Carry at Home
- Thread starter The Immortal
- Start date
Right...Its not that I spend time wondering when something is gonna happen.... Its a routine. put on socks, shirt, gun, and for the rest of the day I dont think about it. Having a gun in my pocket is better than having a gun "in reach" or in the same room.
Ive got a family to protect and I do it around the clock. Its not uncomfortable so why not ?!?!?
Hardtarget
New member
It is my habit to carry while while I'm awake. My boss and co-workers like the arrangement. Three of my co-workers also carry. My wife does not carry. She needs a pistol for the house.
My pistol of choice is a S&W,(.45 acp), mod 4553. Its a DAO andits compact size makes it comfy for all day carry.
As far as why?...bad guys have cars and go where ever they want to commit crime...and they don't give advance warning. Gotta be ready.
Mark.
My pistol of choice is a S&W,(.45 acp), mod 4553. Its a DAO andits compact size makes it comfy for all day carry.
As far as why?...bad guys have cars and go where ever they want to commit crime...and they don't give advance warning. Gotta be ready.
Mark.
Olive Drab
New member
gun locked in the cabinet and safes net to some loaded mags, house doors locked, alarm on. i dont feel the need to carry in my own home.
rantingredneck
New member
I grew up in some rough parts of Fayetteville, NC (home of Ft. Bragg) and saw enough breakins and attempted breakins to last a lifetime. I now live in a rural area of Alamance Co. NC where crime is low but not unheard of. Home invasions do happen here. Gangs, especially hispanic gangs such as MS13, are here. Crap happens. My being armed at home won't prevent a break-in or home invasion. It may not even save my life or the lives of those I love. But my family and I will not die for lack of shooting back.
30 cal slut
New member
all my stuff is locked up most of the time (easy access for me if i need one asap tho).
now, i'm in the "if my pants are on, i carry" crowd, but 9 times out of 10 my pants are off while at home.
(i'm sure you needed to know that).
anyhoo, at all times, the alarm is armed.
now, i'm in the "if my pants are on, i carry" crowd, but 9 times out of 10 my pants are off while at home.
(i'm sure you needed to know that).anyhoo, at all times, the alarm is armed.
Yes, I carry at home.
Why? http://www.corneredcat.com/Social/home.asp
Am I paranoid? Wellllll ....
Of the 207,240 rapes and sexual assaults in America in 2004, 30% happened inside the woman's own home.
Of the 83,920 rapes and sexual assaults committed by a stranger, 42% happened inside the woman's own home.
Of the 99,130 incidents of completed robbery in which the victim was injured, 31% happened inside the victim's own home.
Of the 895,340 cases of aggravated assault, 18% happened within the victim's own home.
Those statistics are from the US Dept of Justice.
pax
Why? http://www.corneredcat.com/Social/home.asp
Am I paranoid? Wellllll ....
Of the 207,240 rapes and sexual assaults in America in 2004, 30% happened inside the woman's own home.
Of the 83,920 rapes and sexual assaults committed by a stranger, 42% happened inside the woman's own home.
Of the 99,130 incidents of completed robbery in which the victim was injured, 31% happened inside the victim's own home.
Of the 895,340 cases of aggravated assault, 18% happened within the victim's own home.
Those statistics are from the US Dept of Justice.
pax
Wildalaska
Moderator
And how many of those are stranger/home invasions?
WildinpriorpostsyouhavegivenbetterreasonsthatthatforcarryinginhomeAlaska
PS
It we call that number of victims exclusively women, assume that there are 150 million women in the US, than that means that in each year .002% of the women who are assaulted in the US are assaulted in their own home. I'm not smart enough to calculate probabilities.
PPS...I make no judgements about folks carrying in their own home, though I have in the past.
The Real Wyatt
New member
Wild you just can't help being an arsle, can 'ya.
Leave Pax alone, she's cool and you know it.
Leave Pax alone, she's cool and you know it.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Oh and disagreeing with someone makes one an "arsle" or whatever silly acronym that is?
And I think Pax is cool, I just rarely agree with her. I could say that about 50% of the folks here too.
Wildnowontheotherhand90%ofthefolksdisagreewithmebutonly.0005%thinkiamcoolyikesAlaska
And I think Pax is cool, I just rarely agree with her. I could say that about 50% of the folks here too.
Wildnowontheotherhand90%ofthefolksdisagreewithmebutonly.0005%thinkiamcoolyikesAlaska
Wyatt ~
Gently, gently. Calling people names is uncool on TFL, but thanks for coming to my aid.
WildAlaska ~
The statistics kept by the US DOJ do not distinguish between "stranger" invasions and "acquaintance" invasions, so I can't answer your first question. Nor can I tell you how many of the victims were drug dealers or involved in other at-risk behavior when their homes were invaded.
What I can tell you is that around one-fifth of all assaults happened in the victim's own home, and that one-third of all completed robberies with an injured victim happened in the victim's own home.
As for the rape statistic, I agree that stranger rape is a really, really unlikely event. Certain categories of women are more at-risk for rape (just as certain categories of people are more at-risk for home invasions). Younger women are more at-risk than older women; city dwellers more at-risk than those who live in the country; single women are more likely to be attacked than the married. And so on. Some demographics have virtually no risk of getting raped, statistically speaking.
Nevertheless, if this very unlikely event does happen to a woman, there is a fairly large chance that where it happens will be in her very own home. That 42% figure means that home is the single riskiest place for a woman at risk from stranger rape.
To me, all of the above means that it isn't at all paranoid to carry at home. Although most people feel safe in their own homes, home is not always the safest place to be.
I should add that if you worry about attacks in your own home, good locks and good lights and good neighbors and a good dog will do more to dissuade criminals than a gun in the pocket of your bathrobe. But the statistics show that getting attacked in you own home is significantly more likely to happen than getting struck by a meteor, so it is hardly "paranoid" to be prepared to cope with such an event.
pax
Gently, gently. Calling people names is uncool on TFL, but thanks for coming to my aid.
WildAlaska ~
The statistics kept by the US DOJ do not distinguish between "stranger" invasions and "acquaintance" invasions, so I can't answer your first question. Nor can I tell you how many of the victims were drug dealers or involved in other at-risk behavior when their homes were invaded.
What I can tell you is that around one-fifth of all assaults happened in the victim's own home, and that one-third of all completed robberies with an injured victim happened in the victim's own home.
As for the rape statistic, I agree that stranger rape is a really, really unlikely event. Certain categories of women are more at-risk for rape (just as certain categories of people are more at-risk for home invasions). Younger women are more at-risk than older women; city dwellers more at-risk than those who live in the country; single women are more likely to be attacked than the married. And so on. Some demographics have virtually no risk of getting raped, statistically speaking.
Nevertheless, if this very unlikely event does happen to a woman, there is a fairly large chance that where it happens will be in her very own home. That 42% figure means that home is the single riskiest place for a woman at risk from stranger rape.
To me, all of the above means that it isn't at all paranoid to carry at home. Although most people feel safe in their own homes, home is not always the safest place to be.
I should add that if you worry about attacks in your own home, good locks and good lights and good neighbors and a good dog will do more to dissuade criminals than a gun in the pocket of your bathrobe. But the statistics show that getting attacked in you own home is significantly more likely to happen than getting struck by a meteor, so it is hardly "paranoid" to be prepared to cope with such an event.
pax
ohioleadslinger
New member
So I gather by that if it's not a stranger that attacks your in your home, it's ok to be raped and that carrying in the home wouldn't stop a non stranger?
I not being an arsle, but I fail to see that logic....
Wildalaska
Moderator
Truer words were never spoken.
I generally find that if you rely on pure general stats to support your position, you have to acknowldge the validity of such stats that will support the opposite
WildareyousaferstatisticallywithaguninthehomeornotAlaska
Wild ~
Naw, he made a valid point. The acquaintance vs. stranger statistics are a weird dichotomy anyway, though we all understand why the distinction is made.
The problem is it's both too much and not enough of a distinction. Some of the non-stranger rapes are borderline "he-said, she-said" dating situations. Some are nasty divorces in action. And some are violently abusive stalkers whose faces are vaguely familiar to the victims. These are all classes as non-stranger events, which some people dismiss with a roll of the eyes even though any individual crime which fits within this classification CAN BE as dangerous as a "stranger" rape.
Back on topic, then: a non-stranger invading your home can be every bit as dangerous as a stranger invading your home. But it's rare for a stranger invasion to be anything except a dangerous event, while the non-stranger invasion might not be dangerous at all. For this reason, if anyone were tracking stranger vs non-stranger home invasions, the ones involving only strangers would make a more compelling statistical case.
So if you weren't discussing the general statistical likelihood of needing to defend yourself, but were instead deciding whether or not to defend yourself in any specific situation -- that's a different question entirely, and whether the assailant was a stranger or a non-stranger would play only a small part of the decision making process.
But that's all gotten a long way afield from the topic of this thread.
My apologies for the rabbit trail!
pax
Naw, he made a valid point. The acquaintance vs. stranger statistics are a weird dichotomy anyway, though we all understand why the distinction is made.
The problem is it's both too much and not enough of a distinction. Some of the non-stranger rapes are borderline "he-said, she-said" dating situations. Some are nasty divorces in action. And some are violently abusive stalkers whose faces are vaguely familiar to the victims. These are all classes as non-stranger events, which some people dismiss with a roll of the eyes even though any individual crime which fits within this classification CAN BE as dangerous as a "stranger" rape.
Back on topic, then: a non-stranger invading your home can be every bit as dangerous as a stranger invading your home. But it's rare for a stranger invasion to be anything except a dangerous event, while the non-stranger invasion might not be dangerous at all. For this reason, if anyone were tracking stranger vs non-stranger home invasions, the ones involving only strangers would make a more compelling statistical case.
So if you weren't discussing the general statistical likelihood of needing to defend yourself, but were instead deciding whether or not to defend yourself in any specific situation -- that's a different question entirely, and whether the assailant was a stranger or a non-stranger would play only a small part of the decision making process.
But that's all gotten a long way afield from the topic of this thread.
My apologies for the rabbit trail!
pax