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

[Playboypenguin]

I would be curious to know what a person's chance of facing a home invasion truely is...I am willing to bet it is not substantially less than their chance of using a firearm in SD during their daily activities. I am betting both very unlikely and the difference would be mathematically and practically insignificant.

[STAGE 2]

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.

Very very doubtful. However, the overall point was that the most comfortable holster is far more unconfortable than not carrying.

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.

No, I think some part of them believes that there is a statistical chance that they might face a home invasion, because thats simply a fact. However I also think that they know its not going to happen and carry cause they like it.

Same reason lots of people buy trucks or 4x4s. Most people will never take it off road or use it for its intended purpose. When you ask them why they bought it they will list you all the cool stuff it can do, all the hills it can climb, and all the stuff it can haul. However deep down, most just bought it cause they wanted a truck.

Its not lying, its just not offering the whole truth.

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.

No, I'm saying that if your reason for carrying is the statistics, then carrying at home really doesn't provide you with much of a benefit because the nature of activities done in the home prohibit carry much of the time and the chances of a readily accessible firearm not being sufficient are slim to none.

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.

The argument is perfectly fine. Most gun owners don't carry in the home. Most people who have defended themselves with a firearm in their home weren't carrying. I'm going to assume you agree with these two assertions (which you should).

According to the UCR, in 2006, there were 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the US. There were approximately 300 million people living in the US. That means you have a .4% chance of facing violent crime in general. However we aren't talking about violent crime in general, we are talking about crime in the home.

There were approximately 290k violent crimes committed in the home. That means you have a .09% chance of facing a home invasion. Of course this doesn't take into account high crime areas versus low crime areas, so if you live in the suburbs, your chances are lower. Furthermore, these stats don't take into account crime comitted by family members (which accounts for an overwhelming majority of assaults in the home as well as some rapes) so this lowers the percentage even further still.

So after some generous fuzzy math, lets say that someone who lives in a normal nice suburb and isn't going to shoot their wife/brother/uncle has a .045% chance of facing a home invasion. This .045% constitutes 100% of the situations that a home owner is going to face. Within this 100% there is going to be a percentage of situations that a home owner faces that simply having a gun won't be sufficient. Now since we know that most gun owners don't carry at home, and by consequence, most crimes prevented by gun owners are done by those who don't carry, only a small portion of this 100% is going to be a situation in which having a readily accessible firearm isn't sufficient.

So lets be generous and say that 30% of all home invasions are the type where having the gun in the nightstand isn't going to cut it. That means the chances of you facing this situation are somewhere around .01%.

Contrast this with the 9% chance americans have of developing some form of serious heart disease, or the .1% chance of dying from a smoke related illness, or the 40k plus people killed every year on the road and you see where the inconsistency lies.

Simply put, you can't say "I carry at home because I value my life" and then take other actions that work in immediate contradiction to the valuation that you've professed.

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.

Whether there are more people involved has nothing to do with the odds of facing a home invasion.

And again, whether someone does it isn't the issue. I don't really care. But yes someone is a hypocrite if they carry to defend their life, but then undermine this in other areas of their life.

Both you and I know that there isn't any other area in which someone would take a precaution based on a .01% chance of something happening, and yet with guns, people somehow find the gumption to be vigilant. I'm fairly certian that this has more to do with the "mystique" or novelty of packing a gun than any genuine concern of facing a home invasion.

[JohnKSa]

Both you and I know that there isn't any other area in which someone would take a precaution based on a .01% chance of something happening and yet with guns, people somehow find the gumption to be vigilant.

You don't read the news, do you. The prospect of home invasion and what can result is so unthinkable that people are motivated to take precautions against it in spite of the very low chances of it actually happening to them.

Yes, I'd venture to guess that there are very few things that people would prepare against when the odds were so slim--then again, there isn't much in this world that compares to having someone beat you with a bat and leave you for dead, tie your wife and daughters to their beds, rape them, douse them in gasoline and then burn them.

Why don't you talk to Dr. William Petit Jr. about statistics? I'm sure he'd be comforted by knowing that what happened to his family was extremely rare as, no doubt, any of us in his situation would be.

I'm fairly certian that this has more to do with the "mystique" of packing a gun than any genuine concern of facing a home invasion.

I can see that--you're so certain that you're completely unwilling to be dissuaded by facts. Which gets us back to the comment by Son of Vlad Tepes.

So lets be generous and say that 30% of all home invasions are the type where having the gun in the nightstand isn't going to cut it. That means the chances of you facing this situation are somewhere around .01%.

I don't agree, I think the number is probably smaller, some of your assumptions are pretty generous, but I do agree this is a huge advance from making up statistics like: "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening".

Simply put, you can't say "I carry at home because I value my life" and then take other actions that work in immediate contradiction to the valuation that you've professed.

Ah, there is where you are completely, totally and unredeemably wrong. One CAN do that and one can even justify it beyond question.

1. You've artificially restricted your premise to help your conclusion. No one's saying that it's EXCLUSIVELY about preserving their own life. It's about preventing a home invasion, a crime which often encompasses things that most people would consider FAR worse than simply dying.

2. Most people don't live alone. Therefore their actions benefit others besides themselves. So even if we accept the idea that it's hypocritical for someone to worry about self-defense but not heart disease or lung cancer, it is clear that they could still be tremendously motivated defend others without creating a contradiction. Example: Frank doesn't really care much about his cholesterol level but, believe it or not, would REALLY be upset if he had to watch someone break into his house and rape his wife.

3. It's possible for a person to be apparently unconcerned about their physical well-being (overweight, smoker, risk taker) and yet still be legitimately concerned about having someone else kill them. It's the difference between giving all your money away to bums on the street vs having them mob you and empty your pockets of your life's savings. Either is equally financially devastating, but the two outcomes are far from equivalent.

4. Many do not consider dying of disease to be as forbidding as a violent death. Example: Mary refuses to give up smoking but is, oddly enough, still adamantly opposed to having a home invader tie her up, pour gasoline on her and burn her alive.

[STAGE 2]

You don't read the news, do you. The prospect of home invasion and what can result is so unthinkable that people are motivated to take precautions against it in spite of the very low chances of it actually happening to them.

Unless you make a practice of sleeping with your gun or staying up till 3am every night, carrying wouldn't have done anything to prevent this crime.

Yes, I'd venture to guess that very few things that people would prepare against when the odds were so slim--then again, there isn't much in this world that compares to having someone beat you with a bat and leave you for dead, tie your wife and daughters to their beds, rape them, douse them in gasoline and then burn them.

Why don't you talk to Dr. William Petit Jr. about statistics? I'm sure he'd be comforted by knowing that what happened to his family was extremely rare as, no doubt, any of us in his situation would be.

Well, the first thing I'd ask him is whether or not he owned a gun. Then I'd ask him if he locks his doors, has an alarm system, and/or a dog. As I said above, carrying would have done nothing to prevent this crime, so this example is little more than an emotional appeal.

I can see that--you're so certain that you're completely unwilling to be dissuaded by facts. Which gets us back to the comment by Son of Vlad Tepes.

Facts such as what.

I don't agree, I think the number is probably smaller, some of your assumptions are pretty generous, but I do agree this is a huge advance from making up statistics like: "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening".

Not as much as you might think. You have to remember that the final number I arrived at doesn't take into account the time that people are actually carrying in the home. Assuming an average person with a normal job getting 7-8 hours of sleep, on an average weekday more than half the time they are home they are going to be unarmed. This combined with the overly generous numbers I was using make outlandishly small percentages a definate reality. So while it may not be the number I posted, both you and I know that practically speaking, the difference between .000001% and .00000000000000000000000001% is nothing.

1. You've artificially restricted your premise to help your conclusion. No one's saying that it's EXCLUSIVELY about preserving their own life. It's about preventing a home invasion, a crime which often encompasses things that most people would consider FAR worse than simply dying.

Actually several people have said its about protecting their life. Sure there are really nasty things other than death that people can face, but I don't recall any of the home carry advocates talk abour rape or gasoline or anything else. All I heard was "to protect my life".

2. Most people don't live alone. Therefore their actions benefit others besides themselves. So even if we accept the idea that it's hypocritical for someone to worry about self-defense but not heart disease or lung cancer, it is clear that they could still be tremendously motivated defend others without creating a contradiction. Example: Frank doesn't really care much about his cholesterol level but, believe it or not, would REALLY be upset if he had to watch someone break into his house and rape his wife.

But then we get into the issue of if they really cared about defending others, then they wouldn't artifically shorten their own life because this obviously precludes them from defending the ones they love.

If frank croaks because he was sucking down steak and eggs everyday that doesn't do his wife much goos when the bad guy comes knocking.

3. It's possible for a person to be apparently unconcerned about their physical well-being (overweight, smoker, risk taker) and yet still be legitimately concerned about having someone else kill them. It's the difference between giving all your money away to bums on the street vs having them mob you and empty your pockets of your life's savings. Either is equally financially devastating, but the two outcomes are far from equivalent.

Possible yes. Possible without being hypocritical and inconsistent, no. Your example of the money isn't analogous. In one case the person wants to give all their money away and in the other case they dont. Here, people are making the statement that their life is valuable and they are going to take precautions to guard against an implausible harm.

A better example would be someone who refuses to place their money in a bank because they fear losing it because of another depression/fraud/shady dealing, but then leave it sitting all around their house. Sure they've eliminated the problem of a bank losing their money (even though the odds of this happening are slim to none) but they've put it at risk of being stolen, lost or destroyed. The overall fear is losing your money. The irrational fear is losing your money thats in a bank. The more rational fear which isn't being guarded against is letting it just sit there. If you're trying not to lose your money, you don't defend against one measure and not against the other if you want to be consistent.

4. Many do not consider dying of disease to be as forbidding as a violent death. Example: Mary refuses to give up smoking but is, oddly enough, still adamantly opposed to having a home invader tie her up, pour gasoline on her and burn her alive.

Hey. I can only work with what people give me. If people make the caveat that they don't want to die a violent death at the hands of another, but a slow death over time is acceptable, then I guess I dont have an argument. But thats not what they say.

However I think you know that this isn't the case. People don't want to die period. Granted someone in your home at 3am puts a much sharper point on the issue than does a pack a week over decades, the end result is the same.

[alfred]

I do believe that the post on this thread could be well used to argue that the Paranoid,Mentally ill and Bull Manure proficient own firearms.Wow!Just look at what many think of each others mentality alone.

Folks,I find you very entertaining.This is a awakening.I had no idea that so many think the way some do on here.Thanks.

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

[Wildalaska]

Folks,I find you very entertaining.

Thats what we are here for, to amuse you

WildyukyukyukAlaska ™

[bobthewelder]

Alfred, you pretty much summed it up. I think more padded rooms are in order here. I got to go to the store and get some more aluminum foil, the dog ate my hat!

[TripIII]

Wow! Great debaters. How does one follow that up??? For what it's worth...

I've been able to live almost 50 years with only one home invasion (while I was not at home), and one instance of someone milling around and banging on my apartment window at 2:00 a.m. who promptly left when he got no response (I was armed). My current residence has not been broken into, but many others in the (middle class) neighborhoods in which I have lived...have (during the day). I have owned a gun since I graduated and moved away from home. Home invasions happen frequently in this mid to large sized town. So does murder. Regardless I still feel pretty safe at home, but, I know it is not secure. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood.

Now I shoot for fun, recreation, fellowship, and to ensure I am competent with my favorite firearms.

I am a stand up citizen, with a clean record and the wherewithal to purchase and train with firearms. The local government and law enforcement trusts me to carry a concealed weapon...

And I carry it at home...and it's not always comfortable, but it is always comforting...

Oh! And I don't smoke, eat junk food, drive fast, sky dive, gave up my Triumph Sprint ST, don't cheat on my wife, or engage in homosexual sex. I have attended church, work out religiously, take my vitamins...and am doing everything I can to live as long as possible... except for an occasional alchoholic beverage or two...sometimes three...but that is when I leave my gun in the safe...

...So am I O.K.???? At least consistent? ...Don't answer that. I was just being facetious.

[JohnKSa]

Unless you make a practice of sleeping with your gun or staying up till 3am every night, carrying wouldn't have done anything to prevent this crime.

Irrelevant. The crime was not cited to give an example of when home carry would have prevented a crime but rather to illustrate WHY people are very concerned about home invasions, and legitimately so. That was patently clear from the context of my post and also from the context of the quote to which I was responding. Being intentionally obtuse is not an effective debate tactic although it can be used to artificially prolong a discussion.

Actually several people have said its about protecting their life.

Disengenous. You intentionally and incorrectly restated what I said to support your argument. No one has said it is EXCLUSIVELY about protecting their life and that is what I posted.

Sure there are really nasty things other than death that people can face, but I don't recall any of the home carry advocates talk abour rape or gasoline or anything else. All I heard was "to protect my life".

That is simply not true. A quick search of this thread will reveal that it has not only has "rape" been mentioned repeatedly, it has been mentioned repeatedly by YOU.

Hey. I can only work with what people give me.

Besides being ridiculous, this is intellectually dishonest. Even had it NOT been mentioned previously on the thread (which it was) as soon as I put it on the table it became part of the debate. It is absolutely not possible to justify self-imposed tunnel vision by attempting to propose that because no one had previously broached the idea that people might be concerned with more than simply losing their own life, it's not a valid concern.

Clearly, for some reason, you have a lot wrapped up in trying to win this argument, but if you won't or can't debate in a straightforward manner there's no point in having a discussion with you.

The thread will continue as long as those posting on it can remain polite.

[STAGE 2]

Irrelevant. The crime was not cited to give an example of when home carry would have prevented a crime but rather to illustrate WHY people are very concerned about home invasions, and legitimately so. That was patently clear from the context of my post and also from the context of the quote to which I was responding. Being intentionally obtuse is not an effective debate tactic although it can be used to artificially prolong a discussion.

Not really. The context of your post was to put an emphasis on being doused in gasoline, burned alive, and all the other gory details to drive the point home about how "serious" home invasions can be. I'm not sure if they keep stats on how many folks are barbecued but I'm going to venture a guess that the chances of facing such a scenario are actually somewhere around that nice long number we were talking about earlier.

Either way, we are back to percentages again. Only with firearms are people concerned with odds that are literally about the same as being struck by lightning.

Disengenous. You intentionally and incorrectly restated what I said to support your argument. No one has said it is EXCLUSIVELY about protecting their life and that is what I posted.

And what other reason could there be for carrying a firearm but defending yourself from the threat of serious bodily injury or death?

That is simply not true. A quick search of this thread will reveal that it has not only has "rape" been mentioned repeatedly, it has been mentioned repeatedly by YOU.

Not in the context of carrying. Which of course makes sense as an overwhelming majority of members here are guys.

Besides being ridiculous, this is intellectually dishonest. Even had it NOT been mentioned previously on the thread (which it was) as soon as I put it on the table it became part of the debate. It is absolutely not possible to justify self-imposed tunnel vision by attempting to propose that because no one had previously broached the idea that people might be concerned with more than simply losing their own life, it's not a valid concern.

Clearly, for some reason, you have a lot wrapped up in trying to win this argument, but if you won't or can't debate in a straightforward manner there's no point in having a discussion with you.

I'm not looking to win anything. I'm not going to convince you more than you are going to convince me. That said, the stats do support the idea that worrying about a home invasion, especially if one is prudent and has a firearm in the home, is a wholly irrational fear. Similarly, convincing yourself that carrying at home will be of a benefit isn't something that the statistics bear out. Given the practical problems of carrying at home this shouldn't be surprising in the least.

So like I said, if carrying all the time floats your boat, then by al means have at it. However people shouldn't get testy when others point out that folks who carry seem to be spinning their wheels for nothing.

[Wildalaska]

And I don't smoke, eat junk food, drive fast, sky dive, gave up my Triumph Sprint ST, don't cheat on my wife, or engage in homosexual sex. I have attended church, work out religiously, take my vitamins...and am doing everything I can to live as long as possible... except for an occasional alchoholic beverage or two...sometimes three...but that is when I leave my gun in the safe...

Well I smoke, drink, drive fast, will be chasing skirts as the Doc presses the paddles on my chest and wish I was gay so I could have some style. I avoid churches and synagogues, am a fat lazy slug, and realize that no matter how healthy I might be, I'm gonna keel sometime. I can't find my gun to carry it at home

WildimpackinabutterknifeinmyjammiesAlaska TM

[3 gun]

Put it on with my pants. Take it off with my pants. Sleep with it at arms length.

[gc70]

However people shouldn't get testy when others point out that folks who carry seem to be spinning their wheels for nothing.

Carrying a gun, at home or otherwise, seems like a purely personal decision. It is not surprising that someone who has made that decision gets testy when others attack the sensibility, rationality, and even honesty of that decision.

Different people can, and do, make honest, rational assessments of the same circumstances and reach different, and equally valid, conclusions.

[geterdun444]

I want to start this by saying that I am not an advocate of violence. At this point in my childrens lives (which they are 15 and 14 years old) and what the current school systems is enforcing at the school ground as school policy I feel it is my obligation as a parent to teach my children how to defend themselves. One of the schools policy's that i do not agree with is the fact that if there is a fight between 2 students they both get the same punishment ( school suspension) even if one is clearly the agreesor and one only trying to defend himself. As was the case with my son and another student. My son was using a computer in the school classroom when another student walked up to him and slamed his head into a computer monitor. He then proceded to try and smah my sons face. It was at this point my son started to defend himself with fist and feet. This has been a bone of contention with myself and the boad since it happened. While my son was home for the week the school called me to ask me to come in for a sit down meeting. At the time of the phone calll my son and I were at the gun range shooting some rounds and practicing are skills. The principal ask me where my son was all the while people were shooting in the backround. He got more than a little pissed when i told him I was teaching my son something other than to lay down and die when being attacked. End result was police intervention between the school and myself. Newspaper article about parent teaching son to shoot and protect himself while son was on suspension for fighting. ( I am a certified weapons and special tactics instuctor) this isn't over yet with the school board and myself. But I feel much safer in my house knowing that everyone in it is confident in thier own knowledge on how and when to use a firearm. After all 3 guns are better than one

[mpage]

While I don't 'pack' inside my own home, I do often move my 870 so that it's more within reach. There has been a dramatic rise in burglaries in my general area in the last two years, with a disturbing number of those being 'hot prowl' incidents, i.e., when the person is home. These have happened at night as well, when the crook knows damn well that someone's bound to be home. Someone's gotten into my garage too.

There have been a couple of arrests, but the incidents have not stopped. This must be a harbinger of things to come.

[GPossenti]

I don't own a gun, yet (waiting for the next gun show) but my first line of defense is and always will be my dog. She can hear the mailman coming from a few houses over. I've started rewarding her for barking at strangers so she'll always alert me. She can hear things that I can't, and she lets me know.

At that point there are no surprises.

[Desertscout1]

Put it on with my pants. Take it off with my pants. Sleep with it at arms length.

+1
If I'm awake, I'm carrying gun...365 days a year, no exceptions.

[bobthewelder]

TrippIII, it isn't a home invasion unless someone is home. That would be a burglary.

[TripIII]

it isn't a home invasion unless someone is home. That would be a burglary.

O.K. That makes sense.

[Stevie-Ray]

I never said there was a law. However drinking while carrying is irresponsible. It is irrelevant whether people drink to excess.

Irrelevant my butt! Spoken like somebody that doesn't drink a drop. Or even take cough medicine, for that matter. Either that or, I'm quite sure that after a party at your house where you might have had only 1 or 2, your firearms remain locked up as you retire. After all, if somebody kicks in your door at 2am, you can't do anything to protect your family anyways; you've had a drink or 2. And as you've preached: You don't mix alcohol and firearms. Maybe he'll respond favorably if you just yell, "Go away and come back tomorrow, I've had a drink tonight!"

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

You're right, and in the above situation, I would call YOU the irresponsible one.

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

Well, if it's the neighbor's kid, he busted through 3 locks to get in. This thread is really bringing out the folks that can't stop at one. But I'm glad you guys know your limitations. Just don't think everybody is like you.

[Wildalaska]

Just don't think everybody is like you.

Hell I learned that when I graduated law school lol


WildgosearchoutthesagaofspiffinthewronghouseAlaska TM

[STAGE 2]

Irrelevant my butt! Spoken like somebody that doesn't drink a drop.

How exactly do you gather that I don't drink from the fact that i've said that carrying and alcohol don't mix. If anything it seems that someone who does drink is in the position to make that assessment.

I'm quite sure that after a party at your house where you might have had only 1 or 2, your firearms remain locked up as you retire.

If there's a party at my house, then yes my firearms are secure. When I go to bed my ready gun is where it needs to be. In no circumstances am I wearing a gun if I'm drinking.

After all, if somebody kicks in your door at 2am, you can't do anything to protect your family anyways; you've had a drink or 2. And as you've preached: You don't mix alcohol and firearms. Maybe he'll respond favorably if you just yell, "Go away and come back tomorrow, I've had a drink tonight!"

Joke all you want. If you're boozing then you shouldn't be carrying.

You're right, and in the above situation, I would call YOU the irresponsible one.

So because I believe that you shouldn't mix a substance that impairs both your motor functions and your judgement with a deadly weapon, I'm irresponsible. Ok

[Wildalaska]

Speaking to the younger guys (I'm way too old for this) how do you "carry" at home after you've been out with the boys, pounded down a pizza, a dozen shots of Jaeger, half a dozen beers, three lap dances two chilidogs and that last shot of Mezcal with worm for dessert, then spend the rest of your semi conscious evening safe and sound in your castle (of course lurking home invaders are everywhere) and your head in the porcelain god whilst you scream Huey and beg for death.... (that Jaeger and Mezcal combo trickling out the nose are the worst although the pink hotdog floaters are quite declasse n'est-ce pas?)

Cat got your uvula (or just burnt to a stub by stomach acid)?

I hereby submit, therefore, that NOONE carries 24/7-365/the life of a man and this thread is hereby absurd

WildnotevencountingthelackofresponsetomyearlierpointsAlaska TM

And I don't want to hear any holier than thou types claiming...Duh, I never been THAT drunk

[bobthewelder]

In my state carrying and alcohol mixed are a crime and will get your ticket pulled forever.

[geterdun444]

That same law is also here in new hampshire. that is unless you are part of the OLE' BOY'S network....then it just cost you a couple beers at the bar..