Do You Carry At Home?

[lordvader]

Sometimes I do, but most of the time I don't carry in my house. But, it is always available if I need it quickly.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca

.The point is that living in a "good" area is not an assurance that bad things won't happen.

I think why is largely irrelevant, the Petits would have been better off (or at least no worse off) with a locked door.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by Jeniva

I think the concept of carrying in your own home depends on your neighborhood. Some people may not have the means to leave their current residence and feel it is a solution to carry in home for more safety. I think it depends on the circumstances of the tenant.

I think you should follow some of the links in this discussion and read about the Petit family. They lived one of the lowest crime rate high-end neighborhoods in America.

[mrt949]

YES Always Within REACH .

[FireForged]

Bad things can happen in good neighborhoods but it doesnt mean that ambient risk is the same from place to place. There is a good reason that some places are called "the bad side of town". Level of assessed risk and security posture go hand in hand. More is some places and less in others. Its just common sense but it doesnt mean you stick your head in the sand. Everyone should have a reasonable default level of security that never wavers.

I wont beat up the the Petit family but it is certainly possible that these thugs may have been deterred if it were not so easy to get control of the house and occupants. They seemingly walked right in.

There is more money is the burbs..sure but there is also a different dynamic which often works against the criminal. I have lived in very rough places growing up and I can tell you that in most of the places I lived, they dont call police, dont talk to police, there are rarely any people willing to be a witnesses and when there are, they can be self serving and predictably unreliable. These are all elements that work in favor of criminals which is why there is so much crime in the rough neighborhoods. It is often the exact opposite in the "burbs" so criminals have to weigh risk vs gain vs consequence.

[zoo]

Spent the majority of my life risking my life so others could feel and actually BE safe (safe at least so much as such can ever be the case).

You think I'm not going to spend some of my time enjoying the benefits of my labor?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Bad things can happen in good neighborhoods but it doesnt mean that ambient risk is the same from place to place. There is a good reason that some places are called "the bad side of town". Level of assessed risk and security posture go hand in hand. More is some places and less in others. Its just common sense but it doesnt mean you stick your head in the sand. Everyone should have a reasonable default level of security that never wavers.

This is basically what I wrote in post #40:

Each of us has his/her own level of comfort. I don't accept that there are "safe" or "good" areas where one doesn't have to worry about crime. The odds may be better in the so-called "good" area, ...

Originally Posted by FireForged

I wont beat up the the Petit family but it is certainly possible that these thugs may have been deterred if it were not so easy to get control of the house and occupants. They seemingly walked right in.

They did walk right in. But they were going in whether or not they found an unlocked door. They had spotted Mrs. Petit and one of the daughters during the day and followed them from downtown Cheshire (such as it is) to their house. This wasn't a random hit, it was targeted. The invasion was going to go down irrespective of locked doors.

And I don't think an alarm would have prevented the invasion. If an alarm had gone off the two thugs might have just grabbed whatever they could get and run, so the wife and two daughters might not have been killed, but think about how home alarms operate. My younger brother lived in an apartment in Cheshire when he was first married. I've been there. It's semi-rural suburban, meaning large-ish house lots, winding roads, lots of trees and landscaping, no sidewalks. When an alarm goes off, the first thing that happens is that a signal goes to the monitoring company. When they see the signal, they have to look up the telephone number, and then they call the house to ask if there's a problem. I periodically forget that my alarm is set and I go down to the basement, which is not deactivated by the "Interior" setting. It takes a minimum of a minute for the alarm company to call. Then it takes more time for the operator to ask if everything is okay. Let's say that in the case of a real "situation" it might take another 30 seconds for the operator to twig to the fact that the homeowner is in a bind. Then the alarm operator has to look up the number of the Cheshire police department, dial it, wait for a dispatcher to answer, and then explain to the dispatcher that there's a possible "situation" at [address]. I'd give that at least another minute.

So we're now at 2-1/2 minutes before the dispatcher even calls a patrol unit.

If Cheshire is like my town and the towns where I've done PD ride-alongs, the night shift has fewer officers on duty and fewer cars on the road than during the day, so they're stretched. Cheshire is very similar to my home town in many regards, and I know from having called the police a few times that the response time here is typically between ten and twenty minutes. If we want to be optimistic and call it ten, that's now 12-1/2 minutes from when the alarm was tripped to when a police car arrives at the address.

That's plenty of time for a pair of ex-felons who are out on parole to raise a fair amount of mayhem.

[Jack Ryan]

Yes

[FireForged]

They did walk right in. But they were going in whether or not they found an unlocked door.

This may be what [you] believe but there are not too many badguys who are going to "go no matter what". Are there some? sure.. but its not the norm among these type of criminals. There are plenty of elements which may dissuade a badguy at many points during the lead up to violent predatory crime even after overt action has occurred. Badguys abort criminal attacks for this reason or that quite regularly, its common knowledge. Sure, these people were targeted but it doesnt mean that the badguys would have taken on any and all difficulties (no matter what). I watched some of the docu-drama on this crime and they seemingly changed their plans every 15 minutes. The whole thing seemed to be in a constant state of flux and it didnt take much for them to alter their plans and change directions several times. I am inclined to believe that if they had encountered difficulties getting into the home and perhaps alerted the occupant of their presence (early), they would likely have aborted.

You might be right but its just a hunch unless you have some unique
knowledge of these particular people or confessions they may have made.

And I don't think an alarm would have prevented the invasion. If an alarm had gone off the two thugs might have just grabbed whatever they could get and run, so the wife and two daughters might not have been killed, but think about how home alarms operate. My younger brother lived in an apartment in Cheshire when he was first married. I've been there. It's semi-rural suburban, meaning large-ish house lots, winding roads, lots of trees and landscaping, no sidewalks. When an alarm goes off, the first thing that happens is that a signal goes to the monitoring company. When they see the signal, they have to look up the telephone number, and then they call the house to ask if there's a problem. I periodically forget that my alarm is set and I go down to the basement, which is not deactivated by the "Interior" setting. It takes a minimum of a minute for the alarm company to call. Then it takes more time for the operator to ask if everything is okay. Let's say that in the case of a real "situation" it might take another 30 seconds for the operator to twig to the fact that the homeowner is in a bind. Then the alarm operator has to look up the number of the Cheshire police department, dial it, wait for a dispatcher to answer, and then explain to the dispatcher that there's a possible "situation" at [address]. I'd give that at least another minute.

If Cheshire is like my town and the towns where I've done PD ride-alongs, the night shift has fewer officers on duty and fewer cars on the road than during the day, so they're stretched. Cheshire is very similar to my home town in many regards, and I know from having called the police a few times that the response time here is typically between ten and twenty minutes. If we want to be optimistic and call it ten, that's now 12-1/2 minutes from when the alarm was tripped to when a police car arrives at the address.

Thats a whole lot of supposition based on very little. Its certainly not how it works around here and nobody is calling my house if the alarm goes off. If it turns out to be a false alarm I am looking to be sanctioned by the local municipalities alarm office if its happened more than once in the same year.

That's plenty of time for a pair of ex-felons who are out on parole to raise a fair amount of mayhem.

sure.. and keeping them outside beating the door down for as long as possible can certainly allow a person to exploit many things in their favor.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

You might be right but its just a hunch unless you have some unique
knowledge of these particular people or confessions they may have made.

I don't know if I have "unique" knowledge, but I know a lot more than you probably saw in a docudrama. As I mentioned, my brother lived in Cheshire for several years -- in fact, not too far from where the Petit house was located. So I took a special interest in the case, and I read everything that came out on it, both in the immediate aftermath and for years thereafter, as the cases wound through the court system. I could be wrong, of course, but from all the statements given by both defendants, I have no doubt that they were going to enter that house. Period.

As to the alarm system -- I don't know where you live, but where I live (and in Cheshire, where my brother lived and the crime took place) residential alarms don't go directly to the police. They go to an alarm company. When the alarm company gets a signal, the first thing they do is try to call the house to see if it's a false alarm. If there's no answer, or if whoever answers doesn't know the password, then they call the police.

[Moonglum]

According to the official record Komisarjevsky and Hayes got into the house through an unlocked basement door and nobody knew they were there until they assaulted Mr. Petit.

That's the truth. That's what we know happened and anything else is nothing more than speculation designed to prove our side of the argument.

I don't know if a locked door would have stopped Komisarjevsky and Hayes.

I do know the Petits wouldn't have been worse off.

I have no idea if Mr. Petit had a gun in the house. I don't know if he could have got to it in time if he did. I don't know any of the gazillion things that could have happened if that door was locked but I can say with absolute certainty that it wouldn't have been worse.

I don't know what good a gun would have done Mr Petit even if he had it on him because he woke up in the middle of an assault.

I said it in my beginning post I don't actually wear a gun at home most of the time. I do have my doors and windows locked all the time unless I'm actually using them. I don't have windows open in my house unless I'm actually in the room.

Maybe a locked door wouldn't have stopped Komisarjevsky and Hayes but if they tried kicking my door down I'm positive I would have had ample time to take cover and prepare to defend my home.

I have a gun on me or at arm's length all the time but it still The Last Resort

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Moonglum

I don't know if a locked door would have stopped Komisarjevsky and Hayes.

I do know the Petits wouldn't have been worse off.

You started this thread with a question. Why are you arguing with people who answer you? I never said the Petits would have been worse off if they had locked the door, or if they had an alarm. I only mentioned the Petit incident to counter the notion that it's not necessary to carry at home if you live in a "good" area -- the underlying premise being that bad things don't happen in "good" areas. Although the odds against bad things happening in "good" areas are better than in "bad" areas, the likelihood is not zero.

I live in a suburb that's considered a "good" area. When I was growing up here we never locked the car doors, and in the summer we left the front door open at night so the breeze could blow through the screen door.

Those days are long gone. This town has now seen home invasions. Cars have been broken into while parked in closed and locked garages. My house was burgled in 1997. It's the oldest and smallest house in the neighborhood. So why was I picked? It was the only house in the neighborhood that didn't have an alarm system.

I now have an alarm system. And I carry at home. Not 100% of the time, but most.

It's a personal choice as to how each person views the odds, and chooses to respond to whatever he or she thinks the odds are.

[Moonglum]

Never Mind

[Brit]

Our Town House is one end of a block of 5 homes. The Jeep is a house car!
Never is left outside. To gain entry, a lot of noise would be generated.
My wife sleeps like a log! She is doing that right now, I am on the laptop.

My loaded G19 is 3M behind me, on the bedside table, plus my Surefire light.
Just changed that, went to check the thermostat, G19 and Cell phone in my old Canadian imported dressing gown, I was told you will not need that in Florida?
Oh no?

Dressed in Track pants and shirt, G19 in the right pocket, phone in left. So yes I am armed in the house. Showered, dressed, holstered G19, spare G17 magazine, Surefire, and razor-sharp Benchmade folding knife. The model with a window breaker and seat belt cutter.

Do I live in a sketchy part of town? No, but my wife was targeted by two young chaps, pants hanging down hoods, while shopping, she disturbed my book reading self outside, in the parking lot. (Cell phones) With that information, I met her when she walked by the Jeep, (did I mention it was a much-decorated Security vehicle that I was leaning against?) they hung on to their pants as they ran to the main road. I think I was leaning against their prospective ride!

Most of these 3 pages speak to situation awareness, as much as carrying a gun.

[Moonglum]

Originally Posted by Brit

Did I mention it was a much-decorated Security vehicle that I was leaning against?

If they don't care about the cops what makes you think they care about a security guard?

[Nanuk]

If they don't care about the cops what makes you think they care about a security guard?

The elephant in the room.

[mrt949]

On 2/15/2016 My Mothers Home Was Broken In To .They Smashed The Side Window With A Rock Gained Entry . My Mom Was 92 Years OLD They DUCK TAPED .HER FEET , HANDS AND MOUTH ,Covered her up in bed .And left She (DIED) .Her Name Was Amelia Roman .Lived In North Braddock Pennsylvania .They Are Still Looking For The MURDERS

[FireForged]

.... but I know a lot more than you probably saw in a docudrama.

I do not base my opinion of violent predatory criminals and crime in general on what I saw in 15 minutes of a docu-drama. The show simply offered a few tid bids of info which stood in support of what I already suspected.

I don't know if I have "unique" knowledge

Then where does the absoluteness of your statement come from?

[FireForged]

Never Mind

LOL, I feel your pain Bro

There are always going to be people who narrowly focus on a reactive posture and waltz right past any real efforts to mitigate the undesired condition to begin with. I have never seen so much resistance to simply helping yourself with a robust and locked entry way. Every second you can afford yourself is worth a kilderkin full of gold and may very well save your life.

A secure perimeter , barriers(locks, doors) and general access control are very basic elements to security which has been around for thousands of years. Its why people built fortifications around their encampment rather than practice sleeping in a swordbelt and calling it "all good".

I have always had a firearm readily available to be in hand in a matter of 10 seconds but I simply elect to work actively towards keeping badguy out to begin with or at least making it one huge headache to get inside. Of course now a days I am retired and have at least 3 other men ( or more in the growing season) on the property at any given time. If evil finds me at home, I should have plenty of help to address it.

As I have said before, I had a couple of guys try to break into one of my equipment sheds which stands about 100 yards from the main residence. They jacked up the steel door pretty good but they gave up and left. I have them on clearly on video ( well, hidden game camera) but was never able to ID them. Good doors and jambs can go a long way but of course it will not keep a determined criminal out for very long.

[TunnelRat]

There is no reason why having good locks and secured entryways has to be mutually exclusive with carrying in a home. A person could do both if they wanted to, or they could do just one or the other. Personally I want good locks and physical security at any dwelling where I live.

As for good vs. bad areas, yes it is certainly possible that bad things happen in good areas. Possible and probable are not the same. I could drown when I’m not on a lake or an ocean. But I wear a life jacket when I’m on a body of water and not when I’m around a pool. I look at the probability of an outcome and make judgements based on that. For me personally does that change where I do or don’t carry? Not generally, but I can still acknowledge that crime rates vary by locality. If someone wants to change their security posture based on the threat probability that’s their call (like much of this thread in the first place).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

There are always going to be people who narrowly focus on a reactive posture and waltz right past any real efforts to mitigate the undesired condition to begin with. I have never seen so much resistance to simply helping yourself with a robust and locked entry way. Every second you can afford yourself is worth a kilderkin full of gold and may very well save your life.

1. Let's see some quotes from this thread which are resistant to the idea that good doors and locks are an important part of a good security posture.

2. Where are the posts from this thread indicating that people should narrowly focus on reactive posture?

3. Who on this thread has posted that delaying a forced entry with physical security measures is not important?

The biggest problem with this topic is that people can't just have a discussion on the basis of what is actually posted. Instead, there tend to be a lot of assumptions made about what the other side is thinking/saying/feeling and that colors the discussion in ways it really shouldn't.

[FireForged]

Brother.. if you do not sense the seemingly dismissive attitude toward much of what has been said in regards to keeping the badguys out, thats fine but im not going to diagram the sentences. Its just the vibe that I get when I read several of the posts here. I didnt use the word seemingly when I described what I see as "resistance" and perhaps I should have. I cant say for sure what someone means, only what I think it means or conveys (to me).

If a persons plan is essentially pulling a pistol out of their pocket when a troop of badguy suddenly appear in the home, that is not very "proactive" in my estimation. Proactive would be the efforts which start well ahead of the worst case scenario. At least in my view anyway.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

If a persons plan is essentially pulling a pistol out of their pocket when a troop of badguy suddenly appear in the home, that is not very "proactive" in my estimation.

I’m looking in this thread trying to find someone suggesting this, that their sole plan is to fight the attackers once they have entered the home and that they have no concern for exterior defenses. I can’t seem to find it. I have seen people suggest that exterior defenses can be defeated and that determined attackers may be able to get passed those (and we can argue the likelihood of that). I don’t mind a little hyperbole for stylistic flair, but at a certain point you’re constructing a straw man argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Double K]

I find it annoying to have to go look for a gun when I'm taking my little dogs outside to pee and poo {lots of predators around} so it's pretty rare for me to not be wearing a gun. Most of the time it's either a Walther P22{uses the same holster as my 1911} or a S&W mp22 compact{same holster as a Glock 19}. The logic being if I decide to go into town I can easily substitute either one for a bigger gun without messing with the holsters.....or not.

[JohnKSa]

Proactive would be the efforts which start well ahead of the worst case scenario. At least in my view anyway.

I agree entirely. I really don't see that anyone has stated that they disagree with that philosophy on this thread.

I have seen people suggest that exterior defenses can be defeated and that determined attackers may be able to get passed those (and we can argue the likelihood of that).

Correct.

As far as likelihood goes, there are different schools of thought.

If the odds of an occurrence are all that matters, then nobody would ever buy lottery tickets. But they do. Not because they believe that they have a good chance of winning, but rather because they are swayed by the size of the potential windfall. These folks would say--yes, I know my odds of winning are very small, and I know I probably won't win, but someone wins almost every time they have a drawing. And winning would be a life-changing experience!

I think the same thing applies to this topic, but in reverse. I fully expect that I will never be faced with a home invasion. I think there is a very good chance I will live my entire life and never be the victim of a violent crime given my lifestyle, the areas I frequent and the precautions I take.

So why do I bother to carry a gun? It's not because of the odds, it's because of the stakes. In the very unlikely event I were to be faced with the prospect of needing a gun, the ramifications of not having one could be unthinkable. Like the opposite of a lottery jackpot. Instead of becoming an instant millionaire, I could lose everything in an instant and potentially in ways that do not even bear thinking about. So, I prepare--because being prepared is better than not being prepared.

Do I do absolutely everything I can to make my house more secure? No, of course not. I don't have bars on the windows, I don't have a large dog. I don't currently have cameras integrated into my security system. I don't pay anyone to patrol the premises.

Reality means that people have to prioritize the level of expense and effort they put into securing their house and, undoubtedly, if you pick any two people, even in similar circumstances, they will have different approaches to establishing their priorities.

Which one is right? Well, of course, the one who has a priority list most similar to mine! The other one is obviously crazy for living "that way".