They most certainly will if their CCW holster isn't as comfortable as their open carry holster. Just like they take off their suit or high heels, and change into something more comfortable when they get home.
Very very doubtful. However, the overall point was that the most comfortable holster is far more unconfortable than not carrying.
Where you live, what do they call it when someone is not forthcoming and makes up reasons to hide the truth? Everywhere I've been they call it lying.
You are calling some of the people posting on this thread liars based on what you believe they are thinking. I can see why you want to take this approach, it's EASY. It doesn't require you to actually do any research, it doesn't require you to find some statistics. It doesn't even require that you construct a logical argument. All you have to do is say: "You folks who disagree with me are lying to prevent me and others from calling you paranoid."
That is not a discussion, that is an insult.
No, I think some part of them believes that there is a statistical chance that they might face a home invasion, because thats simply a fact. However I also think that they know its not going to happen and carry cause they like it.
Same reason lots of people buy trucks or 4x4s. Most people will never take it off road or use it for its intended purpose. When you ask them why they bought it they will list you all the cool stuff it can do, all the hills it can climb, and all the stuff it can haul. However deep down, most just bought it cause they wanted a truck.
Its not lying, its just not offering the whole truth.
Basically what you're saying is that unless this technique can improve your safety 100% of the time while you're at home it's not worth employing. That doesn't follow.
No, I'm saying that if your reason for carrying is the statistics, then carrying at home really doesn't provide you with much of a benefit because the nature of activities done in the home prohibit carry much of the time and the chances of a readily accessible firearm not being sufficient are slim to none.
In order to begin to make a cogent argument from this, you would have to examine the cases where people FAILED to defend themselves with firearms and determine how often they HAD firearms in the house but could not access them in time to respond. In short, this is not a reasonable argument because you have no data to support your claim. I do agree that it is "really quite simple", however.
The argument is perfectly fine. Most gun owners don't carry in the home. Most people who have defended themselves with a firearm in their home weren't carrying. I'm going to assume you agree with these two assertions (which you should).
According to the UCR, in 2006, there were 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the US. There were approximately 300 million people living in the US. That means you have a .4% chance of facing violent crime in general. However we aren't talking about violent crime in general, we are talking about crime in the home.
There were approximately 290k violent crimes committed in the home. That means you have a .09% chance of facing a home invasion. Of course this doesn't take into account high crime areas versus low crime areas, so if you live in the suburbs, your chances are lower. Furthermore, these stats don't take into account crime comitted by family members (which accounts for an overwhelming majority of assaults in the home as well as some rapes) so this lowers the percentage even further still.
So after some generous fuzzy math, lets say that someone who lives in a normal nice suburb and isn't going to shoot their wife/brother/uncle has a .045% chance of facing a home invasion. This .045% constitutes 100% of the situations that a home owner is going to face. Within this 100% there is going to be a percentage of situations that a home owner faces that simply having a gun won't be sufficient. Now since we know that most gun owners don't carry at home, and by consequence, most crimes prevented by gun owners are done by those who don't carry, only a small portion of this 100% is going to be a situation in which having a readily accessible firearm isn't sufficient.
So lets be generous and say that 30% of all home invasions are the type where having the gun in the nightstand isn't going to cut it. That means the chances of you facing this situation are somewhere around .01%.
Contrast this with the 9% chance americans have of developing some form of serious heart disease, or the .1% chance of dying from a smoke related illness, or the 40k plus people killed every year on the road and you see where the inconsistency lies.
Simply put, you can't say "I carry at home because I value my life" and then take other actions that work in immediate contradiction to the valuation that you've professed.
On top of that, your argument TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ignores the fact that there are more people involved than the person carrying the firearm. Sorry honey, I could have had my gun on me, prevented the home invasion and defended you and the kids but STAGE2 would have called me a hypocrite since I'm overweight and don't want to diet.
Whether there are more people involved has nothing to do with the odds of facing a home invasion.
And again, whether someone does it isn't the issue. I don't really care. But yes someone is a hypocrite if they carry to defend their life, but then undermine this in other areas of their life.
Both you and I know that there isn't any other area in which someone would take a precaution based on a .01% chance of something happening, and yet with guns, people somehow find the gumption to be vigilant. I'm fairly certian that this has more to do with the "mystique" or novelty of packing a gun than any genuine concern of facing a home invasion.
.
