Why I carry - even at home.

NavyDoc

luciddream
Kinda ironic.. you guys are suppose to be "free" yet living in constant fear...

That must be stressful to live where you are paranoid about getting getting robbed or killed. Screw that, my life would be sht if i had to live like that.

If i die, i die. At least enjoy the life.

You project your own insecurities upon others. People own fire extinguishers, but they do not live in fear of fire everyday. They have emergency kits in their cars but don't live in fear that they will be in a horrible accident everytime they get behind the wheel. We own firearms because they are tools that we might or might not need at some point. We don't fear them any more than we fear the lawnmower and we don't sit in our house in fear of crime any more than we sit in our house in fear of fire.

We enjoy life just fine--perhaps better--because we don't get all upset about the existence of inanimate objects.

I'd hazard a guess that you don't sit on your couch with your fire extinguisher as company awaiting that seemingly inevitable house fire.

What's gone wrong America, when did the term 'home invasion' become part of everyday life?

Aazadan

Laykilla
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.

Why would unarmed/unarmed result in a fight to the death? The burglar isn't attempting to kill you (unless they're on strike 3), instead they just want your stuff. In most cases they're fighting to restrain you as you are to them. Seeing as how they're the one acting as an intruder if they're at all prepared for it, they're going to fight better than you.

In the scenario where the burglar is armed and so are you, you skipped over the main factor. You have to be aware of their presence. In the OP the person heard their door rattle and thought nothing of it. Her guard was down, if the burglar came in with a weapon drawn she would not have been in a proper position to fight back. If the burglar saw her going for the weapon, escalation would have happened. As I said, you'll win this a small amount of the time, but the majority of cases involve the burglar winning.

This has nothing to do with a video game, there are 4 armed/unarmed states that can occur. Some actual analysis of those 4 states lets you figure out where the outcomes are best for you. As I pointed out that's for burglary only, there's another set for rape, assault, and so on.

swimmer15
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Scenario E: Burglar breaks in, sees your unarmed... Crams you in room and commences to violently beat and rape your mother, takes valuables before he walks out the door.... Was about 4... Only scenario I've ever personally witnessed. Lucky he didn't decide he needed to kill us both to ensure no witnesses.. Guess in your mind the criminal is the one who deserves that choice, and should be free to do it with no risk and little fear of being caught.

This is actually a variation on scenario A, they're armed and you aren't. As I pointed out in my post however it had to do with burglary only as that's the most common. The rape scenario has a completely different set of outcomes since the motive changes.

ruderalis1
Ehhh I'd rather have a pistol/firearm on or near me and actually have a fighting chance rather than to hope and pray I dont get a crap beat out of me until I die,shot,stabbed etc etc

Im not willing to take chances with Bad apples...I've seen way too many videos on Liveleak..


Anywho heres a link to a great website with news stories/links to some great Self Defense stories...Updated often too!

gunsnfreedom.com...

Most crime outside of gang related activity is non violent in nature. I don't know the exact numbers but lets say it's 90%, the chart I made is relatively accurate in outcome for the non violent activity. When it comes to violent activity however I completely agree that you want to be armed. The problem is that outside of some specific localized activity you can't be certain of the criminals intentions before the crime takes place, which means you can't determine which decision path is correct (going for your weapon or not). So the default becomes going for it, as you wouldn't have it otherwise. That gives you a better chance against the rapist or the murderer in those 10% of crimes where it's a factor, but it also gives you a significantly worse set of outcomes in the other 90% of crime.

So it comes down to what would you prefer? A worse set of outcomes on average with the worst case scenarios being significantly improved, or a better set of outcomes on average with a considerably worse worst case scenario?

edit on 12-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

Yeah no.

It's a fight to the death. If you are winning and there is a heavy object/weapon in range of the intruder, you don't think he'll attempt to use it?

If you're winning, he'll probably fear for his life unless he surrenders, ensue a fight to the death.

Clearly you've never fought before.

Also; you have no idea what the intruder is there for, it could be murder/rape/theft, and there being an intruder, you have to expect any and all motives, you can't just say "Oh he probably just wants my stuff."

Check out a Fort Myers FL case against a man named Brian Casey. This dude was an intruder with intent to kill, and succeeded. He didn't want "Stuff" he wanted to take a life. Case and point.

If you have a gun; and they don't, and the intent isn't murder or rape or violence, you will not have to shoot anybody because the intruder will flee when he realizes there is opposition. So no; the outcome is not negative for owning a gun.

The intruder is not going to kill you with your weapon, or even attempt to secure it if he had no violent intention.


Also; back to your "The OP was unaware." She wouldn't have been had the intruder succeeded in popping the lock. She heard the jiggle and then it went away, had he have not gone away; she would have heard other sounds following which would have set off alarms that something wasn't right.


Even if she was completely unaware there was an intruder, and she was carrying on her person -- by you're random made up numbers nonsense; she'd still be in advantage, because if only 10% of intruders are violent, she'd have all the time in the world to pull out her weapon and make a stand.

Lets assume that the intruder was violent and had intentions of bodily harm/murder. Not carrying would give her zero chance; as opposed to SOME chance.

Clearly some chance is better than 0. Also, if someone has the drop on you and they have a weapon; tactically it's unsound to attempt to pull yours while they already have theirs out. So; no -- not many trained or educated people would do that, at that point in time; you could attempt a dialogue.

It's also very stupid to carry a gun for self defense with a "safety toggle." The best firearms are the ones that do not require a safety switch. I.E. A glock or m1911. The safety is the trigger in the glock, the safety is a squeeze grip in the Colt. No switches required, it's just pull and shoot.

P.S.

If an intruder breaks in; regardless of motive, and assaults me; I'm not going to attempt to "Restrain" him since I don't know his motive, I'm going to attempt to disable him as quick as possible.

This is the ONLY proper response. Disable means I'll take whatever opportunity I have to end the fight. If this means crushing his larynx, or shooting him, or throwing a baseball at his head, I'll do it.

If this means I get him in a rear naked choke, I'm not going to choke him out, I'm going to extend and separate his spinal column, going for the choke is way too risky and gives him too much time to prevent my choke and turn the tides, extension is death in 2 seconds or less.

The faster a resolution is found, the less at risk you are. So going for "restraint" is almost always going to fail. Every second a fight lingers, you are at more danger of losing. And losing; could mean your life.

You have to account that the intruder doesn't know your intentions either, and as such; the rules of engagement are the same, end the fight as quickly as possible to increase the odds of success. They WILL NOT go for restraint.

Only a person with limited to ZERO experience fighting would imagine restraint to be a valid tactic.

Also, you ignore other factors, such as size relevance. I'm 5'9" 155 lbs. If an intruder breaks in my house at 6'4" with a reach nearly double mine, even trained I'm at disadvantage, which means my ability to "restrain" is even more improbable, therefor; going for restraint is clearly the stupid choice.

You only go for restraint if you are the intruder and you are not alone and equipped with gear and tactics that increase the chances of successful restraint.

I.E. 5v1 equipped with tazers and flash bang grenades. Swat style, and even they; if they feel at risk will go lethal before restraint if the odds are not clearly in their favor.

The idea of carrying is to be prepared for ALL situations, it doesn't mean auto pull and shoot. It means pull and shoot when you're at advantage; if it's tactically appropriate, you do not reveal that you are carrying.

So again; if the intruder is likely to not be violent, carrying does NOT decrease your chances of survival. If the intruder IS violent, carrying DOES increase your chance of survival.

Therefor; sound logic dictates that carrying is the appropriate preparation.

kingmonkey

NavyDoc

luciddream
Kinda ironic.. you guys are suppose to be "free" yet living in constant fear...

That must be stressful to live where you are paranoid about getting getting robbed or killed. Screw that, my life would be sht if i had to live like that.

If i die, i die. At least enjoy the life.

You project your own insecurities upon others. People own fire extinguishers, but they do not live in fear of fire everyday. They have emergency kits in their cars but don't live in fear that they will be in a horrible accident everytime they get behind the wheel. We own firearms because they are tools that we might or might not need at some point. We don't fear them any more than we fear the lawnmower and we don't sit in our house in fear of crime any more than we sit in our house in fear of fire.

We enjoy life just fine--perhaps better--because we don't get all upset about the existence of inanimate objects.

I'd hazard a guess that you don't sit on your couch with your fire extinguisher as company awaiting that seemingly inevitable house fire.

What's gone wrong America, when did the term 'home invasion' become part of everyday life?

Since home invasions happen every single day, in every single state, in every single country, on every single continent.

It's happened to me TWICE, it's happened to my girl friend once. I've also been car jacked at gun point [unsuccessful] just driving from NY back to FL. I've also been in a half a dozen random fights, from disgruntled employees at a vehicle lettering and paint shop, to crazy road raging drivers that forced me off the road, to power tripping bouncers at clubs, to jealous ex boy friends.

Never once was I the aggressor. My experience is, the more people you engage with, the more you travel, the higher the probability you WILL be a target.

You can minimize altercations by not leaving home and keeping zero friends -- but the further you deviate from that, the more at risk you are that the inevitable attack on your person will ensue. If you keep a houseful of luxuries, big screen TV's, nice furniture, or even illegal things such as drugs or contraband, the more people that you let in your house, the more people know the value of the contents, the greater risk you're at for home invasion.

This is NOT paranoia, this is real life. Have nots want what you do have. It's that simple. Sometimes what they want is you dead; sometimes what they want is whats in your bank, sometimes what they want is what sleeps next to you. The more you have, and the more people know what you have, the greater your risk.

This is why I don't invite people into my home that I don't know for over 5 years. It helps mitigate that risk.

And you're correct, I don't sit on my couch cuddling a fire extinguisher. I do have smoke detectors and multiple fire extinguishers in my house. I've had my kitchen go ablaze before, put it out myself. Because I was prepared.

[My Mom had come over and decided to make deep fried homemade french fries, a neighbor stole her attention and she had left the kitchen unattended and I had a massive grease fire that we both working together were able to stop in under 30 seconds.]

That's the point of being prepared.

As the sign says hanging outside my house. "The doors are locked for your protection, not mine. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK"

The meat of this anti-pro bickering is hilarious at best. I will not even to begin to get into it with the naysayers. Good on you OP and glad you are ok. Ive been home invaded and it wasnt pretty for them thanks to me and my significant other carrying always!! I lost a good dog that day thanks to him defending his home from thugs that wanted to take what wasnt theirs by force. One of them shot and killed him as he charged them. They were met with the same force they came in our home with. And thats all ive got to say about that.

CeeRZ


No, I never leave my doors unlocked.

Are you sure?

CeeRZ
I had been in and out my front door and had left it unlocked between my trips outside...

hmmmm

aorAki

CeeRZ


No, I never leave my doors unlocked.

Are you sure?

CeeRZ
I had been in and out my front door and had left it unlocked between my trips outside...

hmmmm

Do you lock the door between trips to your car outside? Or to your mail-box? I had my arms full and hadn't locked the door on my last trip. My husband locked it on his way out. Aside from a few minutes a day, they are locked.

reply to post by CeeRZ


No I don't and I don't carry either.

However, you said that you never leave your doors unlocked and then you say you did...which is it?

reply to post by CeeRZ


YEA! good for you, and do whatever you think will keep you and your fam safe.

kingmonkey

NavyDoc

luciddream
Kinda ironic.. you guys are suppose to be "free" yet living in constant fear...

That must be stressful to live where you are paranoid about getting getting robbed or killed. Screw that, my life would be sht if i had to live like that.

If i die, i die. At least enjoy the life.

You project your own insecurities upon others. People own fire extinguishers, but they do not live in fear of fire everyday. They have emergency kits in their cars but don't live in fear that they will be in a horrible accident everytime they get behind the wheel. We own firearms because they are tools that we might or might not need at some point. We don't fear them any more than we fear the lawnmower and we don't sit in our house in fear of crime any more than we sit in our house in fear of fire.

We enjoy life just fine--perhaps better--because we don't get all upset about the existence of inanimate objects.

I'd hazard a guess that you don't sit on your couch with your fire extinguisher as company awaiting that seemingly inevitable house fire.

What's gone wrong America, when did the term 'home invasion' become part of everyday life?

It's in easy reach. What difference does it make if it is one foot away or ten? I'm guessing you would sit on your couch and watch a fire spread waiting for the fire brigade rather than put it out yourself.

So you're saying that my 'Oh No Not You Again!' welcome mat won't do the trick?

I can't help but read this thread and wonder how it correlates, or not, with yesterday's shooting of a young father texting in a movie theater by a seemingly newly mentally ill ex-police captain.

And yeah, I nominate for summary execution anyone who at any time burgles, robs or home invades anyone else. Darwin at work and save the criminal justice system the money and time.

reply to post by CeeRZ


Hey, even mostly safe areas can have crime, and some famous murders have happened in pretty isolated areas, too! You never know! I virtually never leave the door unlocked, and we are in a smaller town, with low crime, too. Even here, though, a woman was mugged on the sidewalk that runs beside our house! Apparently, she didn't call for help, either. I told the cop investigating that was a shame, because I would have been there with the dog and the Glock! You just don't ever know. Even "safe" people can be off, too. One delivery guy, can't recall which carrier, stopped coming here, because every time he did, the dog would bark at him, and this isn't a dog that barks normally. Even most delivery people don't get a second look. He did, and one pizza guy did (who also came only the once!). Let them complain; you are doing the wise thing, and if they become targets, they will understand.

An older gentleman and wife in a nice neighborhood with 2 B.G.s who thought they could get away with (?)... Wonder how this would have turned out without the ability to stop the base ball bat wielding poor misunderstood assailant?