Do you carry at home - Why do people feel safe at home?

[bobthewelder]

I have motion detectors now that let me know in my house if someone is approaching. While in bed, I just turn on the TV when the alarm goes off to see if there is someone approaching, I added cameras outside as well. I keep an 870 18" pump with a Knoxx Spec Ops stock and tactical light mounted under the tube with a touch switch, and 5 rounds of TAP 00 buck and one #7 birdshot after that. I also keep a Firestar .45 loaded with Rem. GS 230 gr. HP's and a Glock 23 with 3 mags full of 180gr. TAP. Always have a Surefire 6p by the bed and with me anytime I do carry. If my doorbell rings at night, I'm ready as family and friends always call first. Even before the burglary, anyone who knows me at all knows I very much frown on surprise visits.

[Stevie-Ray]

The folks I raise an eyebrow at are the ones who justify their packing with statistics like "40% of all assaults occur at home."

Is that a national statistic? Is it based upon NCIC reports or is it based upon sampling? What are the same statistics for MY neighborhood? What if in MY city, only 2% of all assaults occur at home and I live in a city of over 200,000? That comes back to your odds--based upon the "inarguable" statistics--of being assaulted in your home are only one in one-hundred thousand.

Well, lets take it a step further. Suppose your neighbor gets his door kicked in and is brutally murdered. It's the first murder in years in your city, but you certainly won't change your way of thinking and carry a gun in your home, because the odds are in your favor that you won't be the second of 2 in your neighborhood to have this happen, right? Personally I don't give a tinker's damn about odds; they are in my favor, also. But I also have a handicapped wife that is pretty much helpless, and I couldn't live with her being hurt when the simple act of carrying a gun that neither bothers me, nor interferes with my daily life might have prevented it. Some of us carry as much as possible for many reasons. Those that don't, need to get over it. You're starting to sound like you're the ones trying to justify the "need" to take it off.

[bobthewelder]

I know that wasn't my quote that you quoted, but my post did state that I don't mean to target or offend anyone. Carry at will, I'll never knock you for carrying, I just stated where I live people who knew me would think I needed a padded room or a prescription for Valium if I were to be known to carry 24/7. Wait a minute, maybe I can get some Valium out of this!

[JohnKSa]

if for no other reason than the fact that it just has to be damn uncomfortable.

It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience.

...when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.

Hey! I've got an idea! Don't carry at home--it solves all those problems neatly. The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home.

And what percentage of those 2 million times were in the home? Of those, what percentage were people who carry in the home? My guess is not many at all.

Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?

And here's the kicker... it has to be just the perfect situation in which having a loaded firearm, readily accessible isn't going to be helpful, but one on your hip is. I submit that this type of situation is so absolutely unlikely that probably even can't be measured.

It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.

I bet that some of the people who carry at home are smokers. They are going to sit here and argue that something with a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening is worth precaution, but they cant be bothered to stop something that has a 1 in 3 chance or whatever of killing them?

Ignoring your made up statistics, I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation. I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.

[alfred]

My Firearms are a part of me.They became such as a youth.The military taught me the same.I have no trouble living with one and do feel something is missing if it is not on me.Except for when I shower,I carry.When I shower my firearm is within arms reach.I eat,I sleep,I live carrying EXCEPT where or when it is unlawful,such as when I have ANY alcohol or legal narcotics for pain.I also carry a whistle,emergency keys and a WW2 P-38 around my neck on a cord that I shower with to keep clean.I also keep a phone within arms reach 24 hours a day when someone is not within speaking distance.And no it does not interfere with my sex life that I can tell!

Statistics are in MY favor when it comes to auto accidents,head injures,fires,eye injures,toes crushed and on and on.YET I and billions more wear safety equipment to prevent such every day.It does prevent millions of injures every year.Folks DO NOT get hurt by things that they believe will happen.They get hurt by things that they do not believe will happen.After all,who of us is dumb enough to something that you know will kill you unless you are suicidal? SAFETY!

I am 62,almost 63.Being I ain't smart or brilliant like some,I learn by experience.These views are what I have learned from experience.

I have a close friend who let his Sister in his home who was accompanied with a unknown woman.He found out the hard way that the sister had a gun in her back.A male companion waited in the car until entrance was gained.My friend and his pregnant wife were robbed at gun point and under threat of death.They were tied up and left laying on the floor.As the strange woman left,she shot my friends 8 months pregnant wife in the stomach "Just for fun" and locked the door on the way out.The sister was taken along as a hostage.Due to a uncle coming to visit,hearing the thumping of feet,and opening the door as he knew where the key was,his wife and unborn child lived.His sister survived the shootout with law enforcement.The man did not.The woman who shot his wife surrendered after running out of ammo.She then threw up her hands and claimed to be a victim of her dead companion.I have been told that this woman is out now.Perhaps your loved one is next.This happened in rural Bryan County Georgia.Look it up if you wish.

A local Craftsman who once built my boat was murdered when he answered his front door.All for his car keys to steal his car.This happened in Falkville which is divided by the county line between Effingham & Chatham county Georgia.Look it up if you wish.

I had a elderly school teacher and her husband who lived in rural Effingham County Georgia.They were robbed and beaten 3 different times by the same 3 intruders who bragged that they would be back each time.They did.They strung the time periods out and came as they wished.The couple gave up and moved off of the family farm.Look it up if you wish.

About two months ago,I was sleeping in my Easy Chair.About 1.00 am I woke to my dogs barking and someone fumbling at my front door.I hollered" If you don't come in that door,I won't blow you back out of it".They believed.They quit.They left.I heard a car leave quickly.I went to my door,opened it and shut the locked screen door that had been snatched open.I noticed my street light out.No,I did not bother my local law enforcement as I could not ID.them,I could prove no laws were broken.I did tell my electric company what happened and they replaced the damaged bulb in my street light.

There are a lot of folk on these forums.We all know that the odds alone mean that we have to have a very diverse bunch of people.Look at the names folk call each other!Some have to be right by the odds alone.How many post under the influence of different drugs?I believe that some make it pretty plain how they feel about certain illegal drugs.The united States Government makes it pretty plain about the laws on the form you sign to buy a firearm.Some on here sound like folks that I have known that did break these laws.

Dogs?I was raised with packs of dogs in the dog hunting rural south.I have never seen any two dogs that I did not think that I could kill suddenly as a teen stark buck naked.I can toll any dog or pack of dogs to any fence of my choice with a rope and a Bitch in heat.Even neutered and spayed.I can poison or kill your dog or dogs at my convenience,and make it look natural or a accident.I love dogs.I do not do these things.Our military and the military of other countries teach certain military personnel how to take out dogs.There are thousands of folk who can take care of your dog no matter how well trained or how many.

Weird?Has anyone ever known weird folk that did not think others were weird?I have not.

Take a person who feels like a prisoner in his own home if he wears a firearm in it and believes that ones that do wear one at home suffer from paranoia.WOW!Either of these thoughts will send me to my mental health center for help.I surely hope folk who feel and think like this think I need help for wearing mine indoors and not feeling like a prisoner in my home with or without it.I really do.Nothing personal,but I honestly feel this way.

Now folk who are educated,successful and quit their job to assume a very successful "James Bond" undercover role to benefit our country,yet felt a prisoner in their homes when wearing a gun.Well I do wonder if he mentioned it,they sent him to a shrink,and they retired him suddenly.Especially if he added that thing about folks who wear a gun at home being paranoid folks.I also wonder how a successful white collar worker could quit and go into the dangerous and all that was listed to be a undercover man unless he was already involved and pretty well established in the criminal business.Most have to have years of training.The undercover folk generally keep as low profile as possible during and for the rest of their lives.Most of the ones who brag of it seem to have been so deep undercover that only they ever knew of it.

To be such,have the courage and bravery that such takes and yet to feel a prisoner in your home IF you are armed?WOW! I have no understanding.

I see nothing wrong if a Japanese female wishes to vacuum with firearms and a naked Gaijin present.I see nothing wrong with a naked Gaijin wishing to have firearms at the places of his choice in his home.I see nothing wrong with this naked Gaijin roaming his home admiring his firearms while the lady vacuums with a firearm dangling from any part of his body if he so chooses.

I do not understand a person bringing up statistics about people you know being the ones most likely to commit a violate crime on anyone.I say SO?If you ain't going to shoot someone that you know for committing the same crime that you would shoot a stranger for doing,does not this make you a common murderer?I personally think that anyone who thinks knowing someone gives you the right to assault them with immunity not granted to strangers is on the way to a assault and prison or a graveyard.

I have known people and I have had and do have folk that are kin and I love.They have been told and they know that I will do my best to kill them on sight if I see them in my home.They have chosen to live a life that leaves them a danger to their selves and everyone else and have been told to stay out.I will not allow them to endanger or kill anyone in my home.Sorry later is no help and they refuse to accept any responsibility for any of their actions.

I was taught and do believe that there is a time to run and a time to stand when under fire.I have done both armed and unarmed as I thought best at the time.I have also stayed out of a gunfight when I did not know who was who doing the shooting.Cops are people.I was raised with them.I know better than to believe someone because he is a Cop or a Preacher.I personally know better.I also believe only a fool will believe he is John Wayne and should draw because he is armed.It can get you killed.I noticed no such consideration was taken on the big talk about the big talking fellow losing his guns.I was not there so I have no way of knowing if he did the correct and smart thing or he froze.

I have not condemned anyone on here.I stated my thoughts and beliefs.I really do hope some on here think the same way about me that I do about about some of you.

I think the human race is a Joke including you and I.I think that folk who take their selves seriously enough to DEMAND that others do too are the most comical of all.We tell the world much about ourselves when we post.Often far more than we think.

Most folk tell a lie long enough,they start believing it their selves.Now where else are you or I going to get this kind of entertainment for this price?I do love it when you all make me laugh.Think about it.read it again,and laugh with me.Thanks.

I do think many trust their lives and the lives of their families to a Paper Tiger that dwells only in their minds.

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING is one more reason I carry 24-7-365(366 on leap year)alfred

[Nnobby45]

...when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.

We all have our priorities. The last thing I want is to have my door kicked open and find myself cut off from my weapon that I just couldn't wait to take off when I got home.

Nobody need carry a weapon that pokes them in the ribs all day so they can't wait to take it off. Anybody can find a compfy arrangement if they wish.

In fact, my carry is comfortable enough so that I'm in no hurry to disarm myself when I come home.

Do I expect sudden unforseen trouble? Nope. I live in a nice neighborhood. Things like that just don't happen here.

Same as for people in my community who had their homes invaded in their nice neighborhoods where that just doesn't happen. Seems that such incidents aren't confined anymore to the bad neighborhoods.

As somebody mentioned, it's those of us who have nice homes, drive nice cars, and have Credit cards that can quickly access money from ATM's, while someone holds a gun to our loved ones' heads.

Of course, the odds are it won't be us---right?

Bottom line. If you don't want to be armed at home--don't be. No need to makes excuses to justify it.

[STAGE 2]

It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience.

Well it may be the surfer in me, but belts or shoulder rigs just don't reek of comfort when the only other things you're wearing are sandals and boardshorts.

Whether its concealed or not is irrelevant. You've got a hunk of steel hanging somewhere and/or protruding into something. Its just not comfortable compared to the alternative.

The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home.

And again, you've got it all wrong. I don't care whether someone else carrys at home. If it makes you happy, then do it. I just think it BS to use stats to justify carrying at home.

Do it cause you like it. Don't hide behind some sham argument.

Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?

Because I'm not the shell answer man. Suffice it to say that a majority of people that use a firearm to defend themselves in the home, aren't carrying. Thats the point I was making, and thats all thats needed to support my argument. The actual number is irrelevant.

It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable shooting at a dog thats right next to my kid or any kid. Actually given the choice between a pistol and a 2x4 I'd take the latter. Especially since such an action borders on criminal negligence if something went wrong.

Ignoring your made up statistics

There isn't anything made up about what I've said. Most people don't carry at home. Overwhelmingly when someone uses a gun to defend themselves in the home, they weren't carrying... unless you're going to tell me that make tacticool holsters for pumps and rifles.

I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation.

I get that. Completely. However when someone places such a priority on something almost guaranteed not to happen, and then ignores things that are almost certianly are, there are those of us who are going to think said people are just wierd.

So open another pack and light up and tell me how you're ready for anything that comes bursting through that door (except when you're sleeping, showering, or doing other things that prohibit you from carrying, which seems to constitute a majority of time you're at home) and how your life is worth defending, while you take steps to undermine the "preparation" you are undertaking.

I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.

No, not really. To make an analogy, carrying at home is about the same as my friend who wears a vest to every gun show "because there might be an AD". Could it happen, sure. If it did and he was hit would the vest save his life, probably.

Nevertheless, the rest of us still think he looks like a tool. Sure its his right, and sure he has a "reason", but as is clearly the case with my friend, reasons, can be silly or stupid. Pointing out that such reasoning is silly has nothing to do with preparation, and everything to do with the fact that sometimes people do silly things.

[Bogie]

Well, as a stereotypical Large Hairy Barbarian...

I don't really feel like I need to carry in my house.

I can pick something up from where it sits generally faster than I can figure out the rest of the dance... If someone can make it through the steel front door faster than I can get to a buck-loaded 12 gauge, I don't think the shotgun is gonna make a whole heckuva lot of difference...

[JohnKSa]

Well it may be the surfer in me, but belts or shoulder rigs just don't reek of comfort when the only other things you're wearing are sandals and boardshorts.

If I'm dressed, I have a belt on--always have as long as I can remember.

You've got a hunk of steel hanging somewhere and/or protruding into something. Its just not comfortable compared to the alternative.

All I can say is that it's not UNcomfortable. Most of the time I don't even think about it.

Whether its concealed or not is irrelevant.

This makes no sense--have you ever carried a concealed gun? The fact that a gun must be concealed definitely places more restrictions on where/how it must be carried in order to not be visible. That almost always translates to reduced comfort unless you can get away with throwing on a heavy covering garment (which would ALSO result in reduced comfort, from my perspective.)

I just think it BS to use stats to justify carrying at home.

Do it cause you like it. Don't hide behind some sham argument.

This is calling several people who've posted on this thread liars. What's even more irritating is that you're calling them liars based on your claimed ability to divine their thoughts and motives over the internet.

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable shooting at a dog thats right next to my kid or any kid. Actually given the choice between a pistol and a 2x4 I'd take the latter. Especially since such an action borders on criminal negligence if something went wrong.

You asked for an example, I gave you an "example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home". The point wasn't that the situation listed was one where a gun was the only solution or the best solution but that it was a situation where a firearm might be useful. I'm not going to look until I find an example of a situation that you proclaim is a perfect situation in which to use a firearm, because it's clear that is not going to happen.

There isn't anything made up about what I've said.

Please cite a source for the statistics that an in home self-defense situation calling for the rapid deployment of a firearm has "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". If you can't then you may feel free to admit that you did, in fact, make up a statistic, and then incorrectly contradicted me when I pointed it out.

However when someone places such a priority on something almost guaranteed not to happen, and then ignores things that are almost certianly are, there are those of us who are going to think said people are just wierd.

You're certainly entitled to think what you want, but the fact is that kind of behavior is more normal than it is weird.

Because I'm not the shell answer man. Suffice it to say that a majority of people that use a firearm to defend themselves in the home, aren't carrying. Thats the point I was making, and thats all thats needed to support my argument. The actual number is irrelevant.

Your whole argument, stated repeatedly, is that statistics don't justify carrying at home. It's fine for you to admit that you're not the "answer man" and don't know the applicable statistics but it's not fine for you to simultaneously claim that you have the final answer on whether or not it's statistically justified.

So open another pack and light up

Don't smoke. (Apparently your remote thought divination skills are breaking down.)

which seems to constitute a majority of time you're at home)

And yet you still think you know what goes on in my home.

while you take steps to undermine the "preparation" you are undertaking.

You realize that basing your argument on things you claim I'm doing that you can not possibly have any knowledge of and on statistics that you admit you have no knowledge of is... Well, I guess this is why I keep coming back to the idea that your argument seems to be more emotional than logical.

No, not really.

Ummm... You realize that you contradicted me and then gave an example of a situation where you did just what I say is typical? For the record, I didn't claim that in every situation the person being ridiculed is being ridiculed unjustly. The point was, rather, that it's human nature to try to ridicule those who prepare beyond the level we feel is necessary so that we don't have to admit that they might have a point.

[buzz_knox]

It's threads like this that emphasize why letting someone dictate what is "necessary or needed" for another person is a dangerous idea.

[geterdun444]

My beliefs are simple ... Everyone has the god given inherent right to protect themselves. It is my take that for me to defend myself in these times a weapon for protection is a very prudent piece of protection. I also believe that anyone using or carrying a weapon should be required to take a weapons use course of some type. I have seen the all to true of shooting yourself in the foot saying come true on more than a few occasions for the simple fact of the people just not knowing what the hell they were doing.

[rugersp101]

I carry all the time, even into the bathroom. During my years in the 75th Ranger Regiment and the Ranger Training Brigade I had it constantly drilled into my head that you never let your weapon out of your hands reach. Used to sleep cuddling my M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (5.56 belt fed machine gun)
as if it were my bride, LOL! So having retired from the military I carry on that lesson learned and have an array of nasty weapons should any punks think about entering my castle. Speaking of which I am trying to petition my state to enact the Castle Doctrine law since other states are realizing we cannot and should not depend on law enforcement to protect us.

[Edward429451]

Yeah sure i carry at home. It has nothing to do with paranoia or stats, or comfort. It's just easier to put the belt on and leave it on rather than putting it on & off all he time or worrying if people think I'm para or not.

The gun keeps my pants up! My belt has stretched from constant gun/holster use so if'n I take it off my pants are loose...

[45Marlin carbine]

yes usually. I keep my Berreta .32acp in my pocket of vest, jacket or pants if I'm outside for any lenght of time. I keep my Makarov handy inside the door I went out.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The statistical arguments, once again, seem to argue that the most common outcome is the one that always happens.

Since the most common DGU outcome is no shots fired - all those who carry ammo are paranoid fools. So what.

As I've said before, you make a reasoned estimate about the most extreme risk you want to be prepared for and act accordingly.

[STAGE 2]

If I'm dressed, I have a belt on--always have as long as I can remember.

And you're always dressed at home?

This makes no sense--have you ever carried a concealed gun? The fact that a gun must be concealed definitely places more restrictions on where/how it must be carried in order to not be visible. That almost always translates to reduced comfort unless you can get away with throwing on a heavy covering garment (which would ALSO result in reduced comfort, from my perspective.)

It makes alot of sense considering that many people that carry at home do so because they have a CCW and carry concealed when in public. They aren't going to come home, take off their CCW holster, put on one that allows for open carry.

This is calling several people who've posted on this thread liars. What's even more irritating is that you're calling them liars based on your claimed ability to divine their thoughts and motives over the internet.

No, I don't think they are liars. I think that they feel that others will think they are paranoid if they just carry at home because they like to, so they give a "factually" based reason to make it seem more palatable.

You asked for an example, I gave you an "example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home"

Then it was a weak example. I can also use my pistol to drive nails home, but its not really practical to do so.

Please cite a source for the statistics that an in home self-defense situation calling for the rapid deployment of a firearm has "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". If you can't then you may feel free to admit that you did, in fact, make up a statistic, and then incorrectly contradicted me when I pointed it out.

Cmon now. You know exactly what I was trying to say. Of course that number was made up. It is, however representative of the situation. And for the record I didn't say that there is that much of a chance of someone needing a firearm to defend themselves in their home, I said that those were the chances of a situation happening where having a readily accessible firearm wouldn't solve the problem, but carrying one would.

You're certainly entitled to think what you want, but the fact is that kind of behavior is more normal than it is weird.

It may be normal in that many people do it, but it is still inconsistent.

Your whole argument, stated repeatedly, is that statistics don't justify carrying at home. It's fine for you to admit that you're not the "answer man" and don't know the applicable statistics but it's not fine for you to simultaneously claim that you have the final answer on whether or not it's statistically justified.

Its really quite simple. Most gun owners don't carry at home. Most people who defend themselves at home with a firearm aren't carrying at home. That tells me that having a firearm accessible is perfectly adequate for addressing the tiny tiny chance that something may ever happen. The only benefit that carrying gives you is in a percentage of the teeny tiny percentage where having the firearm accessible wouldn't cut it.

People who use the stats to justify this are pointing to a ridiculously small number and saying, "yeah its small but the consequences could mean my life". I get that as well. However there are other stats that say that for every 10 miles over the speed limit you drive, your chances of a fatal accident are doubled. The same with people who have had alcohol, even if its under the legal limit. The same with people who eat like crap, drink too much (which you shouldn't do at all if you have gun on) , smoke and do other things that are hazardous.

My entire point this whole time is that people are justifying carrying because it may save their life, are doing it out of a fear they they may be injured or killed. Yet, were guns aren't concerned, they do things that place their life in just as much detriment, and intentionally face a greater statistical threat of death and thats perfectly fine.

This is both inconsistent and hypocritical. Sure you can do this, but the argument "I'm doing it because there is a chance I might be hurt or killed" isn't valid when you do things that put you at greater risk of the same harm.

Don't smoke. (Apparently your remote thought divination skills are breaking down.)

Wasn't talking about you specifically. I guarantee you there are smokers that carry at home. Thats just nonsensical.

And yet you still think you know what goes on in my home.

Not specifically, but I know you shower, I know you sleep. The odds are that you drink, on occasion if not regularly. These, along with a couple of other things prohibit you from carrying.

You realize that basing your argument on things you claim I'm doing that you can not possibly have any knowledge of and on statistics that you admit you have no knowledge of is... Well, I guess this is why I keep coming back to the idea that your argument seems to be more emotional than logical.

So you dont shower? Don't sleep? Don't drink ever at your house? There isn't a statistically tiny chance for people living in normal neighborhoods to face a home invasion? Most people don't carry in the home? People don't use long arms to defend their home?

I suppose we could take a poll, but that would be silly, don't you think.

For the record, I didn't claim that in every situation the person being ridiculed is being ridiculed unjustly.

Nor do I think that every person who carrys in the home has an invalid reason.

The point was, rather, that it's human nature to try to ridicule those who prepare beyond the level we feel is necessary so that we don't have to admit that they might have a point.

Just as it is human nature to not be forthcoming about things we do that might make us the subject of ridicule.

[Stevie-Ray]

The odds are that you drink, on occasion if not regularly. These, along with a couple of other things prohibit you from carrying.

Wrong. It prohibits us from leaving the house carrying. Show me the law that states that you must lock up your weapons if you are going to have a drink in your own home. And please don't bother with that " the fact that drinking and firearms don't mix is simple common sense." That presupposes that everybody is going to drink to an excess. I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

[Avenger11]

I wish JohnKSa and Stage 2 would give it a rest. The "I said", then "He said" exchange is getting tiresome. Neither has cited any stats with legs!

[alfred]

I am trying to relate here.I know what Sandals(Jesus shoes)are and I can see where they would be hard to attach a firearm.I have no idea what "boardshorts"are.Could someone clue me in.

Also.I failed to mention in my earlier post.A intruder could most likely get to most guns stashed or locked up in my home before I can,being that I am a old cripple.Being my firearm is a part of me,I have eliminated arming intruders in my home with my guns.I do not find this socially acceptable or safe.I do not remember when I felt"safe or unsafe"anywhere as I never remember thinking like that when home or being fired at.Thanks.

I AIN'T DEAD AND I AIN'T QUITTING.alfred

[STAGE 2]

Wrong. It prohibits us from leaving the house carrying. Show me the law that states that you must lock up your weapons if you are going to have a drink in your own home. And please don't bother with that " the fact that drinking and firearms don't mix is simple common sense." That presupposes that everybody is going to drink to an excess. I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

I never said there was a law. However drinking while carrying is irresponsible. It is irrelevant whether people drink to excess. You don't mix alcohol and firearms.

You certianly have a right to be irresponsible, but you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it.

[obxned]

Several large dogs told me they would provide my first line of home security in exchange for ear scratching, kind words, and Old Roy.

[Wildalaska]

I don't give up my right of self-defense at home whenever I decide to have a beer at dinner.

Sure, until you pop the neighbors kid, and he cops smell beer on your breath.....

WildaslongaswearedealingwithwhatifsAlaska TM

[longtooth50]

It is on now. If it is off, it is on the desk or in the chair. My policy is never put a door between me & my gun.

[vox rationis]

I don't personally carry at home for a variety of boring reasons, but for crying out loud, why are the people that choose not to carry at home so obnoxious, and vitriolic against those that choose to do so.

It does almost seem that people are reacting emotionally against the notion implicitly suggested by the practice of carrying at home, that one might not be as safe in one's own home as one might wish .

[JohnKSa]

They aren't going to come home, take off their CCW holster, put on one that allows for open carry.

They most certainly will if their CCW holster isn't as comfortable as their open carry holster. Just like they take off their suit or high heels, and change into something more comfortable when they get home.

I think that they feel that others will think they are paranoid if they just carry at home because they like to, so they give a "factually" based reason to make it seem more palatable.

Just as it is human nature to not be forthcoming...

Where you live, what do they call it when someone is not forthcoming and makes up reasons to hide the truth? Everywhere I've been they call it lying.

You are calling some of the people posting on this thread liars based on what you believe they are thinking. I can see why you want to take this approach, it's EASY. It doesn't require you to actually do any research, it doesn't require you to find some statistics. It doesn't even require that you construct a logical argument. All you have to do is say: "You folks who disagree with me are lying to prevent me and others from calling you paranoid."

That is not a discussion, that is an insult.

So you dont shower? Don't sleep? Don't drink ever at your house? There isn't a statistically tiny chance for people living in normal neighborhoods to face a home invasion? Most people don't carry in the home? People don't use long arms to defend their home?

Basically what you're saying is that unless this technique can improve your safety 100% of the time while you're at home it's not worth employing. That doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Ignoring your made up statistics...

Originally Posted by Stage2

There isn't anything made up about what I've said.

Originally Posted by Stage2

Of course that number was made up.

Oook.

Its really quite simple. Most gun owners don't carry at home. Most people who defend themselves at home with a firearm aren't carrying at home. That tells me that having a firearm accessible is perfectly adequate for addressing the tiny tiny chance that something may ever happen. The only benefit that carrying gives you is in a percentage of the teeny tiny percentage where having the firearm accessible wouldn't cut it.

In order to begin to make a cogent argument from this, you would have to examine the cases where people FAILED to defend themselves with firearms and determine how often they HAD firearms in the house but could not access them in time to respond. In short, this is not a reasonable argument because you have no data to support your claim. I do agree that it is "really quite simple", however.

This is both inconsistent and hypocritical. Sure you can do this, but the argument "I'm doing it because there is a chance I might be hurt or killed" isn't valid when you do things that put you at greater risk of the same harm.

By your logic, the only way to avoid hypocrisy and inconsistancy is to start at the top and work your way down the list of things that are a threat to life in order of decreasing statistical probability. I suppose you won't see (or at least won't admit) how ridiculous that would be to actually implement. So, using the STAGE2 rule of reducing risk, some people would have to move to a different city or even a different country before they could justify (without hypocrisy/inconsistency) owning a firearm or wearing seatbelts.

On top of that, your argument TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that there are more people involved than the person carrying the firearm. Sorry honey, I could have had my gun on me, prevented the home invasion and defended you and the kids but STAGE2 would have called me a hypocrite since I'm overweight and don't want to diet.

You've attempted to construct an argument based on:

• Statistics that you admit you don't have knowledge of
• Statistics you've made up.
• Statistics you've tried to manufacture out of statistics you admit you have no knowledge of and others that you've made up.
• Illogical reasoning.
• What you believe people are thinking.
• Calling people who disagree with you liars.

I say attempted because all it is is an attempt. Basically what you're doing is coming up with a lot of creative ways to say, "This is my opinion therefore it is more correct than other people's opinions who disagree with me."

Neither has cited any stats with legs!

Actually I have quoted a very pertinent statistic. Here's another. Studies have shown that resisting crime with a firearm offers the best chance, statistically speaking, of remaining uninjured. If you'd like to resist crime in the most effective manner it follows that having a firearm handy is most useful.

Furthermore, I'm not making any sweeping claims that need statistical support, I'm countering the argument that most people who carry at home are either paranoid, lying to avoid being called paranoid, or ignorant of reality.

It does almost seem that people are reacting emotionally against the notion implicitly suggested by the practice of carrying at home, that one might not be as safe in one's own home as one might wish

It does, kinda...