Home invasion and you

[gallo]

Something interstesting
if you watch videio of attacks
too often resistance is 3 things

too late, it isn't until the attack/assault is underway, or often after the person is under control of the BG that they start to fight back.

Tentative, instead of treating it like a life or death fight, the person strikes back, and as soon as resistance is encountered they retreat to a defensive posture.

ineffective


too many have a single person attacked by a group, where fighting is not going to turn out well most of the time, Or single blows, more to lash out, NOT trying to stop the attack.

you have to be prepared to face the fact you may be attacked, and that I think is the GREATEST problem, too many simply refuse to believe what is happening or the seriousness of it.

Very true. Lots of people cannot recognize violence.

 

[dayhiker]

Each time the dogs bark, to you go to the guns?

Nope only when the barking/growling is mixed with human screams.

If the door is smashed in by an entry, are you always close enough to run to the gun?

Yep......you aren't getting through my doors with one kick,two, or even three.

Also, easy to just shoot the dogs,

Please.. ....Are they using suppressors, crossbows, blowguns with poison darts?

A team of Ninjas isn't a realistic threat for me.

throw them a steak.

Yep my dog will like a treat, after she is finished with whomever threw it.
Not all dogs respond to food when their territory is being invaded.

 

[mortablunt]

Home Invasion is low probability, but not impossible, and certainly a dangerous reality. Preventing ones begins with passive denial means like keeping a well-lit exterior, having no blind spots where one could easily come and go unobserved, hardening windows, hardening doors, having an alarm system, and installing strong locks. Some people don't do this out of paranoia that in case of fire, they will be unable to get out or that the Fire Department will be unable to come in. Firefighters are strong blokes and they've got some pretty gnarly axes. Even the normal security door for your house isn't that much of a hassle for them.

Assuming that passive denial fails, then the next step is to make sure that there is some plan for handling these. Almost every source I have read advises calling the Police and having an alarm system. If the invader makes you deactivate the alarm, then use a silent alarm code that will quiet the noise but send a message to the local Police Department. Have hiding spots and all clear signals.

As much as dogs bark and can annoyingly wake people up, untrained dogs from any random breed are not acceptable guard dogs. Most breeds could be taken apart by a man with his bare hands. It is very easy to get into the habit of ignoring it when your dog barks, or even to end up conditioning your dog to avoid barking. If a dog is part of your security plan, then a breed such as Alsatian is preferable.

Assuming that things go even worse, then there's the shooting option. This has already been discussed much elsewhere, so I don't need to discuss it here.

 

[tomrkba]

Remember, too...that many home invaders don't open hostilities by smashing in the door in a headlong assault. Many of them begin with a knock at the door, under the pretense of asking for directions, or to use the phone, or selling cleaning supplies. Once the door is open...if they decide to come in...odds are that they own you unless you have the means to counter it at your fingertips.

Just to pile on:

Recently, a man knocked on my door. It was after dark. He appeared to be one of those "In home free estimate" types. However, he opened my storm door and was standing with his feet apart. This appeared to me to be a pre-fight indicator since his position was such that he could explode through the door if I opened it ("cocking the foot" or shifting weight is one such indicator).

Needless to say, I did not open the door.

 

[JustinJ]

Actually, no. My response was to his seeming insistence that nobody needs to be armed around the house.

"In my view it certainly does not warrant continuous carry in the home with the possible exception of a few areas with extremely high crime rates relative to the rest of the country." Excuse me but I insisted on nothing, merely expressed my opinion on a thread with an OP largely about risks of home invasion. I also gave valid reasons why i hold that opinion. We define on here every day, in our opinions, what we believe is reasonable and justifiable for others and ourselves. That is not imposing or limiting others in any way or making this country less free. I never advocated a law against home carry.

 

[mcdonl]

Thanks SM, your wisdom is always appreciated.

 

[Old krow]

I’d rather risk not being able to get to it (an unlikey occurance) than risk having an accident carrying one while wrestling (an everyday occurance). Everything is an evaluation of risk/reward. I am comfortable with my choice. You likely have different circumstances and are comfortable with yours.

Do as you see fit. Your safety is your responsibility, my safety is mine. As long as you're comfortable with your decision then I'm okay with it. I carry at home.

A couple things to consider about an "an unlikely occurrence." Statistics are a funny thing. If you taught a class of 20 people and gave them a test with 5 questions on it, assuming that each question was equally weighted, it's possible to get an average of 90% on the test while it isn't possible to achieve that grade. Averages do not always represent the tendency as well as we'd like to think. The probability of a home invasion isn't the same for everyone either. Some folks are more likely to go through one that others and this is based on a number of factors. I'm not saying that your decision is wrong, but, using the probability of an invasion to determine whether or not you carry could be a poor way to assess the risk.

Also, easy to just shoot the dogs, throw them a steak.

Dogs are difficult to measure as they're not always the same. If you apply that same technique to my home and Owen Spark's or Tuner's, you'd likely get different outcomes. I do not believe that dogs are the be-all-end-all in home security, but they should be assessed independently. If for no other reason, I'll carry at home to ensure that no harm does come to them.

 

[Kleanbore]

"In my view it certainly does not warrant continuous carry in the home with the possible exception of a few areas with extremely high crime rates relative to the rest of the country."

It would seem to me that if one were to base a decision on the local crime rate, one would be better served deciding whether or not to carry outside the home on that basis.

Home invaders, like many other criminals these days, are mobile, and like all cunning predators, can reasonably be expected to go where there are rewards to be had--or so it would seem to me, anyway.

So--where might that be? How about a prosperous neighborhood with easy access and ingress, within maybe the better part of an hour's drive from where the predators live, which just may be the higher crime area.

If one were to indicate on a map the addresses of most of the suspects in reported burglaries in our metropolitan area, one would not see an area likely to be rich in jewelry or in persons one would choose to take to the ATM while holding a family member hostage.

As I mentioned in Post 34, there have been several such invasions of occupied homes within a two plus radius of my house in the last couple of years, all but one in the daytime. No, the rate of such crimes is not high, and the indicated likelihood is thus low, but I would rather to be in a position to deal from a position of strength should it happen to me.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Another one, from Tulsa, OK last Thursday - http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_...-into-home-invasion-beating-of-elderly-couple

More - http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/Violent-crime-wave-in-Tulsa/v9J4peuezEOmr5lQdYRvNw.cspx

 

[Hangingrock]

Edward Surratt, a study in pure evil: http://www.skcentral.com/news.php?readmore=2132

Police gave him the nickname "the shotgun killer" because of his favorite mode of operation: to enter secluded, single-story homes occupied by couples, immediately kill the husband with a shotgun blast, then take away the wife and beat, rape and kill her.

 

[xXxplosive]

So this morning there's a knock on my door.....the dog goes off and my wife looks out the window.....tells me there's a man standing there with a small child.
Our GS is spittin' fire and this guy is not leavin'....still standing at the door with the kid.....then he seems to be looking off to the side into our living room window.
Naturally, I refuse to answer the door, but I'm also armed with my Gov't Model...
He eventually leaves with our dog screamin' at him and goes next door......at one point I'm thinkin' they're lookin' for an open window to put the kid in to unlock our door....I'm wonderin' why this kid isn't in school.
Our dog would have had him for breakfast...........after they left I figured Jehova Witness's or something...I dunno.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
"In my view it certainly does not warrant continuous carry in the home with the possible exception of a few areas with extremely high crime rates relative to the rest of the country."

It would seem to me that if one were to base a decision on the local crime rate, one would be better served deciding whether or not to carry outside the home on that basis.

Home invaders, like many other criminals these days, are mobile, and like all cunning predators, can reasonably be expected to go where there are rewards to be had--or so it would seem to me, anyway.

I've read about certain areas where home invasions have become quite common place, such as certain US border towns, and other high crime areas. Obviously there are anecdotal stories about criminals hitting areas with relatively low crime rates but on the whole they seem much more common in high crime areas in general. More importantly, it seems to me that high crime areas are also much more likely to experience invasions that entail kicking down a door or breaking in through a window as opposed to strong arming the home owner upon answering the door. The former are the type in which one could benefit from a gun on their person at all times. However other steps, such as fortifying the dwelling, a good dog(s) if possible, security system, etc. are far better options, imo. If i can't feel secure enough in my own home to not feel the need to carry a gun at all times then i would make whatever changes are necessary to attain that sense of security.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have had on four occasions been inside residences at the time of unlawful attempts at entry. Two were successful in terms of entering the house. One involved threats of murder. Three were stopped with firearms, with no shots fired. Two were in a very good neighborhood, one was in a rural mountain area, and one was in a fairly good neighborhood.

Shortly after the last of these incidents, a man with a knife gained entry to the third floor apartment of two young women who lived on our street for the purpose of sexual assault. The attack failed. The arriving police officers advised the young ladies to acquire a firearm, and they adamantly refused, instead moving immediately to a "much better" neighborhood. That gave them the opportunity within days to become earwitnesses to the brutal rape and beating death of a neighbor down the hall. The building is a mile or two from where I live now.

I do not expect to be the victim of a home invasion, though it has happened before, and though it happens from time to time within a few miles from my home.

That said, I do intend to be able to affect the outcome should it happen. I have concluded that carrying while at home is a much more effective strategy than having a firearm where I would likely not be able to access it quickly.

 

[mortablunt]

^ I could not have said it better.

 

[Onward Allusion]

^^^
That is probably the most logically stated reason for carrying at home.

 

[JustinJ]

I have had on four occasions been inside residences at the time of unlawful attempts at entry. Two were successful in terms of entering the house. One involved threats of murder. Three were stopped with firearms, with no shots fired. Two were in a very good neighborhood, one was in a rural mountain area, and one was in a fairly good neighborhood.

I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. You yourself were in homes on four seperate occasions when a person unlawfully tried to force entry? How did the invaders enter the homes as in what barriers were overcome? Obviously i understand if you don't care to go into detail but were these attempts made by a person thought to be a threat before the event? I ask because i would certainly agree that it is reasonable to enhance one's security in response to a specific threat such as events related to domestic violence or threats from terminated employees. I have been in the latter situation before as have a family member and two friends. I personally didn't feel the need to carry in the home, other security enhancements were made, but I would certainly understand why one would.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: I'm not sure I follow the first sentence. You yourself were in homes on four seperate occasions when a person unlawfully tried to force entry?

How did the invaders enter the homes as in what barriers were overcome?

Yes. These transpired over a period of half a century.

In the first, a man tried to destroy a locked, solid door; he was dissuaded by the point of a revolver shown through a narrow window that was out of arms reach from the door. I had time to obtain the revolver and to decide whether or not to retreat from the house.

In the second, a man forced his way though a door as it was opened for someone else. He improvised a weapon from something in the house and started making threats. I was able to confront him with a firearm, causing his judgment to improve. Had I been in the front room when he entered, I would not have been able to access a firearm.

In the third, someone on the fire escape tried to jimmy the lock on the door. He was confronted by a neighbor who shared the escape. He did not gain entry. I do not know the extent of his injuries.

In the fourth, a burglar tried several points of ingress in a mountain cabin and finally, after quite a bit of work, was somehow able to defeat a dead-bolt lock and gain entry. He departed at the sight of a revolver.

In only the third of these did the criminal possibly not have had reason to believe that the residence was occupied.

...were these attempts made by a person thought to be a threat before the event?

No.

I personally didn't feel the need to carry in the home,...

Nor did I, for decades. And then I gave it some serious thought.

...other security enhancements were made,...

Good. That is, of course, Step One.

...but I would certainly understand why one would.

Great.

Here's why I do:

• I consider the likelihood of a burglary or home invasion to be remote at best, but I rate the potential consequences as extremely severe, and I choose to mitigate the risk.
• I believe the likelihood of an invasion occurring when I am not in the bedroom to be highest, as indicated by crime statistics, local police reports, and advice of security firms.
• An evaluation of my floor plans indicates that, upon a sudden invasion, I would most probably be unable to access a weapon stored in any single location unless I happened to be in that location at the time.
• I do not like the idea of placing firearms in various rooms around the house.
• I carry when I am out of doors, so it is easy to just not take off the firearm when arriving home.

On that last item: while many people are concerned with home defense, most violent criminal attacks occur outside of the home. I have never been assaulted outside. I do not expect to be assaulted. The likelihood that I will be attacked on any one day is immeasurably small. But the lifetime risk is much higher for a younger person, the severity of the consequences is very high, and it is a risk that can easily be mitigated.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
...but I would certainly understand why one would.

Great.

Here's why I do:

Just to clarify that statement was made in regards to a specific threat being present.

In regards to events 1,2 and 4, was sufficient time available to recover a firearm after attempted entry was first detected? Ultimately, my view is that for the vast majority of methods a potential invader would use to attempt forced entry sufficient time should be available to recover a firearm. If not, delaying entry and increasing detection times are the methods i prefer and believe are adequate.

I don't see the need to stash guns all over house. Taping guns under the dinner table and behind the toilet is...a little over the top. A gun concealed and/or secured in a couple of high use living areas is sufficient, IMO.

 

[gallo]

An intruder can invade a home without forcing an entry point. Hence, the argument of having enough time to arm oneself at the first sound of a door thump is not entirely relevant.

Examples:

Inexperienced kid/teen opens door to guy with package.
Wife forced back into house by intruder after taking out the trash.
Husband working on car in the garage is forced into the house.

There are many scenarios where having a gun on is a lot more advantageous than having it in the safe. But, as it has been mentioned many times, it’s a personal decision based on risk assessment. With kids in the house there are only two places where I consider safe to have a gun: the safe box and/or on my person.

I once had a situation where someone rang my door bell late at night. The simple action of going to the bedroom, opening the safe and getting the gun seemed like an eternity.

Was it a kid prank?
Was it an SOB checking for people in the house before kicking the door in?

I'll never know. What I do know is that retrieving a gun from the safe while under pressure is a lot slooower than drawing it form the holster. I wasn't as ready as I thought. It was probably my GSD barking madly that made whomever was at the door reconsider. Since then, among other security measures that involve a family plan, I have installed a storm door and a gate lock as an extra layer fo security.

We all come to our conclusion in due time. Not everyone, though, is as lucky to get a wake-up call like I did.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Ultimately, my view is that for the vast majority of methods a potential invader would use to attempt forced entry sufficient time should be available to recover a firearm.

Have you based that view on objective data? How long does it take to break in? How long does it take to get to the weapon?

If not, delaying entry and increasing detection times are the methods i prefer and believe are adequate.

Do you know how much you can delay entry, and can you compare the resultant time with what is "adequate".

I do not want to appear rude, but I have my doubts.

And time is but one aspect.

Should an intruder force his way into my house by entering the living room from the front porch, he has cut off my access to the bedroom unless I am already upstairs.

Should he enter the dining room from the back porch while I am in the kitchen, he has cut off my access to anywhere else in the house.

Should he enter from the back porch while I am in the living room, he has forced me into a footrace to get to my firearm, leaving my wife wherever she may be.

Should he enter though a door or window into the basement and come up the stairs to the first floor, I will again be cut off.

Not good.

So what is it that makes carry at home anything but the preferred solution?

I happened to start carrying about the time I saw an episode of The Best Defense in which an intruder forcibly breached the door of a modern house (a thousand one) and ran into the hallway (a thousand two).

The resident barely beat him in a footrace to a first floor bedroom, accessed a weapon, and shot him.

The intended lesson was about where in the safe room (with respect to the door to the room) it was best to assume cover.

I took away a different lesson.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Seeing how a good entry team can make it inside and clear the first room in something like 3 seconds or less

um, yeah, and that's at training speed, you don't have time to DRAW with a professional (swat/military) team.

Oh, and that's the point of 'Dynamic' entry
that said, been both sides training, and when you have your gun out waiting for them to come through the door, well things don't go so well for the entry team (and thats why there is another one, or two, set up right behind them if they expect trouble.