EDC and HOME DEFENSE

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 1-DAB:

the safest place for a gun is loaded on your person. that's not just my 2 cents, see also Pax's website (corneredcat.com), where she also discusses this idea.

Posted by JohnKSa:

...carry it. It's far quicker and far more secure than trying to stash guns around the house.

Posted by 4V50 Gary:

I'd keep it on my person.

Posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

Stashing assumes you can get to it. Some test runs indicate that retrieving a gun from a quickly done break in can be problematic.

Posted by kraigwy:

Regardless, a Home Defense Gun is not a Home Defense Gun if its not on your person.

Not by the bed, not in the closest but ON YOUR PERSON.

I kept my home defense firearm in the bedroom for decades. Then I really thought about it for the first time some years ago.

If I had not figured it out for myself, the above advice would convince me.

[TimSr]

With respect, I'd offer that this mindset focuses on the odds rather than the stakes. Fires are exceedingly rare, and although more common in some areas than others, they happen everywhere. The after-the-fact realization that the odds-of-occurrence don't mean squat, when the event actually occurs is not a pleasant place to be.

I'll agree with you there. I do focus on the odds, and not the stakes. No one can possibly prepare for all threats to health and safety great and small. I do focus on the most likely, and home invasion in my neighborhood at my house, where a gun will be far enough out of reach to make a difference is very low on the list. I know a lot of people, self included who have had fires. I personally do not know of someone who has suffered a home invasion, though I was robbed at gunpoint at my place of employment 35 years ago. I do not walk around in my home with a fire extinguisher on my belt, though I have one placed where I'm most likely to need it. I've always been armed at my business, though I don't carry at home on the commode. Though the stakes are high, I have also declined earthquake and meteor insurance, because I am focused on the odds. Focusing on the stakes instead of the odds, can take your focus off of threats that have greater odds of occurring. I also have to consider the stakes and the odds for a home invader - that he can get in undetected before I or my wife can cover 0-20' maximum to get to a ready weapon.

[Steve-o420]

I got a Glock 23. I got small to medium size hands. Two things to remember keep a good firm grip when shooting and always keep you weapon in the same place. Glock is my go to gun when I hear things go bump in the night followed by my colt Python

[jbrown50]

Posted by 1-DAB:
Quote:
the safest place for a gun is loaded on your person. that's not just my 2 cents, see also Pax's website (corneredcat.com), where she also discusses this idea.

Posted by JohnKSa:
Quote:
...carry it. It's far quicker and far more secure than trying to stash guns around the house.

Posted by 4V50 Gary:
Quote:
I'd keep it on my person.

Posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
Quote:
Stashing assumes you can get to it. Some test runs indicate that retrieving a gun from a quickly done break in can be problematic.

Posted by kraigwy:
Quote:
Regardless, a Home Defense Gun is not a Home Defense Gun if its not on your person.

Not by the bed, not in the closest but ON YOUR PERSON.

I kept my home defense firearm in the bedroom for decades. Then I really thought about it for the first time some years ago.

If I had not figured it out for myself, the above advice would convince me.

Exactly. Complacency. Having a little Kahr PM9 or a j-frame in my pocket is easy and virtually transparent but some folks consider guns to be a necessary evil only to be carried when absolutely necessary. To them if you see the need to have a gun on you even when at home then you need to move to a better neighborhood. Well, thousands of burglaries, robberies, murders, home invasions, etc. occur in nice quiet neighborhoods every year.

There are lots of negative assumptions made about the victims of criminal activity, as if most of them deserved it in some way, and the majority of those negative assumptions are wrong.

Criminals don't respect nice neighborhoods, alarm systems or the neighbor's, and sometimes even your, barking dog. Recently one of my neighbor's house was burglarized while they were at work. Their dog an American pit bull terrier was found later roaming the neighborhood.

Criminals also move very fast and won't give you a chance to get to that stashed gun.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

No one can possibly prepare for all threats to health and safety great and small.

True.

I do focus on the most likely, and home invasion in my neighborhood at my house, where a gun will be far enough out of reach to make a difference is very low on the list.

You really need to look at likelihood, the severity of the potential consequences, and how you might migate the risks. That is a very basic tenet of risk management.

I know a lot of people, self included who have had fires. I personally do not know of someone who has suffered a home invasion, though I was robbed at gunpoint at my place of employment 35 years ago.

I have never had a fire, but I have had three home invasions in the last 51 years.

I do not walk around in my home with a fire extinguisher on my belt, though I have one placed where I'm most likely to need it.

That happens to be something that one can reasonably predict. Most possible ignition sources are identifiable.

I have several.

Though the stakes are high, I have also declined earthquake and meteor insurance, because I am focused on the odds.

I have never looked at meteor insurance, but we live near and on the intersections of major faults, the premiums or low, and it would be foolhardy to not carry earthquake insurance.

Focusing on the stakes instead of the odds, can take your focus off of threats that have greater odds of occurring.

I can't buy that.

I also have to consider the stakes and the odds for a home invader - that he can get in undetected before I or my wife can cover 0-20' maximum to get to a ready weapon.

That may be highly dependent on home layout. In my house, should an invader make a tumultuous entry at any time or from any point of ingress when we are not in the bedroom, we would have little if any real chance.

Have you tested your theory?

I carry a firearm concealed whenever I leave the house. I find it much more convenient to leave it on at home than to remove, replace, and secure it whenever I come and go.

It is comfortable, secure, and accessible.

I do not take it to the shower. That's a judgment call.

[TxWheels]

Being former LE and then a Bounty Hunter from '93-2007 I have had plenty of threats thrown my way. So, I carry everywhere, all the time except when sleeping. Then it's on the headboard.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I do not walk around in my home with a fire extinguisher on my belt, though I have one placed where I'm most likely to need it.

1. I would if I thought Johnny Storm, the Human Torch might come through the door or window as a surprise.

2. The need for carry is that you can have a rapid smash in and don't have time to go get the gun form the place you predicted it should be. It's that simple.

Say the Petit family over and over. They might have had a fire extinguisher .

[zombietactics]

... Focusing on the stakes instead of the odds, can take your focus off of threats that have greater odds of occurring. ...

No one in a position involving threat mitigation or management at a professional level buys this. It's counter to the conclusions every coherent analysis ever done.

I appreciate the fact that you have tools close-at-hand. That's an effective strategy.

... to consider the stakes and the odds for a home invader - that he can get in undetected before I or my wife can cover 0-20' maximum to get to a ready weapon. ...

Give me your address. If you are close enough, we can get some airsoft guns, and I'll demonstrate multiple times that I can enter your home and be at your throat before you can cross that distance. I'll demonstrate that I can do it even when you know it's going to happen. It's not even hard. I'll even do so very loudly in some cases ... won't make a difference.

And let's be clear ... I'm not a tough guy engaging in chest-puffery. I'm 55, overweight, arthritic and have a bad back. It's just not that difficult to overcome someone unprepared.

[stephen426]

I think that a warning device such as a good alarm system or a decent sized dog is a much better option than hiding guns all over the house. I don't care if you have a gun on you if I can break in undetected and stick a gun in your face. At 70, I doubt that you can out draw a drawn gun (unless you are Bob Munden or Jerry Miculek). Also, I don't know how good your hearing is at 70, but you may not hear a bump in the night that a good guard dog would. The main advantage is that an alarm system or guard dog is usually such a good deterrent that a criminal will turn tail and leave. While you may be a great shot, there are always risks involved in gun fights and avoidance is your safest bet.

[AK103K]

Ill bet even I could out draw Bob Munden now.

I liked Bob, he was a hell of a guy. Did some trigger work on a Cimmaron SAA for me, and what a job he did. Even sent it back having to do more work than first thought, and just said send the extra when I got around to it.


The dogs and alarms are our first line, and are very effective. No one gets to the doors without us knowing it first, which is more than half the battle. The fact that the dogs are 125 pound weapons (ea.) in their own right, pushes that even more. If someone were to get in, they arent getting far without a fight right off.

[TimSr]

I can appreciate that everyone has differing opinions based on their own circumstances. I've lived in this same small town for 25 year. During that time we have had ONE "hot" home invasion, and that involved the homeowner letting them because he knew them. You're simply not going to convince me I need to carry a gun on my person around the house.

Yes, I've made sure to slow things down, but I figure it would take about 5 seconds for somebody to enter through breaking a window if they happen to know the layout of the house. I've taken steps to hinder what would be a hasty break in. In most cases that alone would be enough for me, but then they would be greeted loudly by Rocky, though sweet as can be, would make anyone hesitate. We also have a little alarm dog.



I'm sure I'm not the only person in my situation. Like I said, I've been in the other, and would and did prepare differently.

Everyone needs to best evaluate their own situation.

[1-DAB]

i walk my doggie every day on our property, there are vicious dogs on nearby properties that are not fenced in. they have attacked us more than once, but after several shots fired in their direction, they have left us alone for quite some time. there is no way i could return to the house, fetch my gun, and go back to the dogs. i needed my gun NOW.

don't assume bad guys won't disable your pooch.

i carry everyday.

[Stevie-Ray]

Since you already have a G19, I would consider the G26 also. Small, supremely easy to shoot, and many now are saying they shoot the 26 better than the 19. I have one myself, along with a 29, and that completes my Glock lineup. The GunVault is a great idea, if you're set on placing guns around the house-hopefully they're bolted down, but I'm sure you know that. I'm one that firmly believes in carrying my EDC, a 3" 1911, all day, even at home. It is no burden, and I feel best about my home safety that way. Besides, my wife cannot operate a gun at all, so I'm the entire (last line of) defense system.

[zombietactics]

I've lived in this same small town for 25 year. During that time we have had ONE "hot" home invasion, and that involved the homeowner letting them because he knew them.

None of these anecdotal observations constitutes an argument for anything one way or the other.

You're simply not going to convince me I need to carry a gun on my person around the house.

This is a statement about being stubborn and unteachable, and - again - not an argument for anything one way or the other.

I looked up the data for Rittman, Ohio ... as well as the surrounding communities (which feed into statistical probabilities regarding patterns of crime)

In summary ... you live in a low crime area, but far from the idyllic utopia you suggest. There may be a bit of "just don't know any better" at work. Your property crime is significantly higher than the national average, for instance. Your burglary and theft rates are unusually high for a community of that size (and trending rapidly upward, BTW) ... so much so that I checked a couple of sources just to be certain.

Crime does not follow narrow, artificial boundaries on a map. Your proximity to Barberton and Akron, for instance, increases the total threat profile quite a bit beyond a narrow rendering of probabilities based upon Rittman alone.

Unless you are truly as stubborn as you suggest, my humble recommendation would be that you think through the problem more rationally. I understand how home-carry seems silly to you at this time.

I love the tactical-early-warning-canine, BTW ... that's always a good part of a layered (and sensible) approach to home defense.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zombietctics, in response to TimSr:

I understand how home-carry seems silly to you at this time.

My personal belief was that the idea was outlandish--until some time before I posted this.

I live in an excellent neighborhood with a very low crime rate. But we are located between two Intestate highways, one of which is one of the major drug arteries; adjacent counties are meth country; we are only a few miles from a city that is near the top of the list in terms of violent crime; and the criminals today are mobile--very mobile.

I most certainly do not expect trouble, but should it happen, I do not want to regret not being able to deal with it.

And mitigating the risk is so very easy and convenient.

[Moomooboo]

Originally Posted by zombietactics

None of these anecdotal observations constitutes an argument for anything one way or the other.



This is a statement about being stubborn and unteachable, and - again - not an argument for anything one way or the other.

I looked up the data for Rittman, Ohio ... as well as the surrounding communities (which feed into statistical probabilities regarding patterns of crime)

In summary ... you live in a low crime area, but far from the idyllic utopia you suggest. There may be a bit of "just don't know any better" at work. Your property crime is significantly higher than the national average, for instance. Your burglary and theft rates are unusually high for a community of that size (and trending rapidly upward, BTW) ... so much so that I checked a couple of sources just to be certain.

Crime does not follow narrow, artificial boundaries on a map. Your proximity to Barberton and Akron, for instance, increases the total threat profile quite a bit beyond a narrow rendering of probabilities based upon Rittman alone.

Unless you are truly as stubborn as you suggest, my humble recommendation would be that you think through the problem more rationally. I understand how home-carry seems silly to you at this time.

I love the tactical-early-warning-canine, BTW ... that's always a good part of a layered (and sensible) approach to home defense.

Actually crime does generally follow lines.

If one is unteachable or stubborn that is you too. You think youre all right and correct and that it is almost wrong not to carry at home. You should take a dose of humility.

[OldMarksman]

Actually crime does generally follow lines.

Criminals look at maps with lines on them?

[zombietactics]

... If one is unteachable or stubborn that is you too. You think youre all right and correct and that it is almost wrong not to carry at home. You should take a dose of humility. ...

If there is something you propose to teach me, do so, and we'll test your hypothesis. Be specific regarding the present subject for instance. Show me the fault of logic or fact, and I'll readily acknowledge it.

It's not humility I lack. If I lack anything, it's tact when dealing with irrationality. I'll readily cop to that charge.

[pax]

And... it's time to close the thread.

TFL Code of Conduct.

pax