Controversial Topic Warning!! Is owning a gun for SD/HD similar to...

I too live in what is theoretically a low crime area; rural and everyone knows everyone. It used to be that a fair portion of the citizens didn't even lock their doors. The problem is I have managed to be burglarized twice with the second time being very devastating. I came home from work and when I placed my key in the lock my door just pushed open. The door had been kicked open with the door frame being busted to pieces. My house was ransacked top to bottom and close to $10,000 worth of stuff stolen. In the past several years there have been numerous sprees where dozens of homes have been broken into over a few days span. There have also been a handful of home invasions and assaults within a 15 mile radius of my home.
This is really what led me to getting into firearms to the extent I am. Before violation I had a 22lr rifle, that's all. Now I have over a dozen firearms and have my CCL as well a a home security system installed. My wife also owns her own personal .36spl revolver. This is an accomplishment considering her long held fear of firearms.
The one positive thing to come out of this is I now have a safe full of some nice guns. Once I started buying because I felt the need for protection, I kept buying because I found out I really like variety when it comes to firearms.:D
 
IdahoG36, I carry all the time, but I still wouldn't say people that think it unnecessary live in a fantasy land. Isn't that just what they say about people that carry?

Now, if someone says that they don't need to be armed because there's no way they will ever be attacked, that's a little different. Depending on where they live, they probably won't ever be attacked; most of us won't. But to that I say "you never know where your car may break down." And no matter where you are, you never know when you might cross paths with someone that is unbalanced or a criminal passing through.
 
And no matter where you are, you never know when you might cross paths with someone that is unbalanced or a criminal passing through
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point that I am trying to make.

I guess I just find it foolish to rely on the police for protection from these types of people. When you call the police, you are all ready the victim of a crime in progress. You are not preventing the crime from occurring.

I feel that living in the U.S., you are almost obligated to carry a gun if it is legal for you to do so. We have a serious issue with violent crimes in this country. Perhaps if I lived elsewhere in the world, I wouldn't feel that way.
 
I guess I just find it foolish to rely on the police for protection from these types of people.
Click to expand...

I agree. It amazes me that so people many people can't or refuse to understand this. If you hear or see someone suspicious outside your home, you should call the police, but even then you can't be sure they'll get there. They might be busy with something else or they may just be too far away. If someone accosts you outside, you don't have time to even reach for your cell phone.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
The "if you need it, you need it" argument is cliche, circular and silly. It's like saying "If it's raining, it's raining." Or "If I'm wearing a shirt, I'm wearing a shirt." Expect blank stares and rolling eyes.
Click to expand...

I had my last flat a decade ago, but I still carry a AAA card and a spare tire. I have never had a kitchen fire, but keep an extinguisher under the sink. I don't use cellular telephones in my car, but I have one there in the event I would need one.

I believe there are appropriate analogies to be drawn from events we do not expect, but for which we prepare as a matter of prudence.
 
Carrying a gun is like having 18 (or at least 7) of your "Homies" there to back you up in the event someone tries to kill you to get your stuff or just because they don't like the way you look.
 
IdahoG36 said:
This is exactly the point that I am trying to make.

I guess I just find it foolish to rely on the police for protection from these types of people. When you call the police, you are all ready the victim of a crime in progress. You are not preventing the crime from occurring.

I feel that living in the U.S., you are almost obligated to carry a gun if it is legal for you to do so. We have a serious issue with violent crimes in this country. Perhaps if I lived elsewhere in the world, I wouldn't feel that way.
Click to expand...

We do not have a serious issue with violent crime in this country. At least not in the context of the average person being in danger.

If you'll take a look at where and why violent crime happens, you'll see that the majority of it occurs around drugs and gangs. If you're not involved in drug and gang activity your odds of ever being involved in a violent encounter drop dramatically, even if you live near drug and gang areas. If you live far outside those areas, as does the majority of our population, your odds drop even further.

A person who stays away from potential hot spots in non gang areas, (such as where fights between drunks happen when the bars close) and when such person is a deescalator of problems instead of an instigator, that person's odds drop even further.

The majority of Americans will (and always have) live their entire lives not only without ever needing a gun but without ever being in a situation where they consider that they might want to carry one in the future. They'll die of heart disease or in a car accident or some other unintentional cause without the slightest involvement in violence at any point in their lives.

As I've said so many times before, we carry guns because it's an area of interest to us. We have the wonderful cliche "It's the stakes, not the odds!" which is just plain silly. If it were the stakes not the odds, we'd be preparing for a great many other preventable things that can kill us too, but we ignore those things because we're not interested.

It's the interest, not the stakes or the odds.
 
We do not have a serious issue with violent crime in this country.
Click to expand...

To fail to note the possibility of a cause and effect risks a Fox Butterfield situation.

I agree with you that for most ordinary people, especially outside urban centers, violent crime is not a daily concern.

If one examines the violent assault and home invasion rates for Canada and the UK, one sees that they are quite a bit higher, even as their firearm homicide rates are lower.

One could also note that historically our high crime urban centers are the ones in which the legal bearing of firearms is discouraged by law.

EDIT - That does not suggest that a board of hobbyists and political activists will not value their hobby as a hobby, or that the politically interested will not fasten onto the political facets.

However, if one contemplates a career of home invasion, he would likely fear a retiree who keeps an old revolver in his nightstand every bit as much as the hobbyist with a basement safe and stocked with the implements of his sport. The danger is present in either case.
 
Last edited:
It's the interest, not the stakes or the odds.
Click to expand...

That certainly has a lot to do with it, yet there are a lot of people that have a gun for protection, perhaps only at home, that don't have the interest that we have. They probably don't practice, either, but that's another argument. There are people that carry because they were attacked previously; guns weren't their hobby, either.

Not surprisingly, different people have different reasons for owning a gun and not all of them are hobbyists or hunters. We all make the mistake of arguing about something and assigning only one motive to all people. That's a big mistake.

For myself, before I had a CC permit, I didn't think I needed it. My wife carried, but I thought she was being a bit paranoid. Now that I carry I find myself feeling naked the few times when I can't carry. The act of carrying changes your perception, hence the arguments here.

To add to what zukiphile said, if no one carried, would the crime rate climb? Is the number of people that carry a deterrent? If so, then that's a pretty good reason to carry.
 
"We do not have a serious issue with violent crime in this country. At least not in the context of the average person being in danger.

If you'll take a look at where and why violent crime happens, you'll see that the majority of it occurs around drugs and gangs. If you're not involved in drug and gang activity your odds of ever being involved in a violent encounter drop dramatically, even if you live near drug and gang areas. If you live far outside those areas, as does the majority of our population, your odds drop even further.

A person who stays away from potential hot spots in non gang areas, (such as where fights between drunks happen when the bars close) and when such person is a deescalator of problems instead of an instigator, that person's odds drop even further.

The majority of Americans will (and always have) live their entire lives not only without ever needing a gun but without ever being in a situation where they consider that they might want to carry one in the future. They'll die of heart disease or in a car accident or some other unintentional cause without the slightest involvement in violence at any point in their lives.

As I've said so many times before, we carry guns because it's an area of interest to us. We have the wonderful cliche "It's the stakes, not the odds!" which is just plain silly. If it were the stakes not the odds, we'd be preparing for a great many other preventable things that can kill us too, but we ignore those things because we're not interested.

It's the interest, not the stakes or the odds."




Brian, this ^^^ has been the most interesting analysis of this issue that I've seen, yet. It's always puzzled me why we aren't as concerned about being hurt/killed in car accident (which is much more likely on average) than being hurt/killed in a violent attack by BG (which is much less likely). We (i.e., gun-owning community) also seem to not be bothered much by other low-probability but high-stakes dangers like meteors/asteroid strikes, contracting AIDS, sudden/complete government collapse, nuclear attack by N Korea or Russia, terrorists blowing up our town's football stadium during some high-profile game, nuclear plant accident, and so forth - all of these are very low-probability, but very high-stakes events. Why are we so attentive and make very substantial effort to prepare for one low-probability but high-stakes event (i.e., violent assault), but are only mildly concerned with and do relatively little to safeguard against a host of other low-probability but high-stakes events?

Folks, please don't be offended by this. I'm not trying to say I'm smart and people who disagree with me are dumb. I'm actually one who owns Glock 29 (with hot ammo) for SD/HD, and the sucker is laying by my bed every single night. I also spend hours upon hours every week training and practicing. So, if anything, I'm questioning/analyzing my own behavior...:confused: I also support the idea that good people in today's legal/economic/cultural climate should have a right to be armed. But, I do find this contradiction (paying attention to some risks, while ignoring other similar risks) very peculiar and want to understand what's driving it. :(

I also agree with many of you that we all own guns for different reasons - one very valid of which is that we greatly enjoy them as a hobby.
 
Last edited:
The issue, IMHO, is that of agency. We are set to defend ourselves and loved ones from conscious, planned enemies. We defend our territory and place in various dominance hierarchies as we respond to threats in the our social structure.

Accidents, meteors, viruses, etc. - are basically random acts or the hands of fate. They are not sentient, malicious threats and thus do not evoke that particular response to defend against 'enemy' attacks.

I had my arm sliced open by the weed whacker awhile ago (stupid). I did not back away and shoot it. However, I train in the Tueller drill to avoid an attacker (sentient, malevolent being) trying to slice me. It is a matter of intent that drives such defensive attitudes despite the low risk of a real gun usage.

However, that being said - I have had enough incidents in my life to realize that evil sentient entities do exist and might cross my path. Low probability on a given day but not over an entire life.
 
We do not have a serious issue with violent crime in this country. At least not in the context of the average person being in danger.
Click to expand...

I disagree. With all of the mass shootings, drug fueled violence, home invasions, road rage, etc, etc, we do in fact have a lot higher rate of violent crime in this country than most others.

Just as an example, more U.S. citizens are killed in Chicago, Illinois in a year than U.S. soldiers were killed in a year in Iraq when the war was in full swing, and Iraq was a war zone. That should put it into perspective.

Seeing what goes on in this country is what made me decide to get my CWP and train with my firearms. People seem to be getting crazier every year, and that worries me. While I agree that the chance that a violent crime may happen to me is low, given where I live, it is still a possibility.
 
I would say that Glenn is probably absolutely correct. We prepare for "sentient attackers".

My point though, is that we're silly for making the argument that those who do NOT prepare for those sentient attackers are unprepared, naive fools and the cliches that we seem to love "It's the stakes, not the odds." are even more silly.

Even the person who used to not carry and got attacked so now they carry, they aren't likely to ever need the gun again. They might have an interest because they believe they'll need it but they carry because they have that interest, not because it's a high odds event.

The same person makes absolutely no move to install 5-point racing harnesses and roll cages in their car, yet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in America who doesn't know someone who has been seriously hurt or killed or involved in a serious car crash. The odds are much, much higher and the stakes are exactly the same, yet we ignore it. Even the folks who have BEEN in a serious crash aren't installing roll cages, much like a great many of the folks who have been attacked aren't buying guns.

I carry a gun almost every day. No one else in my family does nor do any of them have any interest, even the other "gun people". Why? None of us know (as far as I've ever heard) a single person who's ever needed a firearm to defend themselves. Violent crime in our area is vanishingly low. I've never even heard of a home invasion anywhere remotely close to here. There is no significant drug crime, particularly if you're not part of the drug problem. Murders are so rare that a single one stays in the public consciousness (local grapevine) for literally years. I've never heard of a mugging or most any other violent crime for miles around.

So, that's the kicker for me. There's lots of reasons for carrying a gun but the cliches and platitudes are just silly. At best, mildly amusing to those who do not carry.

Just as an example, more U.S. citizens are killed in Chicago, Illinois in a year than U.S. soldiers were killed in a year in Iraq when the war was in full swing, and Iraq was a war zone. That should put it into perspective.
Click to expand...

False perspective. Even if that were true of Chicago, they represent 0.75% of US population. The crime rate there is utterly and completely irrelevent to the claim that THE NATION has a violent crime problem.

You'd also note that EVERY person killed in Chicago is a US resident (if not citizen) while only the small minority of those killed Iraq who happen to be US soldiers, which never at any time exceeded 0.25% of the Iraqi population, count against your Iraq statistic.
 
Last edited:
Well said .... There are a lot of malevolent people out there... Unlike a random meteor to the head, which was on its un changeable course, and you stumbled into its path; a malevolent person can change its focus towards you.

Many communities just don't put violent acts into the paper... Just not good business....many are unknown to the public.... Even if there's blotters section, it's not always accurate.
 
Brian, you make several excellent points, but I would point out that the principles of avoidance a prudent person follows CREATES high crime areas; for a 'bad area' to exist, two things have to happen-the violent remain and the non-violent (largely) avoid it.

A thoroughly armed population, less afraid to go out at night, less afraid to go to the 'tough' areas, would eventually eliminate the 'tough' areas altogether, simply by populating them with a number of law-abiding people ready to defend themselves.

A population of sheep will create a population of wolves, in a manner of speaking, and ceding dangerous neighborhoods to the ruffians is one of the worst things we can do as a society; it allows the criminal to gain security and fester, rather then feel threatened everywhere and afraid of the 'good guys' who don't tolerate their violence, and are prepared to fight back.


Larry
 
We can sit here and type of all the statistics we want about the chances of needing to be armed for SD and give the best advice we can about staying out of harms way as we go through our daily lives...then we can sit down and watch our local news every evening and see the everyday violence that occurs each day right around us.
Today will be no exception and tonight's news will give the tally on todays violence and tomorrows will do the same.

While we may be able to divide the number of violent crimes occurring every year in the US into the number of people in the US and come up with a ratio that says "we can't say we don't cc cause of the odds of an attack is to low to do so" or "that the odds are high enough that we must cc" , do we really think all our figuring really matters to the victims of the violent crimes we used in our math equation?
In other words, if you happen to be the victim of a random violent crime that's reported on by the evening news, do you as the victim really give a rat's behind about statistics?

Violent crime stats and figures are nice and can be used, twisted and turned to meet almost any criteria the statistician wants to accomplish.
But again, mean very little to the actual victim of a violent crime.
Or for that matter, means very little to the thug out on the street that see's 'a crime of opportunity'. Which often happens.
 
Last edited:
The possibility of needing a gun is all I require to have one. If I ever allowed some harm to befall my wife that I could have prevented because the odds of that harm happening are low, I couldn't live with myself ... I haven't read every post, but I'm sure this old saw is in here somewhere ... better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top