At home, during the day

[W.E.G.]

You can buy a bunch of used Rugers or Smith & Wessons for the price of one high-end gun.

Load 'em up and stick 'em where you can get to 'em.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
So no, i don't carry at all times in the home.

That is your prerogative.

Yes, its my prerogative which i'm explaining in a thread related to said prerogative.

Quote:
Nor do i wear a helmet in a car, not avoid pulling into my driveway when there are other cars around, or use my dogs to taste test my food for poison before eating although i'm sure they'd be thrilled to.

Let's remain serious, shall we?

Yes, the comment is tongue in cheek but in reality one is exceedingly far more likely to suffer serious injury or death from an automobile accident induced head injury. So logic dictates a helmet is a far cheaper and more effective method of self preservation than carrying a gun at home.

Quote:
And many that do occur are against criminals by criminals.

We can eliminate those from consideration here.

The point is that by responding appropriately to strangers who knock the risk of a home invasion drops from extremely low to super duper low.

Quote:
... i take reasonable precautions that provide what i deem to be a favorable cost/benefit ratio.

Great. It costs me nothing to carry at home, and the degree of risk mitigation provides considerable benefit.

It doesnt cost me anything monetarily but it would certainly be burdensome. I'm simply not going to let fear of an extremely improbable situation dictate how i live in my home. I'm lucky to live in an area of the country with a relatively low crime rate so maybe if i lived elsewhere i'd reconsider but as it is my home defense is sufficient without infringing on how i wish to live.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

I really should think about this. Damn MA laws, they require us to lock up every gun so hiding them around the house would be harder. It's true though, that break-ins are more common during the day and I am home most days and am in charge of my family's two houses. I always have my G36 loaded up with a spare mag and my SR9c loaded with 2 spare mags. Maybe I'll move my shotgun closer to my room.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: ...in reality one is exceedingly far more likely to suffer serious injury or death from an automobile accident induced head injury. So logic dictates a helmet is a far cheaper and more effective method of self preservation than carrying a gun at home.

One really isn't, and the logic does no such thing.

First, the number of victims of violent crimes in any one year is about one hundred and fifty times the number of people killed from all types of injuries in auto accidents, as long as motorcyclists aren't included

Second, wearing helmets is generally recommended, if not mandated, for motorcycle riders, bicyclists, and riders of ATVs, but there does not seem to be much in the way of recommendations for wearing them in passenger cars.

I do drive cars with stability control, multiple air bags, and a good safety reputation. I stay off motorcycles.

The point is that by responding appropriately to strangers who knock the risk of a home invasion drops from extremely low to super duper low.

What constitutes "responding appropriately?"

Are the majority of potential attackers "strangers who knock?"

Given that the likelihood is probably remote, are you willing to accept the potential consequences should it happen?

...but it [(carrying)]would certainly be burdensome.

I do not find it so at all. Have you tried it?

In fact, putting on a firearm when I leave and taking it off when I return home is more inconvenient.

I'm simply not going to let fear of an extremely improbable situation dictate how i live in my home.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I do not fear a fire, but I have several fire extinguishers.

It is simple, basic risk management: likelihood (remote), potential consequences (very severe), and effort required for mitigation (minimal).

For years, I kept a firearm in the bedroom. I suspect that many people do. After thinking about it, and my home layout is a major consideration, I realized that it would never do me any good unless someone were to break in while we were both in the bedroom at the time.

That's not likely.

 

[T Bran]

Through the years I have picked up about a dozen old single shot 12 ga shotguns.
The ones that are kind of rough in appearance but still reliable get hacked down to a more comfortable legnth.
There are numerous examples stashed through out my house loaded with #4 buck and spare ammo in a stock boot. I also have pockets sewn on my favorite chairs for my carry of the day.
The old 12's have little value so I dont worry about their loss if stolen. There are no children about so that is not a concern for me either.
I'll not go into detail about the umpteen other security precautions in my home but I will pass on another method for delay of intruders.
In preparation for hurricane season one year I built a door brace that hinges on the inside of the doors center and has a rubber foot that braces on the floor. Kicking in doors is not an option in my home and I doubt that a battering ram would do any better. I just drop the braces at nite and when I'm in during the day.

 

[Hangingrock]

24/7 guard duty at some point you are going to become complacent. When outside the dwelling it is my practice to usually carry (Concealed) a handgun.

This area is popular with pedal pushers, hikers, equestrians, campers, rock face climbers, and lost souls.

Among all those individuals there are some that are seedy predators that one may have to deter or deal with or simply have law-enforcement interact with them.

Our dwelling is not to be confused with a fortified position but on the other hand is relatively secure. There are passive measures that one may take that delay entry by the unwelcomed.

 

[DNS]

That's the beauty of something small like an NAA.
Its always with you.

 

[JustinJ]

First, the number of victims of violent crimes in any one year is about one hundred and fifty times the number of people killed from all types of injuries in auto accidents, as long as motorcyclists aren't included

But the comparison was home invasions to head injuries. In 09 about 31K people died in car crashes but don't know how many were by head injuries though i would guess it was majority. That of course does not include the staggering amount of debilitating traumatic head injuries of which the majority are caused by automobile crashes and would be greatly reduced by helmets. In regards to protection against death or injury a helmet will statistically protect one far more than carrying a gun at home.

Second, wearing helmets is generally recommended, if not mandated, for motorcycle riders, bicyclists, and riders of ATVs, but there does not seem to be much in the way of recommendations for wearing them in passenger cars.

Probably because such a recommendation would be a huge exercise in futility given how hard it is to get people to wear helmets while riding motorcycles and bicycles. That does not however mean it would not be effective.

Quote:
The point is that by responding appropriately to strangers who knock the risk of a home invasion drops from extremely low to super duper low.

What constitutes "responding appropriately?"

For me it means assess the situation as in what day, time, number of people, appearance, carried objects, etc. Then decide to open door or not, be armed or not, etc. For the gf it means to just observe and allow dogs to do deter visitor from potential intrusion.

Given that the likelihood is probably remote, are you willing to accept the potential consequences should it happen?

Could that argument not be made about every single defensive or safety oriented act or product? After 911 a company started selling parachutes for people working in high rises in case of another similar attack. The same argument could be made for their product. That doesn't make it reasonable.

Quote:
...but it [(carrying)]would certainly be burdensome.

I do not find it so at all. Have you tried it?

Yes and i even own an LCP. But at home i like to be comfortable which generally means i'm wearing wind shorts and a tshirt and i don't like any gun digging into me when relaxing on the couch. I do however have a concealed gun in the living room which i feel is sufficient given my home's layout. There is also usually the one i take off when getting home in the kitchen. Plus, my dogs give me sufficient notice of people close to my house before they ever get to the door and would without question attack an intruder.

Fear has nothing to do with it. I do not fear a fire, but I have several fire extinguishers.

It is simple, basic risk management: likelihood (remote), potential consequences (very severe), and effort required for mitigation (minimal).

That's fair. To me its partly a matter of not allowing criminals to determine my day to day actions in my home.

 

[Skribs]

Great. It costs me nothing to carry at home, and the degree of risk mitigation provides considerable benefit.

I could lose everything should I not do so.

I think Justin said this, but "cost" isn't necessarily money. In this case, it is largely comfort. I own a LCP, but based on discussion in another recent thread (mainly ones about magazine capacity and likelihood of getting X hits with Y rounds) I've realized that a single-digit-capacity-pistol will never again be my primary. For now, my XDm compact is the only handgun that fits the bill, and even that isn't small. I carry the XDm at home, but it does mean I can't lay down in certain ways on the couch without taking the gun off, or else it gets very uncomfortable. Luckily, my couch reclines

 

[FMF Doc]

I wear a pistol on my body from the time I get up until I go back to bed, be I at home, town, or work. I do this for 2 reasons:

1. I want that gun ON ME if I need it, as has been espoused here over an over again. I carry a pistol concealed on my person outside of my house and not left in the truck. Why wouldn't I do the same inside my house?

2. I have 2 young curious children at home. If my gun is on me, I know where it is. If I was still a bachelor, I might do the hidden guns around the house, but with children, that is not an option. I choose to keep it on me, and know where it is.

 

[s9601694]

During summer i always have my front door wide open as well as the back doors. I always read the weekly crime stats in the local paper and i have never seen a vehicle break in or home invasion in my neighborhood. Just driving through my neighborhood it becomes pretty clear pretty fast that the Second Amendment is exersized.

I have a NRA Life Member sticker, an NRA Endowment Member sticker and A Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sticker on the window next to the front door and truly beleive that those three decals are better deterents than any ADT sign in the yard.

TO answer the OP's question: I carry in the house like i do out the house. No difference.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: In regards to protection against death or injury a helmet will statistically protect one far more than carrying a gun at home.

That depends upon a number of things, one of which is how much additional protection a helmet would provide to someone operating or riding in an automobile with a high degree of passive safety including six or more airbags and a safety harness, operated at legal speeds.

How much more protection would a helmet provide? If you don't know, you cannot make that statement.

Probably because such a recommendation would be a huge exercise in futility given how hard it is to get people to wear helmets while riding motorcycles and bicycles. That does not however mean it [(wearing a helmet in an automobile)]would not be effective.

But would it really be effective?

If I had a reasonable analysis, I could decide whether or not to wear a helmet while driving. Since no one does except in rallies or on the track, I have to assume that there are no indications that it would be of measurable benefit.

For me it [(responding appropriately to strangers who knock)] means assess the situation as in what day, time, number of people, appearance, carried objects, etc. Then decide to open door or not, be armed or not, etc. For the gf it means to just observe and allow dogs to do deter visitor from potential intrusion.

Sounds good, as a means to address those who choose to knock at the door.

We have had cases where residents have chosen to not answer the door, only to have their rear sliding doors suddenly and violently destroyed without any warning at all. Bad scene.

Could that argument [(given that the likelihood is probably remote, are you willing to accept the potential consequences should it happen)] not be made about every single defensive or safety oriented act or product? After 911 a company started selling parachutes for people working in high rises in case of another similar attack. The same argument could be made for their product. That doesn't make it reasonable.

You seem to be forgetting the third element of the equation: practicality of mitigation.

And yes, you really should evaluate the likelihood, the potential consequence, and the effort required for the mitigation of every significant risk that you can identify.

I do.

But at home i like to be comfortable which generally means i'm wearing wind shorts and a tshirt and i don't like any gun digging into me when relaxing on the couch. I do however have a concealed gun in the living room which i feel is sufficient given my home's layout. There is also usually the one i take off when getting home in the kitchen. Plus, my dogs give me sufficient notice of people close to my house before they ever get to the door and would without question attack an intruder.

I too like to be comfortable.

Three things:

1. I suggest that if your gun digs into you, you are carrying it wrong; carrying it all day that way must be a terrible ordeal.
2. Home layout is a very important consideration, and your solution just may be ideal for you. It would not work in our house.
3. Quit focussing solely on the idea that someone will come to the door. Consider other points of ingress and do a little what if analysis. You may be fine, or you may not.

By the way, I'm also concerned about the safety of the dog. She isn't bulletproof.

Posted by Skribs: For now, my XDm compact is the only handgun that fits the bill, and even that isn't small. I carry the XDm at home, but it does mean I can't lay down in certain ways on the couch without taking the gun off, or else it gets very uncomfortable.

OK.

I have a Smith & Wesson M&P9c. It's width is comparable to that of the J-frame I usually wore before coming to the same conclusion regarding capacity.

And I think a J-frame in a pocket is a whole lot better than a gun in another room.

People have to make their own assessments. Many people to not have a firearm available at all. Many keep one in the bedroom, which is fine if that's where they happen to be when they need it. Still others keep guns stashed here and there. I briefly considered that, but it's not for me.

 

[JagerRanger]

Yes and no.

Most of the time I don't carry at home, depending of the location, naturally.

I've got two big dogs for perimeter security, and I never answer the door, except when I know UPS or FedEx is coming - and then I'm armed.

I work at home, and I'm always armed when at home office or garage. It goes without saying that I carry always outdoors, whether in front or backyard, not to mention visiting the the city. The same applies to my wife.

 

[Skribs]

I have a Smith & Wesson M&P9c. It's width is comparable to that of the J-frame I usually wore before coming to the same conclusion regarding capacity.

And I think a J-frame in a pocket is a whole lot better than a gun in another room.

I came to the same conclusion a while back, but I realized two important things about the size of a revolver vs. a autoloader: 1) if you tilt the gun 45-degrees-ish, so you have the front of the grip and the bottom of the muzzle on the table, the revolver will "shrink" compared to the autoloader, because the auto-loader is going to be triangle-shaped, while the revolver will be dome-shaped. Also, even though they are the same width at their widest part, the J-frame will be a lot thinner in most spots, which means it'll be more comfortable in the pocket. That dome aspect is also why revolvers are nice for carry guns, although I personally choose a double-stack auto.

I make every effort that if I am not at work (or on the way to/from...I work on federal property, unfortunately) that I at least have the gun in the room with me, even if I do not have it directly on me.

 

[orionengnr]

A wise man once said (and I am paraphrasing):

You will likely never need a handgun. But if you do, you will need it more than anything you ever needed in your life.

Being somewhat familiar with Risk Assessment, Justin hits the nail on the head. My EDC is on me from pants-on until pants-off, and then it is on the nightstand beside me.

On those occasions when I am crawling around under a car all day, or at the time when my back is giving me trouble (e.g., the last couple days) I drop my PM9 in my pocket. Piece of cake.

Another wise man uses the following as his sig line, and I couldn't agree more:

Carry 24/7 or guess right.

 

[JustinJ]

That depends upon a number of things, one of which is how much additional protection a helmet would provide to someone operating or riding in an automobile with a high degree of passive safety including six or more airbags and a safety harness, operated at legal speeds.

Inability to exactly quantify something's effectiveness does not mean it is highly effective. Countless evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of helmets against head injuries of all types. Helmets have also demonstrated to reduce injuries in high speed car race crashes and there is no reason to suspect the same would not apply at normal driving speeds. Simply understanding how helmets works allows one to know they would be effective in reducing car crash injuries.

You seem to be forgetting the third element of the equation: practicality of mitigation.

The question you posed, "are you willing to accept the consequences" seems much more about emotional response than practicality of mitigation.

And yes, you really should evaluate the likelihood, the potential consequence, and the effort required for the mitigation of every significant risk that you can identify.

I do.

As have I. Our conclusions are just different.

Quit focussing solely on the idea that someone will come to the door. Consider other points of ingress and do a little what if analysis. You may be fine, or you may not.

I'm not and i have. I mentioned it in regards to overall risk analysis of situations at home in which a gun on my person would be needed. My point is that looking at the overall incidence of home invasions, in and out of my area, those that came by way of knock are not truly representative of the total of events in which carrying at all times would have been useful.

I suggest that if your gun digs into you, you are carrying it wrong; carrying it all day that way must be a terrible ordeal.

My carry methods are perfectly comfortable in my normal out of the house attire. But OWB does not work so well with wind shorts as I like to wear at home.

By the way, I'm also concerned about the safety of the dog. She isn't bulletproof.

As am i, my dog not yours, although i wish yours no harm either. But like me, mine have a duty to defend their home and loved ones. Thats not to say i would gladly sacrifice them and wouldn't protect them if possible but in the overall defense plan they are an important variable. Also, currently i live in a newer neighborhood with the houses very close to each other and any gun fire will draw lots of attention which is something criminals tend to try to avoid.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Countless evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of helmets against head injuries of all types. Helmets have also demonstrated to reduce injuries in high speed car race crashes and there is no reason to suspect the same would not apply at normal driving speeds. Simply understanding how helmets works allows one to know they would be effective in reducing car crash injuries.

How's that? Nothing allows me to know that.

Helmets make sense in skiing, bobsledding, snowboarding,skateboarding, football, hockey, construction work, racing, cycling, riding ATVs, combat, and even in horseback riding.

Those who have done the risk analysis for us for automobiles have developed shatterproof glass; collapsible steering columns; fuel shutoff systems; structures that absorb energy on impact; passenger compartments that resist deformation; active and passive restraint systems; seat backs and seats that move to reduce the risk of whiplash; anti lock braking systems; traction control and dynamic stability control systems; and radar activated alarms and brakes. Do you not think that somewhere along the way someone may have studied the idea of using helmets?

If there were any objective indications that they would materially reduce the risk of serious injury in an automobile accident, where there is already substantial protection, and where head injuries are only one of the serious risks, I believe that some people would use them.

The question you posed, "are you willing to accept the consequences" seems much more about emotional response than practicality of mitigation.

Not at all. When the risk at hand is one of violent criminal action, the likelihood may be remote; but the potential consequence is death or great bodily harm, which is extremely severe by any standard, without taking into account emotion; and mitigation might well involve having ready access to a weapon, which is not difficult, and which is reasonable.

The risk of being trapped in a high rise is far less than remote; the potential consequences are extremely severe; but the proposed method of using a paraglider for mitigation may be ineffective and would not be practical for anyone who has not been trained in its use. One reason has to do with the difficulty of controlling them in a safe environment, and another has to do with the behavior of winds around tall buildings.

Effectiveness and practicality also indicate against the use of parachutes in civilian business jets. But don't try taking anyone up in one without flotation gear.

 

[JustinJ]

How's that? Nothing allows me to know that.

Helmets make sense in skiing, bobsledding, snowboarding,skateboarding, football, hockey, construction work, racing, cycling, riding ATVs, combat, and even in horseback riding.

Those who have done the risk analysis for us for automobiles have developed shatterproof glass; collapsible steering columns; fuel shutoff systems; structures that absorb energy on impact; passenger compartments that resist deformation; active and passive restraint systems; seat backs and seats that move to reduce the risk of whiplash; anti lock braking systems; traction control and dynamic stability control systems; and radar activated alarms and brakes. Do you not think that somewhere along the way someone may have studied the idea of using helmets?

If there were any objective indications that they would materially reduce the risk of serious injury in an automobile accident, where there is already substantial protection, and where head injuries are only one of the serious risks, I believe that some people would use them.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Let us know how it fits.

 

[Skribs]

Unless you live in Montana, I think your safety while driving will be better ensured by following the local traffic laws as opposed to buying a helmet. However, except for the analogy posted, I don't think the discussion of whether or not you're wearing a helmet while on the public highway system pertains much to the discussion of how to keep (or whether to keep) your guns close-at-hand at home in case of a home invasion.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Let us know how it fits.

From 2004. Never went anywhere, I guess.

But--if I drove an old ute (that's a pick-up, down under) in the outback or on a farm, I might well get one and wear it.

However, in traffic, I would not consider it to be nearly adequate--not by a long shot. I would opt for a far better mitigation strategy.

My first new car was a derivative of the first Ford Mustang. Not long ago, I heard Tom and Ray Magliozzi say that there is no new automobile being sold today that is less safe than the 1964 1/2 Mustang, and they were not singling out that model;to put that in perspective, there are cars produced today in which I would not ride from here to downtown. They went on to advise the caller that she should never ride in one except in parades. That's after having added safety harnesses.

A helmet protects against blows to the head. In today's cars, that protection is afforded in other ways. The real risk invovlving brain and/or spinal cortex injury resides not in the impact per se, but in the effect of high g forces imparted to the head through the high acceleration of the vehicle itself . Unfortunately, a helmet does not protect against that, and its mass may actually exacerbate the problem somewhat. I have lost a friend that way.

I generally try to identify and analyze all significant risks--fire, storm, violent criminal action, auto accident, falls, medical emergency, frozen pipes, food spoilage, and so forth. I either avoid or mitigate all that I reasonably can. Diving a safe car and staying off the road when there is ice and snow fits in. Fire extinguishers, weather alert radio, Internet connectivity, good locks, and a back up generator are all checked "yes". Keeping a firearm at hand can be done reasonably.

I do not think, however, that a car helmet will do anything measurable for me.

 

[sidheshooter]

Now, if we could only all wear a helmet at home in case of home invasion, we'd really be onto something!

Are we still in S,T&T, btw?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Just barely. We're also getting close to the 'Three Page Rule' coming into effect...

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP posed the following question: "What do you guys do? Do you carry even at home? Do you have guns hidden throughout the house? Do you have a plan that if someone bursts through the door, you'll be able to get to your long gun/safe room prior to them reaching you?"

So far, we have 24 who carry at home, 7 who keep a firearm within reach, 7 who do neither, and 10 who discussed something else, such as holster recommendations.

To the OP: has the question been answered?

 

[Skribs]

Wow, KB, you really went through and counted it all? Yes my question has been answered.

However, Fred's post prompts me to ask another question: what is the Three Page Rule? Is it something like Godwin's Law?

 

[Kleanbore]

Asked and answered.