Should you carry your pistol at home?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day.

Well that depends on whether you are taking the poster literally and examining only the portion you quoted or whether you are inferring basic common sense principles to his example.

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

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

The analysis on whether a NASCAR helmet (or a handgun around the house) benefits you depends on how you evaluate each of those three factors above - which is necessarily going to be a very individualistic process. In both cases, the probability of either is very low and the consequences very high, so perceived cost becomes the major determinant. A guy who races stock cars at Texas Motor Speedway on the weekends might see everyday wear of a helmet as less of a cost than someone who rides the bus to work.

 

[FireForged]

sure.. and none of that reasoning was offered to the member who stated that he considered a home invasion to be very low risk in his circumstance. I said what I did to shine a light on the hypocrisy of some critics.

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

If a person wants to carry a firearm around in his house, in the shower or as he sleeps, its fine by me. If a person makes the decision not to do those things by means that are thoughtful and not arbitrary.. why be critical of it.

 

[Model12Win]

I live in an area where there may be dangerous people around.

You do to. EVERYONE DOES.

Have a gun handy at home. It is never a bad idea.

 

[Lohman446]

sure.. and none of that reasoning was offered to the member who stated that he considered a home invasion to be very low risk in his circumstance. I said what I did to shine a light on the hypocrisy of some critics.

Considering I made the argument that I found a home invasion to be an extremely small risk in my circumstances I am curious to the hypocrisy you found in the statement.

 

[lefteye]

SNYPER:

The problem there is you're mistakenly assuming one place is safer than another.

The problem is YOU are mistakenly assuming NO place is safer than another.

That is absurd. I suspect the vast majority of police departments, fire stations, and hospitals, for example, are dramatically safer than a Chicago ghetto. Safety and risk are obviously directly related. If safety (and risk) were the same everywhere, auto insurance, for example, would be virtually the same everywhere for the same automobile.

 

[K_Mac]

A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day. Most people would agree that a traffic accident is probably the more likely danger vs a home invasion but how many people are wearing helmets while driving a car on the public roadway? Not any that I have ever seen.. why? It could be because of a relative risk assessment that indicates that the need is rather low.

If that logic is not accepted then it begs the question.. how many of those critical of it are actually wearing helmets while driving cars on the public roadway?

An interesting position. I think a better comparison would be wearing a seat belt though. A three point seat belt is very effective in preventing serious injuries in an accident. There are still some who don't wear one, and insist they don't want to stuck in a wrecked vehicle. Any object analysis will show this is a foolish position based on the risks. For the record, I am sure that a helmet could make a difference in a crash. A seat belt almost certainly will make a difference, just like a gun in a self-defense situation where lethal force is required.

My position requires adequate training and practice with a handgun. Just sticking one in your belt without that is like driving too fast on snow covered roads with a four-wheel drive. Just thinking you're invincible doesn't make it so.

 

[Lohman446]

a gun in a self-defense situation where lethal force is required

With all due respect I think you are creating a bit of a straw man argument here that, especially on this board, is going to be quickly eviscerated. Think of the poor innocent straw man.

The argument being pursued here is not a gun on the person vs no gun. Its a gun on the person vs one that is available but not on person (IE in a nearby quick access safe). The difference we are arguing over is not the availability of the gun to the defender but the time frame in which that gun can be deployed. Most of us are talking he difference between well under a minute vs a second or two (to draw). There is a difference there but lets not overstate it.

 

[Snyper]

That is absurd. I suspect the vast majority of police departments, fire stations, and hospitals, for example, are dramatically safer than a Chicago ghetto. Safety and risk are obviously directly related. If safety (and risk) were the same everywhere, auto insurance, for example, would be virtually the same everywhere for the same automobile.

There have been shootings in all those places, and I don't know anyone who lives in any of those places.

The subject here is "Should you carry your pistol at home?", and no one's home is really that much "safer" than anyone else's.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Do this empirically. Have your gun (not a loaded real gun) in your preferred place. Now you don't want to actually break your door but leave it open but closed.

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

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

That's what we are talking about as compared to the noise you hear at a distance, so you can meander to your weapon.

 

[K_Mac]

I am not overstating anything. I compared a seat belt to a gun. If that is made of straw, eviscerate away! The comparison is valid in my opinion. Having a seat belt available, but not fastened or a gun available but not at hand is the same thing. I will fasten it before impact makes little sense. I will retrieve my gun when the door is kicked in sounds like the same argument to me.

 

[lefteye]

If the perp is 10 feet away and aiming a firearm at you, then you are not in a safe place, regardless of how "safe" your home is. To claim that

no one's home is really that much "safer" than anyone else's

makes no sense. Homes are obviously not all the same, access is not identical for all homes, and the risk of home invasion by one or more perps is not identical for all homes in the United States. There are many factors that influence the risk of a home invasion by a single perp (or several.) There is no basis to assume the combined affect of those factors is irrelevant .

 

[briandg]

My mother in law used to do just that. Just open the door and walk in. God, she never did realize the risk she took. We never got along, and god almighty, someday she might have done that and I'd have maced her just for the fun of it.

 

[Lohman446]

Mr Meyer that is not entirely empirical. The dead bolts on my house stay locked unless someone is outside and in sight of the door. I firmly believe I can deploy a firearm from one of the safes, while my family moves towards safety, more quickly then someone can break through one of the doors in my house. Long throw bolts go through the 2X6 exterior studs as well as the door frame. Do I think it will hold indefinitely? No. Do I think it will hold for 30-60 seconds? Yeh - truth be told I think it will hold longer than that.

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

No I do not answer the door unless armed.

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

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

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

Are those threats that are not competent and determined going to be able to easily overcome the doors before I can arm myself? Nope.

 

[Lohman446]

I am not overstating anything. I compared a seat belt to a gun. If that is made of straw, eviscerate away! The comparison is valid in my opinion. Having a seat belt available, but not fastened or a gun available but not at hand is the same thing. I will fasten it before impact makes little sense. I will retrieve my gun when the door is kicked in sounds like the same argument to me.

Just how quickly do you think someone can get into a locked house? The follow-up question is if someone has that level of competence and preparation coupled with the element of surprise do you really think you are likely to overcome him or her (or more likely them)?

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

I think in the analysis you are overthinking the difference between a gun in a holster and a gun that can be accessed relatively quickly.

 

[briandg]

Heck, I rarely lock my house.

This can't go unquestioned.

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

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

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

I live in a good neighborhood but it's full of historic homes, and looks wealthy. That day I had a B&E attempt and thwarted it with a locked door and a chef's knife.

 

[Jleonard]

That is your choice. Even if you are right and the chance of needing a gun is very low, the consequences of not having one are if needed are severe.

A person could use this same logic to suggest that a person could benefit from wearing a NASCAR helmet on their drive to work each day. Most people would agree that a traffic accident is probably the more likely danger vs a home invasion but how many people are wearing helmets while driving a car on the public roadway? Not any that I have ever seen.. why? It could be because of a relative risk assessment that indicates that the need is rather low.

It wasn't too long ago I upgraded to a truck with 4 wheel discs and airbags. That was done to mitigate risk.
To me that was a far greater risk than needing a firearm on my person at my home at all times.
We all can make our own assessments and they are all equally as valid in our own minds.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Equally valid in your mind is like Dirty Harry's quote about being a hero in your own mind.

Validity is empirical.

Anyway - everyone should make their own choice.

A point of personal privilege - everyone is welcome to refer to me as "Glenn". That is my name.

However, if you want to use a title or honorific, the correct usage is Dr. Meyer. Silly isn't - call me Glenn.

 

[briandg]

We all can make our own assessments and they are all equally as valid in our own minds.

I very nice platitude, but it's kind of deceptive.

In our own minds

That doesnt mean that it's correct to make assumptions about how good an idea is. Millions of people every day do things that they assume are risk free, or at least safe. Then they are arrested for shoplifting, overdose on meth, get arrested for having a .09 BAC, or even get whomped on the head after yelling "oakland sucks!" in the wrong bar.

Convincing yourself that your assessments are valid is step number one in getting your hind end kicked clean off of of the planet by fate. NASA assessments that they were safe resulted in 14 deaths.

 

[Lohman446]

Dr Meyer (I'm going to have to go with Glenn because I am going to forget and screw this up) I agree that this should, in an ideal world, be tested. However you are encouraging testing of how long it takes to get to a firearm. My big question in the equation is how long it would take a mostly non-competent individual to force open a door. I don't want to test how much damage forcing one of my doors open would cause so I am forced to not actually test how much time it would take either.

 

[K_Mac]

I think in the analysis you are overthinking the difference between a gun in a holster and a gun that can be accessed relatively quickly

I respect your opinion, even though I strongly disagree. You place a great deal of confidence in the security of your doors. I am not nearly as confident in mine. Not to mention windows that provide little real security. The difference between immediate access and "relatively" quick access is enough for me to choose to carry.