The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 28, 2016, 07:50 AM   #51
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 2,648
Pep in CA -

Do what you are comfortable with. I don't think anyone is going to try to convince you otherwise or at least, I hope not.

I personally carry during almost all of my waking hours. Right now I'm in my pajamas with a tiny P32 on my waist in a small paddle holster. In the course of my day, I have one in my back pocket at the office. Outside of the office, I have a G27 or 617 on. If I'm wearing a tucked in shirt, it's a P3AT in a Sneaky Pete.

The BG's will always have the edge. Always. Even extra second or two on my side helps.

One more thought . . . What's the cost of carrying a little guy on your person that weighs 10 oz? What's the cost of having to run/stumble 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 15 seconds to your gun? Also, gotta keep in mind...most of us will not automatically assume that someone is trying to break into the house. We'll sit there for a second or two - "hey, what was that?" - before investigating. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.
__________________
AI + Quantum Computing = Human Extinction Event

Last edited by Onward Allusion; September 28, 2016 at 07:56 AM.
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 08:37 AM   #52
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,821
Quote:
...I think it's a matter of risk assessment. Mine is low right now. Very low.
Heck, I rarely lock my house.
Now if the situation changes, I can change, but currently I don't feel the need.
That is your choice. Even if you are right and the chance of needing a gun is very low, the consequences of not having one are if needed are severe. Risk assessment requires an objective look at all the facts, and then weighs the costs. It costs me nothing to carry. The cost of not carrying could be incomprehensible. It is a simple choice for me.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 08:49 AM   #53
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
All the folks who are running to their guns scattered all over the house, need to time their response to a break-in vs. the entry speed
If a person using common burglar tools can enter my home and attack me faster than the 5 seconds it takes me to casually arm myself, there are already substantial security failures that need to be addressed.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 08:50 AM   #54
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
As somebody who has been carrying a pistol around the house for decades, I can't do your cost/benefits analysis for you; but I can explain mine:

PROS:
1) Most secure method of storing a firearm since it is under my direct supervision and positive control at all times.
2) Fastest method to access a secure firearm for the same reasons.
3) Cheaper than other secured, fast access alternatives (which are slower and less secure to boot)

CONS:
1) Carrying around a handgun can be inconvenient - since I live in a permissive area and wear one regularly, it is about as regular as putting on a belt for me. So with a good holster and belt, the inconvenience is minor - probably higher for those in non-permissive areas though who chose to remove it every time they come and go.

2) Hard on furniture - you don't notice it initially; but that chair armrest that the butt of your metal framed pistol rubs against every day for 15 years is going to start showing some wear and tear eventually.

RISK:
Very low risk for most of us; but very serious consequences if you don't beat the risk probability. Generally, my bias is if I have a low risk situation with major consequences and I can counter it with minimal cost and effort on my part, I go that way. Since I already like and enjoy shooting, the cost for me to carry a pistol in the house and be trained is fairly low.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 09:25 AM   #55
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,349


Aarond

.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 150923-Decepticons-Small.jpg (107.9 KB, 355 views)
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 09:28 AM   #56
jmorris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2006
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
My pistol too is loaded and is in the same closet.
Sounds like putting all your eggs in one basket.
jmorris is online now  
Old September 28, 2016, 09:37 AM   #57
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
That is your choice. Even if you are right and the chance of needing a gun is very low, the consequences of not having one are if needed are severe.
A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day. Most people would agree that a traffic accident is probably the more likely danger vs a home invasion but how many people are wearing helmets while driving a car on the public roadway? Not any that I have ever seen.. why? It could be because of a relative risk assessment that indicates that the need is rather low.

If that logic is not accepted then it begs the question.. how many of those critical of it are actually wearing helmets while driving cars on the public roadway?
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...

Last edited by FireForged; September 28, 2016 at 09:45 AM.
FireForged is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 09:45 AM   #58
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,764
I figure anyone who can break into the house quietly and quickly enough that it prevents me from getting to a firearm is competent enough that having that firearm on my belt would likely make very little difference. The fact that they are breaking into my house indicates they are determined as my house is not a target of opportunity (either by location or perceived wealth)

I still hope anyone who attacks me is either incompetent or not determined. My preference is both.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 10:01 AM   #59
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,681
Most break ins occur during the daylight hours. B&E boys may be lazy but they are not stupid. As most every house they can see will be vacant while the home owners are at work and their kids are at school.
I live alone and when I worked I was on the afternoon or graveyard shifts, my preference because the plants paid a shift differential. So I was home, alone, during the peak breaking hours.
My neighborhood is on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, my choice, I was able to live below my means and save lots of money to invest.
I have a gun in the same room I'm occupying, always.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 10:01 AM   #60
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Sounds like putting all your eggs in one basket.
and staging weapons all around the house could very well be putting them in someone else's basket if badguys have made their way in. Common sense dictates that a person can more easily control less material in less space than they can more material is a greater space.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 10:34 AM   #61
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireForged
A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day.
Well that depends on whether you are taking the poster literally and examining only the portion you quoted or whether you are inferring basic common sense principles to his example.

Typically, an analysis goes like this:
1) What is the probability of the event happening?
2) What are the consequences of the event happening?
3) What are the costs of mitigating that event?

You joke about the NASCAR helmet; but when I was growing up we rolled around in steel, no-crumple zone, no airbag cars with seatbelts unused and children unrestrained. If you'd have suggested a five year old needed to be strapped into a car seat and seatbelted, people would have looked at you like you were the person who should be wearing a helmet - all the time. At some point, society decided the high consequence of a relatively low risk event was worth the cost in mandating car seats, more effective restraints, airbags, etc.

The analysis on whether a NASCAR helmet (or a handgun around the house) benefits you depends on how you evaluate each of those three factors above - which is necessarily going to be a very individualistic process. In both cases, the probability of either is very low and the consequences very high, so perceived cost becomes the major determinant. A guy who races stock cars at Texas Motor Speedway on the weekends might see everyday wear of a helmet as less of a cost than someone who rides the bus to work.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 10:52 AM   #62
FireForged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 1,731
sure.. and none of that reasoning was offered to the member who stated that he considered a home invasion to be very low risk in his circumstance. I said what I did to shine a light on the hypocrisy of some critics.

You are right.. risk is evaluated differently depending on a lot of factors. As you mentioned car seats, restraints and airbags you are also correct in that lots of methods can mitigate a threat. A person can mitigate forcible entry in many ways as well.

If a person wants to carry a firearm around in his house, in the shower or as he sleeps, its fine by me. If a person makes the decision not to do those things by means that are thoughtful and not arbitrary.. why be critical of it.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance...
FireForged is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 11:47 AM   #63
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
I live in an area where there may be dangerous people around.

You do to. EVERYONE DOES.

Have a gun handy at home. It is never a bad idea.
Model12Win is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 12:11 PM   #64
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,764
Quote:
sure.. and none of that reasoning was offered to the member who stated that he considered a home invasion to be very low risk in his circumstance. I said what I did to shine a light on the hypocrisy of some critics.
Considering I made the argument that I found a home invasion to be an extremely small risk in my circumstances I am curious to the hypocrisy you found in the statement.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 12:38 PM   #65
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,389
SNYPER:
Quote:
The problem there is you're mistakenly assuming one place is safer than another.
The problem is YOU are mistakenly assuming NO place is safer than another.

That is absurd. I suspect the vast majority of police departments, fire stations, and hospitals, for example, are dramatically safer than a Chicago ghetto. Safety and risk are obviously directly related. If safety (and risk) were the same everywhere, auto insurance, for example, would be virtually the same everywhere for the same automobile.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 12:44 PM   #66
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,821
Quote:
A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day. Most people would agree that a traffic accident is probably the more likely danger vs a home invasion but how many people are wearing helmets while driving a car on the public roadway? Not any that I have ever seen.. why? It could be because of a relative risk assessment that indicates that the need is rather low.

If that logic is not accepted then it begs the question.. how many of those critical of it are actually wearing helmets while driving cars on the public roadway?
An interesting position. I think a better comparison would be wearing a seat belt though. A three point seat belt is very effective in preventing serious injuries in an accident. There are still some who don't wear one, and insist they don't want to stuck in a wrecked vehicle. Any object analysis will show this is a foolish position based on the risks. For the record, I am sure that a helmet could make a difference in a crash. A seat belt almost certainly will make a difference, just like a gun in a self-defense situation where lethal force is required.

My position requires adequate training and practice with a handgun. Just sticking one in your belt without that is like driving too fast on snow covered roads with a four-wheel drive. Just thinking you're invincible doesn't make it so.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 12:47 PM   #67
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,764
Quote:
a gun in a self-defense situation where lethal force is required
With all due respect I think you are creating a bit of a straw man argument here that, especially on this board, is going to be quickly eviscerated. Think of the poor innocent straw man.

The argument being pursued here is not a gun on the person vs no gun. Its a gun on the person vs one that is available but not on person (IE in a nearby quick access safe). The difference we are arguing over is not the availability of the gun to the defender but the time frame in which that gun can be deployed. Most of us are talking he difference between well under a minute vs a second or two (to draw). There is a difference there but lets not overstate it.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 01:18 PM   #68
Snyper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
That is absurd. I suspect the vast majority of police departments, fire stations, and hospitals, for example, are dramatically safer than a Chicago ghetto. Safety and risk are obviously directly related. If safety (and risk) were the same everywhere, auto insurance, for example, would be virtually the same everywhere for the same automobile.
There have been shootings in all those places, and I don't know anyone who lives in any of those places.

The subject here is "Should you carry your pistol at home?", and no one's home is really that much "safer" than anyone else's.
__________________
One shot, one kill
Snyper is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 01:51 PM   #69
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,873
Do this empirically. Have your gun (not a loaded real gun) in your preferred place. Now you don't want to actually break your door but leave it open but closed.

Sometime during an unknown interval, have a partner or two throw open the door and have them come for you. Airsoft is good. Be at a typical but not on top of the gun location.

See if you make it to the gun and put up a reasonable defense.

That's what we are talking about as compared to the noise you hear at a distance, so you can meander to your weapon.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:02 PM   #70
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,821
I am not overstating anything. I compared a seat belt to a gun. If that is made of straw, eviscerate away! The comparison is valid in my opinion. Having a seat belt available, but not fastened or a gun available but not at hand is the same thing. I will fasten it before impact makes little sense. I will retrieve my gun when the door is kicked in sounds like the same argument to me.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:06 PM   #71
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,389
If the perp is 10 feet away and aiming a firearm at you, then you are not in a safe place, regardless of how "safe" your home is. To claim that
Quote:
no one's home is really that much "safer" than anyone else's
makes no sense. Homes are obviously not all the same, access is not identical for all homes, and the risk of home invasion by one or more perps is not identical for all homes in the United States. There are many factors that influence the risk of a home invasion by a single perp (or several.) There is no basis to assume the combined affect of those factors is irrelevant .
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70)
NRA Life Member
RMEF Life Member
lefteye is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:09 PM   #72
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,250
My mother in law used to do just that. Just open the door and walk in. God, she never did realize the risk she took. We never got along, and god almighty, someday she might have done that and I'd have maced her just for the fun of it.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:17 PM   #73
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,764
Mr Meyer that is not entirely empirical. The dead bolts on my house stay locked unless someone is outside and in sight of the door. I firmly believe I can deploy a firearm from one of the safes, while my family moves towards safety, more quickly then someone can break through one of the doors in my house. Long throw bolts go through the 2X6 exterior studs as well as the door frame. Do I think it will hold indefinitely? No. Do I think it will hold for 30-60 seconds? Yeh - truth be told I think it will hold longer than that.

The person (or people) who have the competence to defeat the door in less than 30-60 seconds also have the competence to overcome any meager defense I can put up (armed or not). If the door is giving way and I must meet multiple attackers unarmed (while my wife recovers a firearm) the doorway is probably the best place for me (unarmed) to face multiple attackers as it funnels them and prevents them from using simple numbers to overcome me.

No I do not answer the door unless armed.

I don't carry a firearm inside my house because it is entirely likely my kids and I are chasing each other, wrestling around, or doing something else. Frankly I think because of this it is more likely I would suffer an accidental discharge in doing this than the slim chance that someone actually attempts to invade my home and is competent enough to have the doors broken before I can react.

I think I look at it this way (and do in most my defensive considerations):

Am I able to overcome competent attackers who are determined and properly leverage the advantage of both surprise and numbers? No. I am not that good and am not willing to take the security steps it would require to be able to do that. Instead I attempt to live a lifestyle that is not flashy (that is not necessarily by choice - I am not rich) or offensive to others. I cannot imagine why those competent and determined attackers would chose me as a target.

Are those threats that are not competent and determined going to be able to easily overcome the doors before I can arm myself? Nope.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:20 PM   #74
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 1,764
Quote:
I am not overstating anything. I compared a seat belt to a gun. If that is made of straw, eviscerate away! The comparison is valid in my opinion. Having a seat belt available, but not fastened or a gun available but not at hand is the same thing. I will fasten it before impact makes little sense. I will retrieve my gun when the door is kicked in sounds like the same argument to me.
Just how quickly do you think someone can get into a locked house? The follow-up question is if someone has that level of competence and preparation coupled with the element of surprise do you really think you are likely to overcome him or her (or more likely them)?

If you must have a gun on you at all waking hours how do you sleep? The reality for me is that if someone is going to invade my house while I am asleep I am going to have to have an element of luck working for me to even stand a chance.

I think in the analysis you are overthinking the difference between a gun in a holster and a gun that can be accessed relatively quickly.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 28, 2016, 02:21 PM   #75
briandg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,250
Quote:
Heck, I rarely lock my house.
This can't go unquestioned.

Are you nuts? Why would you choose to leave it unlocked when it's so simple to close and lock it?

This is the very simplest, and absolutely necessary step. Your door should be locked at every second that you aren't standing right next to it. Why not? I leave my home, I lock it. I come home and enter, and I lock it. If I let my dog out, he's SOL if the zombies hit, because I lock the door again.

About ten years ago, I was in my kitchen working. Doorbell rang. I ignored it and then whoever it was hammered on the door. Got mad as hell. Then, I heard whoever it was try the lock. Grabbed whatever was handy and was at the door in about a second. or two. I got the door open and some scabby, grungy looking POS offered to clean my gutters.

I live in a good neighborhood but it's full of historic homes, and looks wealthy. That day I had a B&E attempt and thwarted it with a locked door and a chef's knife.
__________________
None.
briandg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10287 seconds with 9 queries