Playboypenguin
Moderator
PM sent.WildallrightwhatsasouthernwoobiepmmeAlaska TM
woobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobie
PS: I think you are referring to the movie "Mr. Mom."
PM sent.WildallrightwhatsasouthernwoobiepmmeAlaska TM
woobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobiewoobie
I dont carry at home. the odds of needing it are not there. i do have weapons stashed that i can get to if needed.
How did you know that?!?I assume you wear a lightning rod on your head for the unexpected lightning strike too?
How did you know that?!?
one thing I do..always is be aware of my sorroundings.
Well, lets take it a step further. Suppose your neighbor gets his door kicked in and is brutally murdered. It's the first murder in years in your city, but you certainly won't change your way of thinking and carry a gun in your home, because the odds are in your favor that you won't be the second of 2 in your neighborhood to have this happen, right? Personally I don't give a tinker's damn about odds; they are in my favor, also. But I also have a handicapped wife that is pretty much helpless, and I couldn't live with her being hurt when the simple act of carrying a gun that neither bothers me, nor interferes with my daily life might have prevented it. Some of us carry as much as possible for many reasons. Those that don't, need to get over it. You're starting to sound like you're the ones trying to justify the "need" to take it off.The folks I raise an eyebrow at are the ones who justify their packing with statistics like "40% of all assaults occur at home."
Is that a national statistic? Is it based upon NCIC reports or is it based upon sampling? What are the same statistics for MY neighborhood? What if in MY city, only 2% of all assaults occur at home and I live in a city of over 200,000? That comes back to your odds--based upon the "inarguable" statistics--of being assaulted in your home are only one in one-hundred thousand.
It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience.if for no other reason than the fact that it just has to be damn uncomfortable.
Hey! I've got an idea! Don't carry at home--it solves all those problems neatly. The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home....when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.
Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?And what percentage of those 2 million times were in the home? Of those, what percentage were people who carry in the home? My guess is not many at all.
It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.And here's the kicker... it has to be just the perfect situation in which having a loaded firearm, readily accessible isn't going to be helpful, but one on your hip is. I submit that this type of situation is so absolutely unlikely that probably even can't be measured.
Ignoring your made up statistics, I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation. I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.I bet that some of the people who carry at home are smokers. They are going to sit here and argue that something with a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening is worth precaution, but they cant be bothered to stop something that has a 1 in 3 chance or whatever of killing them?
...when I get home and want to have a meal and relax, the last thing I want is some gun poking me in the side while I sit, or hanging from a belt.
It HAS to be? Not surprisingly since concealment is a total non-issue, carry at home is far more comfortable than carry outside the home in my experience.
The problem here isn't that someone's trying to force you to carry at home, the problem is that you, for some reason, have gotten bent out of shape because there are people who do carry at home.
Why would you be GUESSING? You've been saying that the stats don't support carry at home. Are you now saying that you don't even know the stats?
It's already been pointed out (and explained) on this thread that carrying a firearm offers benefits other than immediate access.
Ignoring your made up statistics
I'll point out that the reason for this has also been explained more than once on this thread. People decide to prepare for outcomes that concern them and ignore those that don't, regardless of the statistics that govern the situation.
I might add that the next step is that people who choose not to prepare for a particular situation typically ridicule those who do.
If I'm dressed, I have a belt on--always have as long as I can remember.Well it may be the surfer in me, but belts or shoulder rigs just don't reek of comfort when the only other things you're wearing are sandals and boardshorts.
All I can say is that it's not UNcomfortable. Most of the time I don't even think about it.You've got a hunk of steel hanging somewhere and/or protruding into something. Its just not comfortable compared to the alternative.
This makes no sense--have you ever carried a concealed gun? The fact that a gun must be concealed definitely places more restrictions on where/how it must be carried in order to not be visible. That almost always translates to reduced comfort unless you can get away with throwing on a heavy covering garment (which would ALSO result in reduced comfort, from my perspective.)Whether its concealed or not is irrelevant.
This is calling several people who've posted on this thread liars. What's even more irritating is that you're calling them liars based on your claimed ability to divine their thoughts and motives over the internet.I just think it BS to use stats to justify carrying at home.
Do it cause you like it. Don't hide behind some sham argument.
You asked for an example, I gave you an "example of a situation (not involving crime or home invasion) where one might find it useful to have a gun while at home". The point wasn't that the situation listed was one where a gun was the only solution or the best solution but that it was a situation where a firearm might be useful. I'm not going to look until I find an example of a situation that you proclaim is a perfect situation in which to use a firearm, because it's clear that is not going to happen.I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't feel too comfortable shooting at a dog thats right next to my kid or any kid. Actually given the choice between a pistol and a 2x4 I'd take the latter. Especially since such an action borders on criminal negligence if something went wrong.
Please cite a source for the statistics that an in home self-defense situation calling for the rapid deployment of a firearm has "a .00000000000000000000001% chance of happening". If you can't then you may feel free to admit that you did, in fact, make up a statistic, and then incorrectly contradicted me when I pointed it out.There isn't anything made up about what I've said.
You're certainly entitled to think what you want, but the fact is that kind of behavior is more normal than it is weird.However when someone places such a priority on something almost guaranteed not to happen, and then ignores things that are almost certianly are, there are those of us who are going to think said people are just wierd.
Your whole argument, stated repeatedly, is that statistics don't justify carrying at home. It's fine for you to admit that you're not the "answer man" and don't know the applicable statistics but it's not fine for you to simultaneously claim that you have the final answer on whether or not it's statistically justified.Because I'm not the shell answer man. Suffice it to say that a majority of people that use a firearm to defend themselves in the home, aren't carrying. Thats the point I was making, and thats all thats needed to support my argument. The actual number is irrelevant.
Don't smoke. (Apparently your remote thought divination skills are breaking down.)So open another pack and light up
And yet you still think you know what goes on in my home.which seems to constitute a majority of time you're at home)
You realize that basing your argument on things you claim I'm doing that you can not possibly have any knowledge of and on statistics that you admit you have no knowledge of is... Well, I guess this is why I keep coming back to the idea that your argument seems to be more emotional than logical.while you take steps to undermine the "preparation" you are undertaking.
Ummm... You realize that you contradicted me and then gave an example of a situation where you did just what I say is typical? For the record, I didn't claim that in every situation the person being ridiculed is being ridiculed unjustly. The point was, rather, that it's human nature to try to ridicule those who prepare beyond the level we feel is necessary so that we don't have to admit that they might have a point.No, not really.