Should you carry your pistol at home?

[TailGator]

Did OK, guys. Matthew took a little eastward jog just before it got to us, moving the center just a little further off shore and lessening the impact. Roof damage at my office that I fixed myself, lots of clean up, but overall not bad. Power outages were extensive, but much shorter than the last couple of storms (36 to 48 hours instead of 10 to 14 days), probably because the utilities were better prepared and had newer equipment.

Get drunk when it's over.

I'm a light drinker, and never get anything close to drunk, anyway. My comment was tongue in cheek, but a little something to help relax on Thursday night or the wee hours of Friday morning would have been welcome. Tired and sore now, and looking forward to internet access, telephone service, and cable TV at home sometime soon. (At the office now, where I have the first two.)

FWIW, the oft-ridiculed fanny pack is really a great way to carry in conditions that include driving rain, sweat, and flying small debris like mud and leaves and chain saw chips. It protects the firearm as well as any other rig, and better than most, with reasonably good access.

 

[K_Mac]

Glad you were not hit as hard as they feared. Hope you are back to normal soon.

FWIW, I am also a fanny pack fan in rugged conditions.

 

[Don P]

Not quite as bad, supposedly, more into the northern/central part of Florida. Right now, everyone is gassing up, buying water and food, etc. all typical before the storm. Afterwards should be OK where I am; even during Andrew things here weren't like Miami; but that also depends on the makeup of the area, density, poverty, etc

My emphasis on the last of the above statement. Bad things happen in good places. Quite a few years back a man was killed in his home in a sub-division. Name of community is Pelican Bay. Gated community and yet somehow someone got into the sub-division and murdered this man and to date the crime is unsolved. So no matter where one lives in my opinion it is wise to carry at/in the home or within arms reach as mine is right next to the key board while i am at the desk. As a side note one should be aware how the Governor in their state words the State of Emergency. Depending on the wording could making carrying a concealed weapon against the law at such time.

 

[FireForged]

Lets talk about common sense for a second.. In the 1980s I lived in a neighborhood where homes were broken into every other night, where cars were broken into nightly, people were robbed weekly and strangers were roaming around my backyard, jumping my fence and general trespassing on a regular basis. It was rough and the crime stats were very high.. in that place during that period of time, my risk of being attacked in my home was substantially higher. It was so high that every night I considered a break in, probable. My "ready status" during that time was much like people are suggesting in this thread. I was always ready and felt it prudent.

In current time, I live in a neighborhood where there is 1 burglary every 10 years, no cars have been broken into in the past 16 years, no person has been robbed and I have never seen or suspected a trespasser. That being said, I could be a crime victim today, it could happen. It doesn't change the fact that any honest risk assessment will result in dramatically less risk in my currect location as opposed to my old hood. I don't fault a person who wants to remain armed 24/7 or even while they are in bed at night.. its fine by me. At the same time, I don't think its really honest to ignore the fact that different methods for different levels of risk, can be quite reasonable. Its the whole reason that risk assessments are conducted. To identify/analyze risk or hazard and develop the best, most practical method to mitigate it.

A persons telling me that I [need] to remain armed(on my person) in my home is like telling me I need hurricane insurance in Nebraska. Anything can happen but lets not ignore the value of an honest examination of realistic risk. Risk which varies from person to person and place to place. I trust the person who is actually in the situation to make the best judgment of their needs. Others may be constructing an argument simply around something they desire to do, not what I need.

 

[K_Mac]

FireForged, I would do not question your risk analysis, or your conclusions. Based on your assessment of risk, your methods may be entirely reasonable. I certainly won't tell you carrying a gun at home is necessary, or imply that you are foolish not to. On the other hand, your statement about hurricane insurance in Nebraska is not an honest assessment of risk, and the implication is those of us who choose to carry at home lack the "common sense" you mention. Common sense and common courtesy are closely related.

 

[Don P]

All the well wishes must have worked. Only damage was to the privacy fence as we had 13 damaged panels beyond repair. I'll take that any day over losing a roof.

 

[zincwarrior]

Good news Don.

 

[psyfly]

Good news, indeed. Our thoughts and prayers for the Carolinas, which apparently bore more trying conditions.

The following is relatively long, and somewhat in need of forgiveness for being pedantic, but is important in my own analysis.

One aspect which is, in my opinion as a scientist, poorly understood, is risk.

Risk is usually characterized as the probability of the occurrence of an undesired outcome.

We manage risk by balancing the undesirability of the outcome against the probability that it will occur.

The misunderstanding that is so often seen is that of probability.

The probability of an event occurring is based on the relationship of a single something (person, crime, fire, winning the lottery) divided by a large number of similar somethings.

The error arrives when a specific person assumes that the resulting number (let’s say 1 in a million, for example, approximately the same odds as being struck by lightning) means that the specific person to whom I refer has a 1 in a million chance of being struck by lightning.

This is, unfortunately, absolutely incorrect. The chance of any single person (you, me, the Dalai Lama) being struck by lightning is either 100% (or 1, in statistics-talk) or 0% (also, nicely, zero in statistics-talk) but completely unknown until it happens or until the person dies without it happening. A specific person does not become part of the statistics until he or she is placed in the proper statistical universe.

Obviously, you may be able to affect this particular risk significantly by standing on top of Pike’s Peak in a thunderstorm or by sitting at the bottom of a coal mine on a clear night, but the “chance” for you as an individual still remains unknown until the event.

The chances that I will need to respond to a violent attack (again, since it has happened once) when compared against many people like me, where I live, etc. are very small, statistically speaking. Although the chance that it will happen to me (again) is unknown and I believe I can assume it to be quite small, I also am mathematically certain that the chance cannot be assumed to be zero. In addition, the potential consequences of my being unprepared are unacceptable to me. If the chances of a catastrophically (by my judgment) unacceptable event is greater than zero and I have means of improving my preparedness, I will do so.

I choose my self-defense method(s) based on the assumption that the chance of a totally unacceptable loss remains >zero and preparation remains relatively painless. It ain't about the odds, it's about the outcome.

I am armed within my own home.

 

[Lohman446]

"Statistics" based on a sample size of 1 are generally disregarded.

 

[K_Mac]

"Statistics" based on a sample size of 1 are generally disregarded.

Disregarded by whom? Yes, it may not be a representative sample, and for that reason not an indicator of mathematical probability. That does not mean it can be disregarded entirely or does not have value. We know that home invasions have happened all across our country, in urban, suburban, and rural locations. They have happened to people of all socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, and religious groups. They happen regularly. Based on this I know that it could happen to me.

I don't know what the odds are. It doesn't matter that I live in a relatively safe area. It costs me nothing to be prepared for the unlikely need to protect myself or my family. There is no reason not to, for me.

 

[Lohman446]

KMac I did not mean that you should not worry about you.

What I meant is that statistical analysis of a sample size of 1 is meaningless. Its a case study and is not subject to analysis. Had I suggested that a sample of 1 allowed for meaningful statistical analysis in any of my classes I would have probably failed it

You base your risk assessment on analysis (if you use statistical analysis which I doubt most people actually do in personal risk assessment) that is meaningful to you and important to you. Since you know the risks and rewards better then anyone else I assume your assessment of your own situation to be correct for you.

I am disagree with your assessment of the risk and attempt to articulate that disagreement for discussion but your conclusion as it is a personal thing and not subject to my approval.

 

[K_Mac]

Lohman my friend, I understand. From an acedemic perspective, my argument doesn't satisfy the requirements of statistical analysis. I love academic discourse and debate. Intelligent conversation about important issues is one of lifes greatest pleasures in my opinion.

With that said, this is more than an intellectual exercise. I carry a gun at home because I am committed to be prepared to the best of my ability for whatever the day brings. I believe it is entirely possible I will never need it. I am good with that.

 

[Lohman446]

I see myself as a 90 percenter (or 80 or whatever) in terms to readiness. I have accepted that I cannot prepare for 100% of the situations that may threaten me and as such am willing to compromise readiness in some situations.

 

[10Ringmagic]

I carry all the time, if I am dressed I am carrying.

If I am home just lounging around in my PJ's, I have my LCP, or 638 in my pajama pocket till I go to bed.

 

[Doublea A]

I don't routinely i.e. 99% feel the need to carry inside the house because I have reinforced all the entry and exit points. I have other warning or alert systems as well. However, I'm always 5 secs away from a loaded firearm should the need arise. Unless the perpetrator(s) can magically appear inside the house in less than the timeframe, I will able to access a firearm and address the threat. I routinely evaluate my threat assessment but for now my preparation is adequate.

 

[FireForged]

(Double A) makes a very sensible point.

 

[rpseraph]

I have kids, I have neighbors, I have an active lifestyle that just does not allow me to carry 100% of the time at home. If I leave the house, I carry. If I am in the house I do not. (Deleting a comment that people can't seem to get over) I am prepared for the worst to happen, but I make choices and decide when it is worth it to carry and when it isn't.

If someone came into my backyard and started shooting, might I regret it? I would. But would I definitely regret not being able to tackle my 5 year old or get in a hose fight with my wife or any number of other scenarios that are simply not practical for carrying around the house? YES.

That said I do have means of self defense within a few yards most of the time. And a vicious labrador that will lick any intruder to the bone !

My choice.

 

[JN01]

If I leave the house, I carry. If I am in the house I do not. Not to imply that some do, but I choose not to live in fear.

This phrase irks me, especially when used by others that support gun rights. It's how gun control advocates describe gun owners in general. One's choice of how, when, or if to carry a weapon is generally thought of as preparation for dealing with possibilities, rather than a reaction of fear (though some may indeed arm themselves out of fear).

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You know folks, we don't have to be insulting about folks making choices you think are silly.

If a person carries - there are certainly precedents for when such has saved lives. Certainly, there are folks who have retrieved a gun in time to handle an encounter.

Make your own decision based on your acceptance of risk.

Antigun folks think that carrying a gun or even carrying one makes you a nutcase. We don't need to argue that among ourselves.

We are close to a close if we go personal attacks.

 

[FireForged]

This phrase irks me, especially when used by others that support gun rights

Fear may not be what drives a person to wear a firearm while inside their home.. it could be alot of things. At the same time, its not unreasonable to speculate that it might be [fear], worry or foreboding- when most gun owners seemingly do not wear a gun in the home.

Those who do not understand the desire to wear a gun in the house may simply ask themselves,.."what would it take for me to wear a gun in the house". Foreboding is probably the easiest answer that makes sense. It may be the wrong answer but it makes sense.

I don't carry a firearm because I am fearful, I don't wear a seatbelt because I am fearful, I do not own a fire extinguisher because I am fearful.. but I understand why a person may assume that an activity is fear driven if its also uncommon. When compared to 300,000,000 other people, wearing a seatbelt is not uncommon.. wearing a gun -is.