Why I carry - even at home.

you've got my support! All of the agenda to take our weapons away are only for the benefit of the elite (screw Nancy Pelosi). Once they take our weapons away. Not only will we be defenceless against the government...but the criminals who couldn't care less about the gun laws will still have their guns and every law abiding citizen will be a sitting duck for these jerks...as well as those rogue cops. The elites don't care about this though...because they are trying to break America down to submission and get us to "need" them. Unfortunately...the cops never get there until the crime has already happened...which means that every American will be just as good as dead and have nothing but luck to protect them. Not good odds. We realy need to protect what's left of the constitution.

I don't have a gun, a friend of mine has several. There's one in his car, one at the desk he spends 99% of his time at, and one in his bedroom, all handguns. In addition to that he has a shotgun and a rifle, though he doesn't expect to use those for defense due to their placement (he's in a wheelchair so quick mobility is an issue).

I've had this discussion with him before that while those guns make him feel safer, they actually put him in a more dangerous position. I'll go back to the OP's example for this. Lets say the door wasn't locked and the burglar came in. There's a few scenarios that could have played out:

Scenario A: The burglar is armed, knows you are there and proceeds to prevent you from interfering first. The vast majority of these cases don't involve murder. Not only do most people (even criminals) shy away from it, but whether or not you're murdered they're intent on taking your stuff. Most criminals also know that there's a chance they'll be caught. When their expected outcome is the same either way, why take the higher risk path to that outcome? You would be tied up, frightened, and lose some stuff, but you probably wouldn't be killed. The burglar wins.

Scenario B: You're both armed. The burglar is going to come in with a weapon drawn looking for you. You on the other hand are reading a book. You have to react to get your gun, then locate the person, and then fire. The burglar is either going to have a gun on you before you can make a move, or is going to be forced to shoot you to defend himself. Possibly shooting you just due to threat escalation. Here you're harmed/killed, and the burglar gets what they want. The burglar wins 95% of the time.

Scenario C: The burglar isn't armed and you are. A confrontation occurs. They run for it. Do you shoot a fleeing burglar knowing the law isn't on your side (threat of harm has passed)? Either you do and no one wins, or you don't and you each win, the burglar got away and you were protected. Here you tie 50% of the time, and you win 50% of the time.

Scenario D: Neither of you are armed. The burglar comes in, finds you, and a confrontation occurs. Someone wins a fight. I imagine this usually goes to the burglar but I'll say it's 50/50 because a burglar stupid enough to go into a dwelling with lights on probably isn't a talented enough criminal to know they need the ability to win a fight.

So the results:
Burglar - Wins 2.45/4 = 62%
You - Win 1.05/4 = 26%
Tie - 12%

They're more than twice as likely as you to win that outcome. In the scenarios where you're armed the bad guy wins 48% of the time while you win 27.5% of the time. In outcomes where you win, the bad guy gets away. In scenarios where the bad guy wins you die. When weighing the value of events it seems like a losing outcome to get into these situations. You're winning just over 1/4 of the time, and 2/3 of the time you don't win, end up with you being dead.

However in the scenarios where you aren't armed, the burglar wins 75% of the time, and you win 25% of the time. In the scenarios where you win the burglar actually ends up being captured and prosecuted, while in the scenarios where you lose you end up unharmed (physically atleast). The win/loss rate is similar when armed or unarmed, but when unarmed not only is the payoff higher when you do win, but the outcome of losing isn't nearly as bad.

This doesn't take into account scenarios like gang violence, rapists, or so on. Just burglary. It also doesn't account for things like three strikes laws which make the punishment for low level theft and murder equal. Which means they have nothing to lose by killing you on strike 3 (infact it becomes safer for them to do so).

That aside, no condemnation here for you choosing to own a weapon, as I believe you're entitled to defend yourself in any way you see fit (note: this actually goes beyond the scope of just the Second Amendment). I just happen to think that when evaluating the possible outcomes, this is a situation where it's better to be unarmed, escalating a situation isn't doing you any good, the best defense here for your person (though not your property) is to not resist. It's also worth pointing out that locking your door is what kept you safe, not the gun.

reply to post by AndyMayhew

No it just means that if they come with an axe you will lose, when this person would have won with a fire-arm!!!

reply to post by Nola213


Please listen sir, to the man that teaches your class. Hang on his every word. The info he passes to you may save your life and the lives of your loved ones.

I have a CPL also. I train at the gun range every three weeks. Learn to use your weapon. Be comfortable with it. Have a plan.

I will use my weapon as a very last resort. I will try and walk away, talk my way out of, or run from a bad guy. If I can see no other option, I will not hesitate to defend my self to the very best of my ability. If my weapon clears my leather, bad guy will have a very bad case of lead poisoning.

If your gun range offers defence classes, take it. Don't think that just because you have a permit, and use to shoot, that you CAN shoot. Training is a must ! When and if you ever come to the point where you have no choice but to defend your self, you will get a massive adrenalin dump. Your fine motor skills go out the window. You will be lucky if you can find your back side with both hands. At that point, your training must be what saves your life.

Good luck to you sir, and I hope you will never use your weapon.

reply to post by trumpet

They can have the stuff in my house, car, garage. You cant shoot someone for or while they are stealing your stuff because its just STUFF. That is not self defense, and that is taught in firearm certification classes to carry a firearm.

Yell "STOP THIEF!" while you catch him running out your backdoor with your laptop and wifes jewelry and shoot him. For him, he was ROBBING. For you? It becomes attempted murder....BECAUSE he was running away from you (with your stuff.)

Screwed up world we live in. But there are more reasons to NOT fire at a fleeing suspect...than TO fire. But if I had been with my wife that time and they demanded my wallet...I'd have reached behind for it...and...they would both be dead now.

Thanks MS

(PS. Im a keyboard player as well....how did they get the pianos out?????!!!)

Firing inside a house, frangible ammo is your friend. Most of my in-house sidearms are loaded with Glaser safety slugs.

reply to post by CeeRZ


This is a reason to be carrying a gun??? Seems like locking your door sufficed. Are you suggesting that the fact that you might forget to lock you door, thereby making it easy for an intruder to enter your house is reason to be carrying a gun around in your house?

Sounds like you're just trying to rationalize your gun-toting paranoia.

Now could some would-be domestic invader break-in, intending to do physical harm to you or your family? Yes, there is always a chance of that, however remote it may be. Sure, having a gun in the house is protection against that, but so is having a bat, or club. The difference is that it's much harder for someone to be mistakenly killed with a bat or club than with a gun that's setting around.

I'm not poo-pooing the notion of having a gun securely locked away in one's house for secuirty, but to keep a loaded gun lying around for the faintest probability of someone breaking in is asking for trouble, particularly if there are children in the house, or people get drunk from time to time.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Came in through the window and opened the door and into a truck. Had just bought a new yamaha for my gigs and was pretty excited to try out that weekend. They also took my dad's old Roland. I was devastated. Cops were able to retrieve both boards but I lost my Tuba, which was not easy to find. At the time I was playing 3-4 gigs a week, so had to pull out my old malfunctioning Kurzweil. All is good now and that Yamaha was a beast! Hit that thing hard for the next ten years!

reply to post by trumpet

Ive got a few Yamaha's... an 88 key Stage Piano, an older DX7, and a Roland synth (JX-3P) myself. I thought you meant PIANOS-pianos!!!!

AndyMayhew
reply to post by CeeRZ

 

I get what you are saying, but it seems to me that the burglars didn't ignore you because you had a gun (they didn't know that, and who knows, they may have had 2 machines guns on them?) but because you were home. Had you not been home, having a gun would have made no difference.

I have a number of weapons in my house (but no gun) - but no-one knows that so it's not a deterrent to burglars. It just means I can kill them in the very unlikely event they walk through my unlocked door with the intend on struggling very hard to find anything worth stealing

(note: not that I would kill them, obviously!

)

It's not about being a deterrent; she never said it was... Only that if her door wasn't locked, she wouldn't have been defenseless.

If she had no gun; she would have been defenseless. Again; her being home wasn't the deterrent, it was the deadbolt that got locked by habit.

Don't try to twist peoples words, that never gets you far.

As a side note; locks don't always keep people out. I know from experience. So don't go saying "We don't need guns, we just need locks" because that again, ignores the point.

The point is, no matter how safe you THINK you are; you aren't. Being prepared equates to your best chance of survival as long as you are properly trained to use your preparations.

This has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with keeping a nice precautionary preparation for the "what if" moment. Because it CAN happen to everyone; and it WILL happen to some....

Aazadan
I don't have a gun, a friend of mine has several. There's one in his car, one at the desk he spends 99% of his time at, and one in his bedroom, all handguns. In addition to that he has a shotgun and a rifle, though he doesn't expect to use those for defense due to their placement (he's in a wheelchair so quick mobility is an issue).

I've had this discussion with him before that while those guns make him feel safer, they actually put him in a more dangerous position. I'll go back to the OP's example for this. Lets say the door wasn't locked and the burglar came in. There's a few scenarios that could have played out:

Scenario A: The burglar is armed, knows you are there and proceeds to prevent you from interfering first. The vast majority of these cases don't involve murder. Not only do most people (even criminals) shy away from it, but whether or not you're murdered they're intent on taking your stuff. Most criminals also know that there's a chance they'll be caught. When their expected outcome is the same either way, why take the higher risk path to that outcome? You would be tied up, frightened, and lose some stuff, but you probably wouldn't be killed. The burglar wins.

Scenario B: You're both armed. The burglar is going to come in with a weapon drawn looking for you. You on the other hand are reading a book. You have to react to get your gun, then locate the person, and then fire. The burglar is either going to have a gun on you before you can make a move, or is going to be forced to shoot you to defend himself. Possibly shooting you just due to threat escalation. Here you're harmed/killed, and the burglar gets what they want. The burglar wins 95% of the time.

Scenario C: The burglar isn't armed and you are. A confrontation occurs. They run for it. Do you shoot a fleeing burglar knowing the law isn't on your side (threat of harm has passed)? Either you do and no one wins, or you don't and you each win, the burglar got away and you were protected. Here you tie 50% of the time, and you win 50% of the time.

Scenario D: Neither of you are armed. The burglar comes in, finds you, and a confrontation occurs. Someone wins a fight. I imagine this usually goes to the burglar but I'll say it's 50/50 because a burglar stupid enough to go into a dwelling with lights on probably isn't a talented enough criminal to know they need the ability to win a fight.

So the results:
Burglar - Wins 2.45/4 = 62%
You - Win 1.05/4 = 26%
Tie - 12%

They're more than twice as likely as you to win that outcome. In the scenarios where you're armed the bad guy wins 48% of the time while you win 27.5% of the time. In outcomes where you win, the bad guy gets away. In scenarios where the bad guy wins you die. When weighing the value of events it seems like a losing outcome to get into these situations. You're winning just over 1/4 of the time, and 2/3 of the time you don't win, end up with you being dead.

However in the scenarios where you aren't armed, the burglar wins 75% of the time, and you win 25% of the time. In the scenarios where you win the burglar actually ends up being captured and prosecuted, while in the scenarios where you lose you end up unharmed (physically atleast). The win/loss rate is similar when armed or unarmed, but when unarmed not only is the payoff higher when you do win, but the outcome of losing isn't nearly as bad.

This doesn't take into account scenarios like gang violence, rapists, or so on. Just burglary. It also doesn't account for things like three strikes laws which make the punishment for low level theft and murder equal. Which means they have nothing to lose by killing you on strike 3 (infact it becomes safer for them to do so).

That aside, no condemnation here for you choosing to own a weapon, as I believe you're entitled to defend yourself in any way you see fit (note: this actually goes beyond the scope of just the Second Amendment). I just happen to think that when evaluating the possible outcomes, this is a situation where it's better to be unarmed, escalating a situation isn't doing you any good, the best defense here for your person (though not your property) is to not resist. It's also worth pointing out that locking your door is what kept you safe, not the gun.

edit on 11-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

Your entire premise is illogical; and all those percent chances are meaningless. If a burgler breaks in, and neither of you are armed and a physical altercation arises; almost certainly it's a fight to the death.

If a burgler comes in armed, and you're armed, and you're alarmed to his presence; you know the lay of the land, the layout of the house, you have advantage everytime; even if they are skilled marksmen. If they entered with a fire arm, you're dead, you aren't getting tied to a chair and beaten if you're discovered. If you have a firearm and a superior position; you can also have the chance to diffuse the situation without a body count, something you cannot do without chucking a very risky bluff; and if he calls you and you're empty handed, you're dead.

If a burgler comes in not armed, and you are armed, chances are he'll turn tail and run; and if he chooses to attack, you put him down.

The home owner is in advantage in EVERY SINGLE scenario listed but only if the home owner is armed; not the other way around. Real world is not a video game; if you aren't prepared and you lose, it's not game over press start to continue; you're dead, pal.

Being armed against an intruder is likely 80% to none that you'll be the victor provided they don't get the jump on you.

If they don't have firearms, they aren't likely to kill you with yours either unless you start a fight; and the first shot that pops will make them turn tail so fast it's not even funny. Having a firearm doesn't equate to HAVING to use it or reveal that you have it; that's where training and tactical decision making becomes important.

The most critical distinction you "don't need a gun" supporters fail to make.

reply to post by CeeRZ


I agree with you 100%. My wife and I live in an area similar to yours and we both carry. Don't let the anti gun idiots on this site doubt your decision one bit. and by the way my decision might be snap, but it won't be hard. Carry on....

Okay.. same old responses to this type of thread makes me want to respond in a manner that expresses my frustration with the big picture and hopefully reveals my considered thoughts.

Why do you guys allow BS thugs, by virtue of your own constitution, and by default, to threaten your own safety when it's the proliferation of these weapons (by your own 'right') in general that leads to your own propensity to wield similar weapons in your own defense, which in its own right propagates and compels antagonists to use force against your own selves? It makes no sense at all. At the same time, because so many guns are out there now.. of course! many of you are compelled to 'carry', and quite rightly... however it's a most moronic circle that could've been rectified decades ago. Instead you allowed firms to profit off your fear, whilst at the same time fed the monster that feeds that fear, and the 'pieces' you own only serves (as a whole) a greater purpose that does NOT include your personal safety, but rather acts against it?

Bravo?

reply to post by justreleased


It's funny, because 80%+ of the people I see buying their first gun after a incident (robbery, home invasion, etc.) they all hated guns and had your same response towards people carrying.

Almost every week gun owners kill or at least stop home invasion thugs, only 5% to 10% cases hits the Media. Most of this thugs are armed with guns or knives. I have ZERO tolerance, you enter my house uninvited you are done. My daughters and wife safety comes first, then I will ask the questions.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


What about when something like Katrina happens? Or when theres a winter storm and the system/roads, etc shut down? When my generator, gas, and other emergency supply's makes a difference wether i live or not? Same rules apply, Its just stuff? What if there stealing the very drugs that keep me alive? Just stuff?
Responsibility is optional in this country, shows with welfare rolls, so no point in arguing that robber is responsible (at least should be) for their actions, regardless of the outcome.

Good for you! Me personally, I don't carry in my home but I have quick access to my gun cabinet should the need arise. I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't lock all my doors and windows, even though I live in a neighborhood that rarely has crime. But it's your right and you can do whatever you see fit. I would ask that if you have children or anyone who is mentally ill in the home, to please don't leave a loaded gun lying around.

justreleased
reply to post by CeeRZ

 

I feel sad for you if you feel the need to carry a gun/weapon in order to feel safe.

It is your right but.....whatever. Some people are thick.

Does this make your side of the argument more credible? So you're... thicker?

No arguments present... next...

Maxatoria
If the USA is going that paranoid i'm amazed they can take a shower or any other activity that involves water or both hand without one hand being on a gun sometimes and i have this vision of bubba on the can with a 12 bore pointing at the door

The current government of the USA teaches envy, self-pity and theft. It isn't so much about paranoia as it is fact. Obama and his kind tell the citizens that they should all be equal and have the same things. They imply that if your neighbor has a flat-screen TV and you don't...it isn't fair and you should envy them and want what they have. If you believe in redistribution, you have to want what others have or it is pointless. The democrats demand your self-pity..."why don't I have what they have?", etc. Again, without that you can't have the final, key part. Theft. Regardless of why, it isn't fair in their opinion that one person be better off than another. Regardless of schooling, hard-work, luck etc. They believe in taking from those who have more to make us all "equal". And that is wrong because we are not equal...we are all different.

Example...if you believe in the redistribution of wealth consider this. You buy a lottery ticket by driving your car to a store and taking time out of your day. You walk in and pay with your money and buy a ticket, drive home, etc. You win a million dollars! Good for you. But that money is income which is why you pay tax on it. So...you should keep 1/300,000,000th of the money and share the rest...right? I mean, you shouldn't have more than your neighbor...right? "You didn't make that" as your president would say. Right? Well...same with your business, your income, etc. "You didn't make that".

And why do these extremely wealthy democrats want this? Why do they want redistribution? Well...it has nothing to do with you or your well being. It is for the votes. Fewer people are rich. More people are poor. So...if they steal from the rich and give to the poor...whose vote did they buy? Who will vote for them again to keep the theft going? The poor will benefit, at least from this robbery. But if you watch and watch closely, you will see these same liberals voting to raise their own salaries, using planes at our expense to go on vacation, paying for their vacations, buying or renting offices and mansions, etc. Do you see these people, these leaders that want money to redistribute selling their things? Not spending as much of your money? Nope. Are you getting it now? THEY ARE LYING TO YOU, USING YOU AND YOUR STUPIDITY. And only you can stop it.

Eventually, the host of the parasite will die if the parasite feeds to excess. And as much as I personally fall on the poorer side...guess who is the parasite? Yup...you and us. End this cycle created by the ones who control you. Your government.

reply to post by spoogemonkey


So... You feel that all these decades later that we law-abiding people should give up our guns, our right to self defense, and these BS thugs will become more gentle in the perpetration of their crimes?

Is this woman a hero to you for not owning a gun?
www.youtube.com...

Is this woman a villain for protecting her kids?
www.youtube.com...

What if these were your kids, home alone. Would you be happy knowing you disallowed them the chance to defend themselves and remain safe?
usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Should this man be prosecuted for protecting his business?
www.youtube.com...

These people should be willing victims?
www.youtube.com...

This 15 yr old girl makes so much more sense than you anti-gunners.
www.youtube.com...

As for those firms. We allow them to profit so that we can protect ourselves, protect our families, protect our property. But more importantly, to protect our freedom and liberty. Without those freedoms and liberties, we'd be just another socialist nanny state that so many in the world have allowed themselves to become. Non-Americans have given up their own freedoms, and seem to have forgotten what life was like before condemning themselves to a life of servitude to the state. You're forgotten what it's like to determine, live, and breathe your own destiny.

Granted, because of our progressive political class, both sides, we're heading down that road as well, unwillingly, but seemingly inevitably.

reply to post by Aazadan


Ha ha ha ha ha! Hypothetical scenarios are funny! Worthless, but funny! TFTL