You Are the Target in a Home Invasion Scenario. Which Defensive Weapon Do You Reach For First?

[shafter]

A last observation: I wonder how many members here live, or have lived, in a trailer park, a low-cost apartment, or a "slum". Are you saying that a breakin in a trailer park means less than a breakin in a manicured suburban home? Or a mansion?

The break in means less because there's usually a back story that the statistics won't show. Someone didn't pay for their drugs and the break in was for that reason. The drug user in the more affluent part of town paid for his and caused no issue. In my experience break ins are much less about theft and more about retaliation from some involvement in criminal activity.

I presume most of us here on the boards are good law abiding citizens so whether we live in a trailer park or a nice home on the other side of town it's far less likely that any of us will be a victim because we don't associate with criminals.

 

[Matthew Clark]

Mossberg 590 hangs just to my left as I swing out of bed and I am left handed. Loaded with 00 buck. By the time my feet hit the floor and stand upright the shotgun is shouldered and aimed down the hallway. Night sight front, ghost ring rear aligned. Both eyes open and scanning for targets. Safety off! I practice this movement often so it's muscle memory reflex. May not be fast enough but I can do it pretty fast. With double dead bolts on the outside doors, they have to make a pretty good rucuss to get in. I think I'll have time to react.
Sad part is I'd have to shoot an intruder in my underwear! Unforgivable!
Matthew

 

[JTHunter]

On the wall next to my bed. Shotgun on the bottom first, followed by the AK and the GP-100.

 

[Kleanbore]

Seems that a lot of people have guns next to the bed.

That may help--or not.

 

[Old Dog]

Seems that a lot of people have guns next to the bed.

That may help--or not.

Not even gonna say anything about statistics, or when someone with bad intent is likely to break into one's abode, but if one is in bed when the bad situation goes down, what's more helpful? Gun within reach, or having to get out of bed and cross a room, possibly going into a closet to access one's "home defense gun?" Yes, the bad guys come out more often after dark...

 

[luzyfuerza]

The break in means less because there's usually a back story that the statistics won't show. Someone didn't pay for their drugs and the break in was for that reason. The drug user in the more affluent part of town paid for his and caused no issue. In my experience break ins are much less about theft and more about retaliation from some involvement in criminal activity.

I reject your assertion that one breakin "means less" than another. A non-drug-using spouse (or worse, a young child) who is threatened with death during a drug rip does not "mean less" than an executive who is threatened with death during a suburban home invasion looking for guns and jewelry.


What you seem to be trying to express is: 1) many perpetrators and victims of household burglaries are involved in the drug trade, and 2) violating any of the rules of stupid (like using drugs or hanging a gold chain in your apartment window in East LA) raises individual risk. I have no argument with either of these ideas.

However, my point is that the degree to which these factors affect the rate of home breakins hasn't been described. You have your opinions, but you've not presented any verifiable, reliable numbers. Your assertions, your burden of proof.

And without verifiable, reliable data to the contrary, then the national average of about one breakin per every 4.5 households per decade stands. We can agree that doing drugs raises this risk, and that living a law-abiding lifestyle in suburbia lowers it, but we don't know for sure by how much.

The scientific truism applies here: "In God I trust. All others must bring data."


@shafter , if you can't provide data, then at least provide a guess. What percentage of home breakins where you've lived and worked (it would be helpful to know where and when) appear to have been the direct result of participating in the drug trade? 50? 70%? 95%? 100%? And how many were not? And how did you tell the difference?

Any others with guesses based on real-world, relevant experience please also chime in.

This may sound like an issue that isn't relevant to this thread. But if the risk is big, then the importance of taking actions in response to the risk (home modifications, selecting devastating versus puny tools, getting tool-related training and practice, etc.) is likewise big. But if the risk is tiny, or non-existent, then having a pistol on your person every waking moment or a shotgun by your bedside is pretty silly. Right?

 

[Old Dog]

The drug user in the more affluent part of town paid for his and caused no issue. In my experience break ins are much less about theft and more about retaliation from some involvement in criminal activity.

Sigh. Dude, where exactly do you live?

I presume most of us here on the boards are good law abiding citizens so whether we live in a trailer park or a nice home on the other side of town it's far less likely that any of us will be a victim because we don't associate with criminals.

Yeah, I'd kinda glossed over this comment without digesting it -- What a silly comment -- that one is less likely to be a victim because one doesn't associate with criminals?

Yet another pie-in-the-sky liberal who seems to believe that if one's heart is pure, you can live in luxury without the bad people who want what you have trying to steal it from you...

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes, the bad guys come out more often after dark...

Most burglaries take place during the daytime. Home invasions occur around the clock.

 

[shafter]

Sigh. Dude, where exactly do you live?

Yeah, I'd kinda glossed over this comment without digesting it -- What a silly comment -- that one is less likely to be a victim because one doesn't associate with criminals?

Yet another pie-in-the-sky liberal who seems to believe that if one's heart is pure, you can live in luxury without the bad people who want what you have trying to steal it from you...

It's an absolute fact that the majority of crime takes place between criminals. Ask anyone in law enforcement about this and they'll back it up. It's not to say that a law abiding citizen can't be a victim of any sort of crime because they often are but the truth is that if someone avoids association with criminals their chances of being victimized fall dramatically.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's an absolute fact that the majority of crime takes place between criminals.

So what?

 

[shafter]

I reject your assertion that one breakin "means less" than another. A non-drug-using spouse (or worse, a young child) who is threatened with death during a drug rip does not "mean less" than an executive who is threatened with death during a suburban home invasion looking for guns and jewelry.


What you seem to be trying to express is: 1) many perpetrators and victims of household burglaries are involved in the drug trade, and 2) violating any of the rules of stupid (like using drugs or hanging a gold chain in your apartment window in East LA) raises individual risk. I have no argument with either of these ideas.

However, my point is that the degree to which these factors affect the rate of home breakins hasn't been described. You have your opinions, but you've not presented any verifiable, reliable numbers. Your assertions, your burden of proof.

And without verifiable, reliable data to the contrary, then the national average of about one breakin per every 4.5 households per decade stands. We can agree that doing drugs raises this risk, and that living a law-abiding lifestyle in suburbia lowers it, but we don't know for sure by how much.

The scientific truism applies here: "In God I trust. All others must bring data."


@shafter , if you can't provide data, then at least provide a guess. What percentage of home breakins where you've lived and worked (it would be helpful to know where and when) appear to have been the direct result of participating in the drug trade? 50? 70%? 95%? 100%? And how many were not? And how did you tell the difference?

Any others with guesses based on real-world, relevant experience please also chime in.

This may sound like an issue that isn't relevant to this thread. But if the risk is big, then the importance of taking actions in response to the risk (home modifications, selecting devastating versus puny tools, getting tool-related training and practice, etc.) is likewise big. But if the risk is tiny, or non-existent, then having a pistol on your person every waking moment or a shotgun by your bedside is pretty silly. Right?

That's not an accurate interpretation of statistics. One can't assume that the rate applies evenly throughout a population. That would be like saying that a certain percentage of Americans will die of lung cancer this year. The rate may be accurate but its heavily weighted towards the segment of that population that smokes or is otherwise unhealthy. The segment that is 25 and healthy will represent very few of those cases.

If someone lives in an affluent neighborhood where most of the homes have good lighting, Ring cameras, and nosy neighbors that call about the slightest suspicious thing, there will be less crime than the part of town that has a higher concentration of criminals and easy targets.

 

[shafter]

So what?

It matters because people use statistics to prove a point that somehow they are at greater risk of being victimized than they really are. The gun community does this at every turn and its just incorrect.

 

[Blue Jays]

I know of two absolutely horrific home invasions where I personally knew all the victims.
In both instances the people were 100% law-abiding without so much as a parking ticket.

In the first one…the resident was unaware they were being stalked and murdered. The killer was caught and is currently serving a life sentence due to other violent crimes with sentences to be served consecutively. The second home invasion was due to a criminal team invading the incorrect apartment in belief valuable paintings/artwork/sculptures were stored inside. The criminals were successfully fought-off although these same criminals were never caught.

 

[Kleanbore]

If someone lives in an affluent neighborhood where most of the homes have good lighting, Ring cameras, and nosy neighbors that call about the slightest suspicious thing, there will be less crime than the part of town that has a higher concentration of criminals and easy targets.

Kinds of crime vary. And there are "easy" targets and there are targets that are worth attacking.

In our municipal area, some street crimes are more frequent in the downtown areas, but burglaries, etc. are more common in the affluent areas.

We cannot speak to what might constitute a "higher concentration of criminals"--the evildoers arrive at their planned destinations in wheeled vehicles, and they depart at very high speeds.

 

[Rick McC.]

This happens every day in America. So we have to have a plan to counteract it.

in this scenario it is one man or women against the invaders.

Please explain your choice.

If I’m not right at any of my staged firearms; I’ll use my pocket gun.

I’ve been through enough that I’ll never be without a gun on my person unless I’m lying in bed for the night.
I also train and shoot regularly.

 

[luzyfuerza]

the truth is that if someone avoids association with criminals their chances of being victimized fall dramatically.

people use statistics to prove a point that somehow they are at greater risk of being victimized than they really are.

I'll try one last time (and if unsuccessful I'll return members to the normally-scheduled pistol vs shotgun vs rifle vs pcc vs samuri sword considerations):

An average is what it is, and tells us what it tells us. You say that you know something about how "doing drugs" or "associating with criminals" skews the data upon which the nationwide average for home breakins is based. I've invited you to provide reliable data that explains how or by how much the data varies. Failing that, I even mentioned that I would accept your best guess.

Even if you don't have reliable data, I'm still actually genuinely interested in your best guess about how much these factors skew the risk of home breakins! What is so hard about that? You do have a best guess, right?

 

[IJ1981]

E

And, those who don't use statistics carefully can draw erroneous conclusions.

For example, there are about 2.5 people in an average US household. If 1 in 45 households are burglarized per year, on average, in a city of 100,000 residents, then that's actually 889 breakins per year in that city.

Much more importantly, a rate of one in 45 breakins per household per year translates to a rate of one breakin per just 4.5 households over the course of a decade.

Of course, we don't face risks like this for just one year. Instead, we often evaluate risk over the course of several years, or even a lifetime.

A last observation: I wonder how many members here live, or have lived, in a trailer park, a low-cost apartment, or a "slum". Are you saying that a breakin in a trailer park means less than a breakin in a manicured suburban home? Or a mansion?

After my marriage, while in the US Army, my wife and I lived in a quiet peaceful trailer park in Spring Lake, North Carolina, adjacent to Ft. Bragg. .

We spent one year there. And when I was called to TDY in Georgia for 6 weeks ,the friendly neighbors took great care of my wife while I was away.

It was a fine experience.

 

[shafter]

I'll try one last time (and if unsuccessful I'll return members to the normally-scheduled pistol vs shotgun vs rifle vs pcc vs samuri sword considerations):

An average is what it is, and tells us what it tells us. You say that you know something about how "doing drugs" or "associating with criminals" skews the data upon which the nationwide average for home breakins is based. I've invited you to provide reliable data that explains how or by how much the data varies. Failing that, I even mentioned that I would accept your best guess.

Even if you don't have reliable data, I'm still actually genuinely interested in your best guess about how much these factors skew the risk of home breakins! What is so hard about that? You do have a best guess, right?

Talk to the law enforcement in your area and ask them what they see. When a crime happens in a particular area and is reported to Federal datebases it only lists that a particular crime occurred. It speaks nothing whatsoever to the totality of the circumstances. The numbers can't tell you that but the people on the ground who know the players can. Go talk to them and ask them what they're seeing. I've been in this game for a long time and talk to law enforcement all over the country and what they say is simple. A large amount of the crime they deal with occurs between criminals and takes place where they live.

There's no absolutes. Innocent people are victims, some trailer parks are nice places to live, some criminals travel to commit crimes, but go talk to the people around you and they'll tell you that violent crimes, and I'd call a home invasion a violent crime, happen far more often within a certain subculture of the population in the area where they are active.

 

[Kleanbore]

This started off with a tool-set question that was answered by a lot of show and tell; there was some discussion about the frequency of the type of crime; a bit on where to keep the gun (strategy), some talk on the need to train with a shogun; some mention of 'hardening'; and we had a suggestion that law abiding people are unlikely to be victimized. Seven pages. That should do it.