If you always carry when out and about do you carry in your home

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by Crankylove

I would like to think my home is safe for myself and my family, but I cannot control the actions of others.

Then you're doing it wrong

My original statement stands...
A home should be a sanctuary
Not a paranoia filled prison

[Blue Jays]

Nice safe neighborhood. Heavy steel doors with long-throw deadbolts and latches.
Windows are built with strong/thick shatter-resistant glass and are alarmed.
I am happy to enjoy a movie at home without a firearm on my hip. They are close enough.

[JohnKSa]

If I knew exactly when and where I would need a gun, I wouldn’t go there.

Yup. That pretty much covers it.

Then you're doing it wrong

I suppose that if one has the mindset that they are able to control the actions of others, and the unshakeable confidence that they are doing it right, and those who are doing it differently must therefore be doing it wrong, that gives them an unusual perspective on things.

I agree that if one believes that it is possible to control the actions of others and to do so without fail, then carrying a firearm doesn't make sense.

[Deja vu]

As my mentor taught me. Pants on, gun on.

Home invasions are extremely rare but they do happen, even in nice areas. Besides if you carry all the time it becomes normal.

[eflyguy]

I don't live in fear, but it costs me nothing to keep my EDC on the side table next to my sofa. I don't carry it into the kitchen or bathroom.

[dahermit]

We are old and retired, live out in a rural area. I do not carry in the house, but always carry when outdoors ...more for "targets of opportunity" (fox, raccoon, coyote, etc.) than for defense against humans, but that is one consideration.

Being old and not likely to fare well in a physical confrontation, nor have any at risk visitors, have staged guns. We also keep the doors locked and have security cams watching the likely entrance albeit the cameras were installed because I cannot hear the doorbell anymore and have frequent deliveries to the back door. The cameras have become more of a means of watching our cats, the neighborhood casts, opossums, 'coons, etc. that come for our cat food on the back porch...mostly entertainment. Therefore, carrying while inside is seemingly unnecessary inasmuch as I think I would have adequate warning of an intruder with nefarious intent.

[zeke]

Even if living in the country, would be carrying at all times. Being isolated carries a whole other set of circumstances. Some may think paranoia, others may think being prepared.

Would be pretty boring if we all followed the same standards.

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Yup. That pretty much covers it. I suppose that if one has the mindset that they are able to control the actions of others, and the unshakeable confidence that they are doing it right, and those who are doing it differently must therefore be doing it wrong, that gives them an unusual perspective on things.

I agree that if one believes that it is possible to control the actions of others and to do so without fail, then carrying a firearm doesn't make sense.

Non sequitur
And a big one at that

The subject is about carrying inside your home
You are responsible for the safety and security of your own home
If one cannot maintain a level of such so that they believe they have to carry a firearm on their person while inside it...
Then YES that person is doing something very wrong
Or simply paranoid

Fences, dogs, lights, motion sensors, alarms, cameras, physical barriers and obstacles, properly secured windows and doors, pre planning, etc, etc, etc...
Are all things that are under the occupants control and NOT the whims of others

A person is FAR more likely to be injured or killed in a house fire than they are from a shootout inside
So do you carry a 2.5 gallon fire extinguisher strapped to your back all day?

A person is FAR more likely to slip and fall in the shower/bath smashing their skull open than they are of dying from a shootout inside
So do you strap on a helmet before stepping into your shower or tub?

Much of the gun community is out of shape to morbidly obese, thus far more likely to die getting up in the night to take a leak than from a shootout inside
So do you four o'clock an AED right next to your pistola?

I would imagine its a firm "no" to all of the above

But reasonable people do take reasonable measures
We mitigate fire risks with alarms, extinguishers, pre planning escape, routinely check for hazards, don't store filled gas cans inside a garage, etc, etc, etc
Why not do the same with regard to the security of your home and property so you don't "need" to be so paranoid while inside

Fix those issues that make you feel vulnerable

Everyone is free to do as they like
My opinion is just that, an opinion
Agree or disagree

But my original opinion stands...

If I believed there was a need to carry in my home
I would either move or seek some therapy
A home should be a sanctuary
Not a paranoia filled prison

[Deja vu]

Stationing quality firearms all over the home is expensive, it’s easier to just carry and practice with the same one. Not to mention if you station a firearm there is a chance that a real home invader (if you are unfortunate enough to experience that) could potentially find your stationed gun and use it on you.

POGO, pants on gun on. A gun that is not on your person should be locked up when at your home. A quality biometric or RFID safe can open in less than 1 second, keep a small one in reach.

[JohnKSa]

But reasonable people do take reasonable measures

Given that you've firmly established that you believe only your definition of "reasonable" could possibly be correct, this comment has no applicability except to someone else who shares your exact definition/assessment of "reasonable".

Non sequitur
And a big one at that

The subject is about carrying inside your home
You are responsible for the safety and security of your own home
If one cannot maintain a level of such so that they believe they have to carry a firearm on their person while inside it...
Then YES that person is doing something very wrong
Or simply paranoid

No, it's not a non sequitur.

1. The idea that it is possible to control other people's behavior to the point that there is no chance of having a home compromised isn't realistic. There are many ways that someone can get into a house and a lot of them can't be prevented with gates/locks/doors/the actual physical security of the house. As just one example, I've seen video of home invasions where the person had a high fence and an automated gate on their driveway and the invaders were still able to get in by merely timing their arrival so that they were able to come in the gate and into the garage behind the homeowner before the gate/door could close. They waited on the opposite end of the street and came down it so that they arrived at the gate about the same time the homeowner's car did.

2. The idea that the only reason a person would carry a firearm is because "they believe they have to", is quite restrictive. I suppose some people carry because they feel they must. or because they're afraid, others carry just to be prepared--because they can, more than because they feel it's a necessity. By the way, that goes for outside the home as well as inside the home. I see people who obviously feel like the only reason someone would carry is because they're afraid or because they feel they have to. It's simply not true. When I can't, or don't carry, it doesn't bother me at all--because I'm not carrying out of fear or due to a feeling of compulsion.

A person is FAR more likely to be injured or killed in a house fire than they are from a shootout inside.

Ironic that you would mention this in the context of making a number of modifications to a house, many of which modifications would complicate rapid exit significantly. Don't you think?

But my original opinion stands...

Naturally.

It's not at all surprising that a person who feels like their way is the only right way, that anyone doing it differently is doing it wrong, who believes they can control the actions of others, and who states that anyone who disagrees with them is incompetent or mentally defective, wouldn't understand or consider the perspective of others. I'm providing this as a counterpoint to your screed for others who are following this thread or who may read it in the future--it's clear that you are completely impervious to other points of view.

[peterg7]

Yes LCP in pocket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TBM900]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Given that you've firmly established that you believe only your definition of "reasonable" could possibly be correct, this comment has no applicability except to someone else who shares your exact definition/assessment of "reasonable".

By all means, feel free to cite where I stated any such thing with regard to being "reasonable" in the above context...
In fact, how about just citing where I provided ANY definition of "reasonable"...

No, it's not a non sequitur.

It clearly is
And you doubled down on it in your very next two sentences as follows...

The idea that it is possible to control other people's behavior to the point that there is no chance of having a home compromised isn't realistic. There are many ways that someone can get into a house and a lot of them can't be prevented with gates/locks/doors/the actual physical security of the house.

At no point did I say a word or even imply anything about controlling someone else's behavior to such a point
Let alone state/imply something such as "no chance"

Your reply/replies are the very definition of a non sequitur... with some projection thrown in as well... and it continues...

The idea that the only reason a person would carry a firearm is because "they believe they have to", is quite restrictive.

Only if you want it to be
I clearly stated... "if I believed there was a need"
Note the >I< in there?

And clearly you missed the part where I stated...
Everyone is free to do as they like
My opinion is just that, an opinion
Agree or disagree

Ironic that you would mention this in the context of making a number of modifications to a house, many of which modifications would complicate rapid exit significantly.

Cite where I asserted any such modifications that would "complicate rapid exit significantly"

Naturally

Why wouldn't it?
If you can provide the citations I'm asking for, I would be more than happy to re-evaluate my position

It's not at all surprising that a person who feels like their way is the only right way, that anyone doing it differently is doing it wrong, who believes they can control the actions of others, and who states that anyone who disagrees with them is incompetent or mentally defective, wouldn't understand or consider the perspective of others.

The above is nothing but more non sequitur and projection
Again please cite where I stated ANY of the above things

I'm providing this as a counterpoint to your screed

I simply responded to your clear non sequitur
You clearly don't believe it is, but by all means feel free to provide the cites I asked for and prove me wrong
If you cannot provide them... then that should be a clue for you

it's clear that you are completely impervious to other points of view

See above... I'm all ears

PS
You seem to be taking this VERY personally
I'm not sure why
I clearly stated these were simply my own opinions, take them or leave them
None of what I said is meant to be taken personally
Heck you yourself are free to disagree all you like... I even invited anyone to do so
You can even call me a Bozo to your hearts content if you please, I don't take such things personally

But I will say that your non sequitur and projections are quite disheartening at best
Which is the only reason for my "screed" as you put it
I invite you to prove they are anything but, by citing as I requested

If not, feel free to and have a nice day

[tomrkba]

100% of home invasions occur at home.

Yes, carry at home if only to keep your back muscles in shape for daily carry.

[JohnKSa]

By all means, feel free to cite where I stated any such thing with regard to being "reasonable" in the above context...

Like when you made this tautology?

But reasonable people do take reasonable measures

Or when you stated that anyone who wasn't doing it your way was doing it wrong or was paranoid?

At no point did I say a word or even imply anything about controlling someone else's behavior to such a point
Let alone state/imply something such as "no chance"

You responded to a comment by a person who said that "...I cannot control the actions of others." by saying: "Then you're doing it wrong"

When you were called on making such an obviously ridiculous statement, you tried to make it seem like it should have been clear that you weren't saying what you clearly said but rather that people should take those 5 words and automatically form them into a fully fleshed out philosophy of home security.

Well, it makes perfect sense that you would do your best to try to walk back such a ridiculous statement, but unfortunately what you followed with didn't make much more sense.

I clearly stated... "if I believed there was a need"
Note the >I< in there?...

You clearly stated:

The subject is about carrying inside your home
You are responsible for the safety and security of your own home
If one cannot maintain a level of such so that they believe they have to carry a firearm on their person while inside it...
Then YES that person is doing something very wrong
Or simply paranoid

I don't for a moment believe that you are incapable of keeping track of what you said, even when I quote you exactly. What do you think it is called when someone quotes a person EXACTLY, and then responds to the EXACT quote and then the person being quoted EXACTLY tries to pretend that the quote was not correct?

And clearly you missed the part where I stated...
Everyone is free to do as they like
My opinion is just that, an opinion
Agree or disagree

I missed nothing. And this is a ridiculous statement in the context of your repeated accusations that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is paranoid or "doing it wrong".

In fact, it would be comedic if you weren't dead serious.

Cite where I asserted any such modifications that would "complicate rapid exit significantly"

"... physical barriers and obstacles, properly secured windows..." Virtually anything that makes it harder to get in, makes it harder to get out. Not a difficult concept.

The above is nothing but more non sequitur and projection
Again please cite where I stated ANY of the above things...

--"I would either move or seek some therapy"

--"Then you're doing it wrong"

--"If one cannot maintain a level of such so that they believe they have to carry a firearm on their person while inside it...
Then YES that person is doing something very wrong
Or simply paranoid"

---"I would either move or seek some therapy"

You seem to be taking this VERY personally

But I will say that your .... projections ...

You can even call me a Bozo to your hearts content if you please...

Ah. Right on cue--I figured we were getting close to this phase.

The "Someone disagrees with me, therefore it must be personal." philosophy is completely consistent with your position so far that "reasonable people" do as you do and those who don't...well...

In case it's not obvious, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. And to state it. Where things start to get sticky is when you can't leave it there and you have to take the next step of saying that you believe that those who don't share your opinion aren't reasonable, are paranoid, need therapy, are incompetent, etc.

If you feel that your opinion needs more than just reasoning/logic/facts to support it, and you must resort to insulting those who disagree, what does that say about your opinion? What does it say about you?

[BourbonCowboy]

screed...tautology...non sequitur...

I love me some $5 words. Y'all keep it up.

[Kevin Rohrer]

Typically, I carry a drink around the house.