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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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".
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
I never said there was a law. However drinking while carrying is irresponsible. It is irrelevant whether people drink to excess.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.....
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: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.
 
Irrelevant my butt! Spoken like somebody that doesn't drink a drop.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!"
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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 :rolleyes:
 
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)?:D

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 :)
 
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..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top