the wrist for the CS job.

The Feds are not so forgiving when you monkey with their FDIC protected institutions. They can't let that happen, or the confidence in the Federal Reserve System, which is all the currency is based upon these days, would evaporate. It's always about control...... and they will do whatever is necessary to keep their system going.

[Big Shrek]

I forgot to mention Florida's manditory minimums...upon conviction...
Have a gun during the commission of a crime, automatic 10 years.
Use it, as in fire it, even if you don't hit a human, automatic 20 years.
If you do shoot someone, dead or just injured, automatic LIFE sentence.

So while some might plead out if a 1st offender, the state makes bank that they'll screw up again & re-instate the original sentence...
Florida fines are, not to put to fine a point on it...quite substantial.
Definitely not hurting for prison money, especially since they privatized many of them...which run less expensively

Ever notice that private prisons never get media raids??
Never hear of Private CO's beating the boowah out of a prisoner??
They ain't Public Facitlies...there's a benefit there!! They save Billions in lawsuits!!
And, being a corporation, can simply file bankruptcy to get out of any major awards & start over again.

Florida has a nice racket going on...and relatively low crime for such a huge population!

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by big shrek

Florida has a nice racket going on...and relatively low crime for such a huge population!

I suppose that could be true, depending on how you define "relatively".

I'd have a hard time describing anything in the top 10 as "relatively low".

But I suppose as long as you're careful to only compare it to the 8 states ranked more dangerous than Florida, it can truly be called "relatively low".

http://247wallst.com/special-report/...n-america-2/3/

Most Dangerous States
#9 Florida
> Violent crimes per 100,000: 460.0
> Population: 19,552,860
> Total 2013 murders: 972 (3rd highest)
> Poverty rate: 17.0% (tied-14th highest)
> Pct. of adults with high school diploma: 86.8% (19th lowest)

There were nearly 90,000 violent crimes reported in Florida in 2013, or 460 per 100,000 residents. Rapes and aggravated assaults largely contributed to the state’s high crime rates, despite the incidence of rape falling more than 11% between 2012 and 2013. Property crimes were also high, with more than 3,100 committed per 100,000 Floridians in 2013, compared to only 2,700 nationwide. The warm climate and more densely populated areas may have contributed to the high volume of crimes committed.

[kilimanjaro]

Convenience stores get robbed more often than banks because :

There are more of them.
There are no armed guards, just maybe a clerk with a pistol.
Generally, stores are near freeway onramps, major arterials, easy getaway.
Robbing a convenience store doesn't bring in the FBI.
Most people that walk into a convenience store to rob it blend in with the customers. Not true if they walk into a bank.