Slashdot Mirror
Home Defense, Geek Style?
Yo Maing writes "So my mom got lives alone, and got her car broken into last night. We have a motion sensor light in the driveway, and the car has an alarm but apparently both of these deterrents were ineffective. Crime has been rising around her neighborhood, and only action the police can take is to file a report. So I ask you, Geeks of Slashdot, what tricks do you guys have to defend yours and your loved ones homes against crimes like this? Not looking for anything that would get someone injured, but more in the area of detection and repulsion. Anyone have a holographic Yeti generator to scare away intruders? :)"
Shotguns - a good shotgun, all you need for close range theft deterrent!
The duty of care owned by landowner or person in charge to a trespasser is to refrain from willfully, maliciously or recklessly injuring them. In other words, a landowner or person in charge cannot set traps for trespassers. A trap is a hazard that is known to the landowner or person in charge, but concealed to others. If a trespasser is injured by a trap, the landowner is open to liability for the injury, even though the trespasser violated he law by trespassing. The following have been held unlawful traps for which the landowner can be held responsible: (1) setting a spring gun, (2) creating obstacles on a public roadway, (3) installing a cable gate across a private road known to be used by he public. To reduce he liability risks for #3, the road should be posted as private access. If a cable or chain is used o close a road, it should be flagged with brightly colored flags or other materials.
a quick search shows some of the BEST navy bases, they are fairly high for your average town of that size population.
Navy Times base report
If you have metal window grills, consider hooking up an electric fencer to them. (the type to keep animals in fields). It's not harmful and will discourage anyone from trying to get in. DO NOT just connect them up to the mains.
Secondly, always lock your windows and doors, even if you're only going out for a minute or two. Get a decent alarm for the house.
The car - get a steering lock for it. They might be easily removed by a professional, but it takes time and if the theif has a choice between your car and one without, they'll go for the easy option.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
i think you might want to have a look at this paintball gun then...
Take a firearm safety course.
Take a course to teach you how to handle a firearm effectively.
Know thyself. Under what circumstances will you point a loaded, deadly, weapon at someone? Under what circumstances will you shoot them? When your home is being invaded is not the time to ask such questions.
Have other family members take firearm safety / firearm effectiveness courses.
Select the weapons of choice. I happen to like shotguns: you don't miss, and you'll think twice before you riddle your home with shot. They're safer for the neighbors too. Of course, at close range, rifles offer a cleaner shot, and a greater opportunity to not kill. A handgun? I'm not that good of a shot and I don't like home intruders that close. YMMV.
Get instructions in the use of your selected weapon.
Apply for the necessary permits.
Wait.
Purchase your weapons.
Practice. I'm serious. You need to "be one" with it and comfortable with how it handles, discharges, kicks, etc.
You could've hired me.
dude that had been debunked time and time agien "This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2 Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3 The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide. 4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion." 5 Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, 6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found: 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed. 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot. 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens. 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed. 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims. 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police. Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone. Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surve
If its legal where she is, and she can safely handle one, consider a gun. Its a last resort option(obviously) but when all else fails, even showing a gun can often deter someone. There are plenty of articles out there on home defense with a gun, so look it up to select a good weapon for her and to get her in the proper mindset to make the right call when she has to decide "shoot or don't shoot?". This is probably the most powerful option, but also the most dangerous if you screw it up(both to your health and legally), so do some serious research before going for it.
Getting a large, or at least loud, dog can be very useful. Something that will bark loudly and incessantly if someone tries to break in, and will fight to defend the property. Be careful here too- the line between a dog that will fight to defend their master and a dog that will fight just because can be very thin, make sure you go to a reputable breeder and trainer if you want a dog that does more than make noise. But as with a gun, the mere presence can be a deterrent. Think about it, you start crowbarring a door and all of the sudden you hear loud, aggressive barking on the other side- all surprise is gone and you might have an animal on the other side ready to kill you. Most criminals will bail at that moment, to seek out an easier and safer(for them) victim.
For alarms, don't use the default alarm tone. 9 times out of 10 if I hear it I ignore it, because its so damn common and most of the time its only going off because it was set too sensitive. Choose something out of the ordinary. Machine guns, explosions, screams, something that does not sound like a typical car alarm. It will startle the perp a bit more(being unexpected) and it will be more likely that a passerby will notice and glance over to see whats going on. Also, don't have it too sensitive, if the neighbors know your alarm will go off in a mild wind they won't do anything when it happens. Going to the previous selection, if you can get an alarm that will trigger a realistic recording of a dog barking and growling like its ready to kill, you can get the detterrent(though not the defensive) effect of a guard dog without the cost.
Cameras placed in spots a perp will see when casing the place or running an impulse attack can also be a deterrent. They don't have to be hooked up to have deterrent value, or even be real cameras- a decent looking mockup will still be a deterrent. Of course a real camera that is hooked up can gather evidence in case they fail to deter the perp.
Locks are an obvious one- while they won't stop a determined criminal, they will slow him down and require he make more noise on coming in. Any lock that is not working properly should be replaced immediately, and you might want to consider upgrading really old locks even if they are working right, they might not be as secure as newer models.
I highly recommend this route. To avoid having to go through training issues and increasing demand on the puppy factories out there, seriously consider looking into a rescue dog. These are dogs that typically are taken from shelters before their time runs out. The volunteers who run rescues tend to pick dogs who have exceptional traits like intelligence, affectionate, etc...
In the rescue system, they are typically potty trained, given obedience classes, speyed or neutered, screened for diseases, full immunizations, and are socialized with other dogs. I adopted a 2 year old pit bull a few years back(I went to see a germen shepherd but this dog suckered me). I couldn't have asked for a better dog. She came potty trained(mostly) with basic obedience training and she's extremely loyal. She does really good with my infant children and she scares the crap out of strangers.
I highly recommend rescue dogs after this experience.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
If you decide to get a dog, PLEASE rescue one and do not buy a puppy. Too many great dogs are euthanized every day because nobody wants them.
That information is useful for personnel stationed at those bases, since it is quite likely that they do not spend 100% of their time on the base, and so the safety of the surrounding are is good to know.
I can't say myself, U.S armed forces bases could be the most dangerous places in the nation (with respect to crime), but that particular article you linked to doesn't appear to support or refute the assertion.
http://www.nrahq.org/women/index.asp
Yeah...that'll bring back your family after a botched home invasion.
I live in an area where ALOT of people own firearms. That kind of thing doesn't happen here much...you'd have to be farking crazy.
Check out a reputable, local gun shop and invest in some training on how to handle it responsibly. The NRA is pretty big on that kind of thing.
In addition to an outdoor camera, you can get a motion detector and camera kit that turns on a VCR when triggered and also has a German Shepherd voice synthesizer, virtual Robo Dog. All kinds of gagets for a geek, and pretty simple to install even if you aren't. If you want to go for broke you can get the whole security system and program it to turn the lights on after the second time the robo dog barks. Or whatever -- be creative. Smart Home also has stuff (although some of its the same) if you want a 2nd source.
Finally, if you're in Bush Country, just go door-to-door with your good buddies Smith & Wesson (grin).
to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
Your statement about property is state specific.
Massachusetts residents are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.
Texas residents are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. It is perfectly legal to kill someone for spraypainting graffiti on the side of your building, assuming you catch them in the act and use deadly force to make them stop (as opposed to after they stop, which is retribution, which is not legal.) If someone is running away with your garden gnome and all the way down the block, and you have to decide between letting them go or shooting them in the back with a high powered rifle so you can get your garden gnome back - you can legally do either (your choice.)
Spring guns (booby traps) are still a no-no.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
>A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
:)
That's not true about Labradors at all. I live in the middle of nowhere 20 miles from town. I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do. I once was lost at night somewhere and had the same black Lab with me and locked him in the car while I ate dinner at the Denneys. When I came back and opened the door I couldn't see him anywhere. Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car. I also have never had anyone dare enter the yard when he is around and when I lived in town in a little duplex even my landlady didn't dare come through till I locked him up. Also, he has the meanest bark I have ever heard, along with flashing white teeth. My yellow Lab may look less scarey but he A: Has a big bark and B: He has has a higher intelligence about people than most Rottweilers. Most Rotts think everyone is the Bad Guy. Not This dog. When I had a new washer delivered to my house and was home he never even barked, just watched. Everytime somebody comes around with no business being here he acts like he is going to eat them.
The Goldens bark but then try and "love" you
BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean. A friend who had one let his loose in his yard when some car pulled up in his driveway at 1 AM and the two people started necking. His dog Eric, quietly approached the car, slipped into the open window and then roared like a bear, scaring the crap out of the couple who drove off in a hurry.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
A couple of months ago I had a neighbor break into my house and thought I wouldn't notice. As soon as I got home I did, and on consulting a camera in my living room I found pictures of her where she shouldn't have been.
Video cameras are great, but require lots of tape and can wear out, even digital ones require large amounts of disk space.
I was very happy that I was using a MemoCam that I had picked up in a thrift store back in December. I was very eager to use it as I had a pair of DVD's disappear the month before, and after many months of sitting idle it found my burglar (at least in this one case).
As for the camera, it's a small B&W cam that uses IR to detect motion, when detected it starts snapping pictures to a MMC card. It even supports scheduling so I have it automatically enable motion detection soon after I leave for work and disable it again just before I get home.
With such a device, there is always the risk that it could be stolen, along with the pictures it contains. To help prevent such an occurrence I have since improved my camera arrangement in my home... all I will say is that I now have more than one camera and not even a burglar setting fire to the place could prevent me from having good, usable pictures of the event.
For those who didn't go to the link above, my burglar initially denied everything until she was confronted with the pictures by the police. She's now facing charges of 2nd degree burglary and petty theft, charges that carry maximum jail terms of 10 years in the state pen and 30 days in the county jail respectively.
We are now at 3 months to the day since the break in and still the wheels of justice are turning slow... but at least they are turning, all because I am paranoid enough to have a camera in my home.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Please mod this down!
THe Assault weapon ban does not include AK47s...
Automatic weapons have been banned since the 20's
THe AWB will allow you to buy new high cap mags and it will allow a few cosmetic features on semi auto weapons, not allow automatic rifles...
...can be found at nononsenseselfdefense.com.
In addition, he was facing armed robbers.
You could've hired me.
That is a myth. Texas does not allow the utilization of deadly force to stop property damage. The worst you can do, is point a gun at them and say "Stop, or I'll shoot.", but you could be charged with manslaughter/murder/etc if you shoot them.
In the Texas Penal Code, deadly force is only authorized to prevent either illegal deadly force (Or to include a reasonable threat. If he says he's going to kill you, you can shoot him. If he tries to kill him, you can shoot him.) or some specific crimes being commited. Rape, kidnapping when a threat is involved, etc. If he grabs you by your arm and says "Come with me, or I'll kill you." you can shoot him.
For more information, take a course on concealed carry in the appopriate state if available.
No, I abhor government help, and find private charity in the U.S. extremely generous to those who have just had a bad run of bad luck.
Private charity only goes so far. It doesn't nearly cover the needs out there. And not everyone who's poor is just lazy. I know plently of hard-working people who are sinking deeper and deeper into debt.
For all the "social programs" I've seen in places like Canada, they;re all ineffective hollow promise, with expensive tax burdens, that fatten some asshole politicians.
Clearly the current tax system is corrupt. But the pork-barreling in social programs is nothing compared to the Pentagon/"Defense"/"Homeland Security" sector.
I think a quote from Eisenhower is appropriate:
From his Farewell Speech, 1961
Doesn't *matter* if he'd been robbed, he still killed somebody. He set out intending to shoot and kill a person, which in pretty much *any* country is murder.
No.
In some US states, anyone who breaks into your domicile (that includes house or vehicle) can be shot, even if no other crime has been committed.
IOW, just the mere fact that a stranger is in the house w/o permission from the owner is justification for shoot-to-kill.
Anti-gun activists in Louisiana brayed that the streets would run red with blood if such a law were passed, and the law was passed, and, of course, blood hasn't run down the streets...
Brady types tried to spread the same fear about a concealed-carry weapon law, and the same lack of blood in the street occured.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
*sigh* yet another geek with no clue about the assualt weapon ban.
Hint, AK-47s (the media's favorite representative of assualt weapons) was never banned. Automatics were, but those have been banned since the mid 30's without a special license.
Finkployd
I have a colleague with a PhD that had an armed intruder break into his home while he was there. In the ensuing gunfight, he was shot in the arm. Unfortunately, the fellow had purchased rubber shot rounds for his shotgun- they bounced off the table the intruder had thrown on its side in the kitchen so he could hide behind it.
Hence, rule number two (if one decides to own a gun): Shoot to kill. Rifled slugs, or at least double ought buckshot. The rifled slugs have an advantage in this day and age where some criminals decide to wear vests: the vest WILL stop the slug. However, the kinetic energy is enough to kill through blunt force trauma, or by the vest being wadded up around the slug, which continues into the thoracic cavity. That's not survivable.
It sounds brutal, but the first time that happens, won't be nobody knockin' down your door to hurt you the next time.
Of course, they might break in to steal your guns when you're not home.
In America, anyway, you're likely to face charges if the person is fleeing. That means that you shot them (even on your property, armed, and threatening you) while fleeing. It's no longer self-defense. It's murder.
The classic example is the robber that enters, gets shot by the homeowner, and drags himself outside to die. If the guy dies in the house (or maybe just on the property) then it's clearly a case of defense. If he dies outside, it can be construed that he was fleeing. Big fat gray/grey area.
IANAL, blah blah. Maybe one could shed some light on this. I'm only posting it because you seem to consider it highly unfair that he is being charged. Replies to your post seem to argue that the shopkeeper is a heartless murderer. I think it's somewhere in between, depending on all those circumstances that I don't know (because I'm going off your story alone).
The AC is correct. Any respectable car thief knows that the club may be near indestructable, but steering wheels are terribly easy to cut through. If you want to protect your car, get one of the club-type apparatuses that locks around your brakes instead; those are far more effective.
Don't be a Victim / Personal and Home Safety - Sacramento Sheriff's Departmenth ome_safety
http://sacsheriff.com/crime_prevention/index.cfm#
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that: the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
So, if you're commiting a crime at night, you're fair game. I feel sorry for thieves and murderers in Texas, whenever they go to work, they're taking their lives in their hands.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
A cat will run from a stranger, dogs will usually try and protect their people. No matter how small the dog.
Whereas if you're from the UK, government cameras. Lots of government cameras.
Which, you'll note, will not injure you nor will they fulfill the purpose of preventing crime, making them a perfect Polite Solution.
Canada has a much smaller population then the United States. Also having a much lower population density.
Where the heck did you get those stats?
From the FBI's own website back in, I believe, 1996. They referenced a report which at the time was available for download; it made a splash in the popular press, especially in the outrage expressed by the anti-gun fanatics.
However, if you can't find the particular report in question (it's no longer on the FBI website, but last time I looked for it it wasn't too difficult to track down), similar surveys (some more scientific than others) have confirmed these figures - and in fact cite defensive gun use as high as 2.5 million cases a year (well beyond the FBI's "200,000-800,000"). These studies have been conducted by the Field Institute in California; the State of Ohio, in Ohio; Peter Hart Research Associates for the entire Unites States; and the Cambridge Reports for the entire United States. IIRC there are around 15 confirming studies but I don't have them all at hand. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one or two of these mentioned on the internet, and perhaps even be able to find an electronic copy of the paper study. I won't waste my time trying to find links; you should be able to do so yourself with the information I've provided to you (assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself).
And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot?
Now your turn. I've done a google search and can find no credible study backing up your claim. The only thing I found close to this was that certain inner-city black gang members were more likely to be shot if they were armed than when they were not, most likely because *they were more likely to engage in an armed conflict*. This had nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity and victim defense.
Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.
According to a collection of studies done in various large cities (New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to name just three) and released despite the strenuous objects of various police departments, you are much more likely to suffer minor injuries if you resist victimization by a criminal. However, you are also much more likey to SURVIVE victimization by a criminal, *especially if you are a woman*. So the passive acquiescence taught by many police departments is MORE likely to get you killed than active resistance.
This phenomenon is well-known among psychologists. Criminals look for prey to victimize; if the victim fights back and refuses to accept the role as prey, this changes the criminal's perspective of his intended victim from 'prey' to 'potentially dangerous predator'. If the criminal cannot subdue the victim in a short period of time he's likely to disengage and look for easier targets, where personal risk (real or perceived) is lower. Most criminals are cowards, remember.
A willing victim fits right into the role and invites abuse. So while it's indeed more likely that you won't be injured, it's also more likely that your acquiescene will encourage the criminal to become so violent that he'll end up killing you. Hence the statistic that if you fight back you're more likely to sustain minor injuries (cuts, bruises) but are also more likely to SURVIVE the encounter.
In any event, it's better to be armed than not. There's a reason why the majority of handgun owners in the United States now carry their firearms concealed *even though they don't have a license to do so*. There's a reason the largest and fast-growing gun purchasing demographic is women under the age of 35. It isn't baseless fear or, as the antigun lobby would have us believe, because we all crave to do murder in our hearts. It's because guns are an effective deterrant to victimization by criminals.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The classic example is the robber that enters, gets shot by the homeowner, and drags himself outside to die. If the guy dies in the house (or maybe just on the property) then it's clearly a case of defense. If he dies outside, it can be construed that he was fleeing. Big fat gray/grey area.
No, that is not the classic example. Where the intruder dies is irrelevant, where he was shot is relevant. The classic example contrasts the robber being shot in the house vs. being **shot outside**. The difference is not legal vs. illegal, it is the presumption of imminent threat. In many states in the US, an intruder who is a stranger and who has forced his way into a home is presumed, by legal statute, to be a theat unless there is evidence to the contrary. Outside no such legal presumption exists and there will be more explaining to do by the homeowner.
Sorry, accidentally posted anonymously.
Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US.
One of many social factors: The US war on drugs. Many homicides are drug related, directly or indirectly.
The assault rate per 100,000 is higher in Canada.
Sexual Assault, 32.8 per 100k US to 77.5 Canada
Robbery higher in US, 144.9 to 88.0 but there is no mention if this includes use of a gun
Aggravated assault, Canada is higher with 761 to 323.
These are numbers for 2000...
Only problem aligning the two is definitions... I found that Aggravated Assualt in Canada is 3 categories but usually all clumped together.
What the numbers usually imply that if the criminal knows your not supposed to be armed you are an easier mark. This was proven a few times in Washington DC by comparing the times of day when certain crimes occured and how ofter. DC has very strict gun control laws...
Laws don't mean anything to most criminals. Access to guns is very easy and the better deterrent is to make yourself unattractive to would be assailants.
This can include..
1. Stay in very visible areas.
2. Living in a well lit area
3. House on the main street of a neighborhood
4. Front side apartments
5. Living where gun ownership is permitted (esp carry/concealed)
6. Having nosy neighbors
7. Keeping doors and windows locked and closed on ground levels.
8. Having a well lit backyard. (fences can work against you)
9. Dogs are nice.
10. Home security systems and signs to help "advertise it" - (will deter some)
There are many things to deter crime, don't for a minute think laws have much to do with it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Killing someone because of trespassing? Someone that's almost surely unarmed!? That's the last solution I would've chosen, if at all.
"Because of tresspassing". Not even "because he tresspassed". Already your bending the language to avoid putting the responsibility where it belongs - on the person who chose to "tresspass", almost certainly as the first step of committing a more serious crime - like car theft, vandalism, rape, burglary, etc.
But you DON'T shoot somebody who's just tresspassing. You warn them off (or in some jusisdictions, if you have evidence of a lot more than tresspass, demand they stay put with their hands where you can see them until the police arrive to sort it all out.)
If you'd actually TAKEN the course recommended by the original poster, you'd know that.
As for "unarmed":
If you point a gun at somebody and demand that he leave, and he comes at you instead, either he's armed or plumb crazy and thinks he's strong enough to take you DESPITE the gun. Either way a "reasonable and prudent person" would believe that he's about to take "serious bodily harm" unless he does something.
THAT's the legal standard for firing.
But not for KILLING. You fire to STOP THE ATTACK. Maybe one in four he dies. His tough luck.
If you're a 120-pound skinny (or 250-pound fat) nerd and he's a 280-pound muscle-bound felon who spent two years pumping iron in stir until they let him out last week, he doesn't NEED a weapon to take you. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Him coming at you after you point a gun at him and tell him to leave is a VERY strong hint.
Fortunately, most crooks are smart enough to realize that if you've got the gun pointed at them it's time to leave now. So you almost NEVER have to shoot.
But (like seatbelts, fire extinguishers, and armies) you have to be READY and WILLING to use them when they're needed or there's no point in having them in the first place. And some human predators are good enough at reading your resolve that they'll know if you're NOT willing to shoot - so you have to be willing.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why don't you build yourself a vomit-inducing microwave gun? Or play a diarrhea-inducing infrasound mp3 using a motion-controlled mp3 server? There are loads of useful non-lethal options to explore, some of them may be illegal though.
Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially ... your more likely to get shot with your own weapon (or get sued by someone you shoot) than you are to successfully defend your home.
Sorry, buddy, but the Kellerman study has been debunked and these days is only promoted by gun control organizations--not even Kellerman himself still stands behind it.
Killing someone is a tough thing
I do agree, however, that if you ever point a firearm at somebody you'd best be prepared to use it.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Another option for motion detection software
Works well enough. The point is to upload it somewhere remote so that a burgler can't just take the PC as well.
Get your Unix fortune now!
My high school physics teacher had problems every Halloween with kids blowing up his mailbox with fireworks. He finally took a laser home from school, set up some mirrors and ringed his mailbox with laser tripwires. This was hooked up to a freakin' loud alarm. You get the picture.
If you wanted to take it a step further, you could set up strobe lamps and a camera like the intersection ticket boxes. Multiple view angles would help in case the person has their back to the camera. That way, when the police came by you could hand them glossies and a DV tape of the guy.
I chose the Cheetah for a number of reasons. The first being that they're the most dog like of the big cats, even to the point of having dog like feet with dull, nonretractable claws. They won't scratch either you or the furniture.
Second, I just watched Hatati! a couple of days ago.
Third, they're actually a proven deterent against burglers. A woman on Long Island used to keep one and let if roam free in the yard. The police found the jimmy marks on the window, cheetah footprints around the window, and burgler footprints leading away from the window very far apart and very deep. The Cheetah doesn't have to chase to be a viable deterent. Simply arriving on the the scene seems to be all the persuasion a burgler needs to flee.
The primary disadvantage of the cheetah is that it's primarily diurnal. For maximum security I advise supplimenting the cheetah with a leopard, a nocturnal hunter which naturally shares territory with cheetahs.
They also hide their kills in the attic.
KFG
Where the heck did you get those stats?
In 1997, the National Institude of Justice released a study entitled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms." You can read this study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf. There is a section in it about defensive gun uses. According to a study done in 1994 by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, there are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Personally, I find that number a bit hard to believe--their sample size is quite small. OTOH, the National Crime Victimization Survey data extrapolates to 108,000 defensive gun uses. I suspect the truth is somewhere between these numbers. In any case, the study is worth reading no matter what side of the fence you're on.
A dog is a good idea because it's a great deterrent, and a good alarm. Then call 911.
Calling 911 doesn't work when you live out in the sticks and the mean police response time to your residence is more than half an hour. Remember, for the most part the police don't stop crimes in progress--they pick up the pieces afterward. Self defense is YOUR responsibility.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
German shepards. I have a diabetic cousin that has one. This dog has pawed at her face to keep her awake when she has started to go into diabetic comas. It even frightened off a prowler once.
Also, it dilligently watches their baby, and even gently plays with it.
German Shepards are extremely intimidating, yet intelligent and friendly dogs. Excellent with children. They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls. Shepards always know who to attack and when.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Okay okay okay, too many comments about guns.
. html
Guns are not a reasonable solution for Yo Maing's problem. He/she specifically says "not looking for something that would get someone injured." Guns injure people. Besides, buying a gun and getting proper training just is not an interesting solution to the problem.
If you really want to do a security system on the cheap look into fish alarms like http://www.outdoorsweekly.com/ultrashackfishalarm
If you have one of those, you can set up a tripwire fence of barely visible fishing line around a piece of property so that when somebody or something trips it, a loud alarm goes off with flashing lights. You'll want to go with a non-nylon fishing line though because nylon stretches too much. My dad has used this system while camping in Alaska to ward off grizzlys and he's still alive too!
If $20 is still too much, you can make your own trip-wire circuit: http://www.aaroncake.net/circuits/alarm1.htm
++ Eschew Obfuscation ++
It's usually illegal to have a static firearm with a trap mechanism.
They used to have things like this all the time in Europe and North America for both setting traps for deer, boar, bears and to keep poachers away, they became illegal a while back I think.
So what you are talking about is always pretty much illegal, with the guns at least.
Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants
Fully automatic weapons are stiff covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Unless you have serious money and can afford one of the relatively few legal machine guns out there, they're basically illegal. So what Sarah Brady calls an "AK-47" and what our arab friends like to use are not in the least bit comparable.
Secondly--and I think you already know this, based on your bayonet remark--the ban was largely cosmetic. Rifles functionally identical, but cosmetically different than those banned in 1994 have been manufactured since the ban went into effect--which, to me, proves the law was entirely useless. What's even more absurd is that because of the ban, demand for these guns has gone through the roof--more "assault weapons" were bought from 1994-2004 then were bought from 1974-1994. I don't know what the Bradys were trying to achieve, but I doubt that was it.
Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster
Bushmaster doesn't manufacture AK-47s, not even the semi-automatic version.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The classic example is the robber that enters, gets shot by the homeowner, and drags himself outside to die. If the guy dies in the house (or maybe just on the property) then it's clearly a case of defense. If he dies outside, it can be construed that he was fleeing. Big fat gray/grey area.
.45 caliber hole through his chest.
.22, 9mm, etc. Get something with some stopping power - .40, .45, 10mm (who knew the difference a single mm would make!). Smaller caliber handguns have great penetration power, but tend to do a through-and-through because of it, doing little noticable damage at the time. For close-in home defense, you don't want penetration power, you want stopping power - case in point:
.45, the first hit would have done it - put the guy on his ass and kept him there. I doubt he would have survived. I'm not condoning what that guy did, but it does make for a good example as to why light caliber handguns are not good for much more than tin cans.
Easy answer to this - Gun Control. No, not the Brady-thing, I'm talking about hitting what you aim at.
Funny how a guy can't run back outside if he's missing half his head, or has a
Don't buy whimpy handguns. Smaller caliber's just not going to cut it -
I remember seeing the video of the attorney being shot by a disgruntled ex-client outside the courthouse - the attorney was shot POINT BLANK 5 times (including the head) by the assailant with a light caliber revolver (.32 I believe) and yet stayed standing, and running.
If the guy had used a
If shooting big iron is uncomfortable, then the previous suggestion of a shotgun (autoloading, and high-capacity, of course) is your next best bet. I'm not sure why the movies always portray people using pump shotguns - maybe it's the dramatic and intimidating Cha-Chunk that preceeds every shot fired, but I can make my 20 gauge autoloader sound very intimidating the first time (spring-close the bolt = CHUNK!). But when it comes down to 'business' that thing will reload in nothing flat, which is one less thing to worry about. Additionally, autoloading shotguns (heck, any autoloader, including handguns and rifles) will absorb some of the blow-back when firing. This is a good thing.
I don't own a handgun, but would like to, if I had the time to spend practicing with it. Like others have said, training is a necessary requirement for weapon ownership. An untrained person with a firearm is as dangerous to himself as his assailant.
-AutoNiN
Why don't we just implement canings like in Singapore in addition to the regular punishments and fines? Nothing teaches people to respect authority like a giant wet bamboo pole across the back. I'm sure Michael Fay isn't ever going back there, and if he does, I'm sure he wouldn't be dumb enough to break the law again. They say there is no teacher like pain and in a lot of cases, this seems quite true. Yes, it sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, but maybe we should just think of it as a spanking for grown-ups. =) When in doubt, CANE!
>Someone breaks into your house. He is armed, you are not. You lose some valuables.
Someone breaks into your house. You are armed, he is armed. You lose nothing, he loses his life.
Now tell me which is the greater evil.
The greater evil is in being naieve enough that you think they will just take your stuff, and let you be in peace. Make it more realistic...
Some coked up armed criminal breaks into your house. Your wife gets raped, you get shot or stabbed, and your tow year old gets to witness it all when he wanders in because the ruckus woke him up.
Oh, I almost forgot... AND YOU LOOSE YOUR STUFF.
STUFF is replaceable. My family is not. You want my stuff that badly, then by all means take it. It is easy to get more. You threaten my family, then the gloves come off, and we throw down.
If they want stuff, they can easily watch to see when no one is home and come in to get the stuff. If they come when someone is home, they are either looking for more than stuff, high on something and not in a very stable state of mind, stupid or desperate. I do not want to meet a criminal in any of these conditions unable to DEFEND MY FAMILY.
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
The point is to upload it somewhere remote so that a burgler can't just take the PC as well.
I want my security system to be a deterrent, not just a forensic tool.
I am building a home studio. $10,000+ worth of equipment. Naturally, word will eventually get around.
So what am I doing? Everything goes in a steel cage, cabled to a bolt in the floor.
Webcam surveillance. Clearly posted signs demonstrating camera, computer, and internet. The connection is a cellphone. Luckily I have a spare cellphone and AT&T Wireless Internet; it will be configured to dial the cellphone (permanently attatched & powered off an adapter) and use it as an alternate conduit.
All that smart tech won't help me one bit, if the criminals think they can just snip the cable line and be done with it. Luckily, the power is a 2-inch thick stranded aluminum cable coming out of the ground. I don't think anyone's going to try to cut that without going to the transformer, 30 feet up a pole on a well lit street patrolled by police at night.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Here are some suggestions that don't involve firearms.
1.) Locks. If you are like most of the US there is a Kwikset key in knob lock, and maby a deadbolt on your doors. These locks are equivalent to the old style Windows log on screens. You know, the ones that you could bypass with just the Esc key. Look into a Grade 2 or 1 knob or lever lock, and definately a grade 1 deadbolt for all of your exterior doors. Here is where you can actually let your inner geek play in the lock shop. You can get a wide variety of locks with really impressive mechanisms, mostly for pick resistance (this should not concern you as much as lock manufacturers claim, picking requires an incredible amount of skill and time, your average burglar will not possess this, or be willing to spend that much time crouched infront of your door.) and for security against key duplication. Abloy uses rotating discs, Medeco uses pins that need to be placed at the correct hight (like a standard pin tumbler lock) and a correct rotation and tilt. Mul-t-lock incorporates pin in pin construction, MIWA uses magnets.... there are a great many interesting options.
Besides just installing the locks, you should look into a Door wrap, a reinforced strike, and of course make sure your door frame is quite sound. Hollow core doors? Get rid of them.
Ground floor windows? There are many films that can be applied to the window, to make smashing a window a much more difficult task. Single pane windows, for example ones that open say into your basement, can be replaced with lexan.
Trim shrubs and trees so as to make your house visible from the road. Don't allow valuable, easily portable objects to be easily visible through windows. Ask the neighbors to form a simple Neighborhood watch program. If one house in the neighborhood was robbed, expect more to be... Another good, and often free service, is to ask your local police to perform a quick security survey of the property. You may also want to ask a locksmith what he/she thinks.
Wrong, moron. Don't be so quick to open your damn fool mouth, it makes you look mentally retarded when people show exactly why you should have just stayed quiet.
Try ex-armed guard. We had to learn when we could and couldn't shoot people. Someone steals a bag of money from a armored transport but doesn't give you any reason to believe they are going to attempt to harm you, you can't shoot them in Colorado. They pull a gun on you, but turn and run before you fire on them, you cannot shoot them. Well, you can, but you'll get a murder charge. I was mearly trying to get across the point that it is highly advisable that anyone looking into self-defense means learn their local laws. Before I knew mine, I assumed it was cool to blow away some fucker stealing lawn gnomes. Turns out it's not... except in Texas.
And then there was my time in the military, but that's a whole different society. There, you shoot anyone coming anywhere near that airstrip that doesn't go by you first. Those 15 ft. high razor wire topped fences are there for a reason, and it's to encourage people to make sure those guard towers don't come in handy.
And speaking of Mods, what happened to my +1, Insightful? I don't really care, but it's kind of odd it just disappeared without a -1, Overrated or anything else in sight. I'll just chaulk it up to some sort of pussy censorship.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
The problem is mostly a legal one, as anyone who's taken a concealed handgun course will tell you. The laws vary by state, but many are like Texas, where I'm at and can reasoanbly describe.
One factor is threat escalation. When one party initiates the use force, then the other party is justified in using force as a defense. When the first party escalates to deadly force, then the other party is justified in using deadly force in defense. Whoever initiates each escalation is the agressor who will likely be criminally convicted, whoever defends without escalating further up the chain of "nothing->force->deadly force" than the other party has already done is in the clear on defensive grounds. Where this all ties back in to the point is that while drawing a weapon and pointing it at someone only constitutes "force" (and is therefore legally no different than shouting, pushing, or grabbing their arm), firing the weapon, even into the ground or air as a warning shot, constitutes deadly force.
In Texas in particular, property rights are strong, and you can initiate deadly force in response to certain property crimes under certain condititions justifiably, even though the person committing the property crimes isn't neccesarily using deadly force against you. It's complicated, but a good rule of thumb for this stuff is that if it's dark, the guy is either inside your house and not clearly visible (lights are out), or it's dark and the guy is in your lawn showing signs of attempted arson (gas can in hand), you can shoot.
But just as one should never fire a warning shot (as it is a meaningless threat escalation and puts you on the wrong side of certain legal issues), one should also never "shoot to kill", or at least never phrase it that way to the cops who show up afterwards or the grand jury you'll be facing even in a defensive case. The important thing is that you were "shooting to stop" (either stop the property crime under the right circumstances, shooting to stop the threat on your life or that of others, shooting to stop "deadly force" actions against you or others, or any combination of the above). That also means that once the person does "stop" (dead, severely disabled and immobilized, running away, whatever), you are obligated to stop shooting, or once again you're on the wrong side of the law. Therefore a practical consideration to keep in your head (But enver say out loud) is that when you do make that shot to "stop", it better be deadly - because chances are after the initial hit the guy *will* stop one way or the other, and if he stays alive, he's likely to sue in civil court for his enduring medical problems if you winged him.
So, in summary, make sure you know your state's laws about when the use deadly force is authorized (A concealed handgun course in states that offer it is a great source of information and training) - and shoot to kill, but don't ever admit to shooting to kill, only shooting to stop - and do stop shooting when they stop aggressing. I would personally recommend a double-tap to the chest for your opening and closing volley.
11*43+456^2
You are close, but I must again say that you are incorrect on this point. Trust me, if someone stole your ipod while you were down in the great state of Texas and to exact your revenge you hunted the thief down and killed him, you would indeed be rung up on 1st degree murder charges.
I think this may be my fault for not being entirely specific about the Texas statute, and for that I apologize. Let me try to be more explicit.....
The statute we're both talking about is sec. 9.42 of Title 2 of the Texas Code. It does in fact say that you can kill a person to defend property alone, however, if you read to the end of the statute [specifically 9.42(3)(b)], reprinted here:
(b)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
You will find that the use of deadly force to protected property is only allowed in those instances in which the protection of said property with deadly force is the only means available to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. This is an extremely steep burden and although Texas does have that old wild west reputation, people are most certainly not allowed to kill simply for the fact that their property has been damaged or stolen.
Again I apologize for not being specific about this earlier, and it's possible that we were both right. I hope I cleared this up somewhat.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I don't know about Geek style home defense, but I have my own system.
1. Own a gun of some sort. If someone is in your house at 3 AM and you don't know them, they are up to no good. Sorry, but they are dead. I respect all life, but the most precious ones are protected first, that is my wife and daughter.
2. Own a big dog of some sort. My dog of choice is a Labrador Retriever. You don't need a mean dog with a bad rep. From a distance and in a crisis situation nobody is going to know a Black Labrador from a Rotwieler. A Labrador is a great family pet, and Lab will be as mean in that sort of a situation, even meaner. I've had repairmen backed into a corner before because they made the wrong gesture to me, and it wasn't even threatening. However I would trust a Labrador with my family's life, she doesn't have a mean bone in her body twords us, but cross our family however, and watch it.
3. For home deterrent, use a automatic on/off light switch (or leave a light on) and a TV with an alarm. My TV comes on every day at 4pm and goes off at 2am. Most burglars are going to break into a house with no lights on, or a house that looks like nobody is home. Burglars are essentially lazy and just want the goods.
4. Move to a safer neighborhood or MAKE it safer. I know, probably not an option, however I won't live in a dangerous neighborhood. I'd rather drive 45min to a half hour. If the 'hood goes to crap, I pack and move. The 'hood I live in hasn't had a burglary in about 7 years. If you have to live in a risky neighborhood, organize a neighborhood watch.
-- 4 8 15 16 23 42
Can't believe it has not been mentioned. Use ZoneMinder. It's an open souce product available exclusively for Linux. I've been using it for the last 4 months running 8 webcams (not really webcams, cctv cameras actually) simultaneously for the last 4 months and it's pretty stable. Most of the webcam software that I deal with previously would crash every month or so, or wouldn't capture the right scenes of motion. This piece of software supports some of the multi-input cards on the market.
An important note though - while many rescue dogs have gone through some obedience training, as an owner/caretaker one really should do obedience with the dog personally. Obedience training is as much about training the trainer as it is about training the dog. This is mostly because you need to be consistentant with the dog, even after is obedience class is over. If the dog doesn't follow directions, its usually because the human isn't giving them correctly/consistantly.
ABSOLUTELY. I was just coming from the perspective that it's easier to get started with a dog that has some training, and it is in my experience, than from scratch. I think that would be relevant especially for older people. But you definetly need to with your dog and get to know your dog. People need to understand that, even if you send your dog to a high end training school, the effects will fade if you don't work with your dog and you aren't consistant.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
For openers, I have paid more in taxes in the last two years than I ever recieved in benefits or pay serving my country. I would say that I have paid back Uncle Same probably 4 times over.
As far as the budget is concerned, according to Budget Explorer, the US National Budget for 2005 is expected to pay out 41% of all funds to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Social Security Administration alone. Only 18% is earmarked for National Defense and military pensions.
Tell me we aren't already a welfare state. Perhaps you should take a peak at the budget yourself sometime.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
which was the first item on the list. Any such course will cover safe and appropriate methods of storage, if they're even halfway decent.You apparently missed
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
.sig). They can be crazy
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean.
Couldn't agree with you more (see my
and they can be high energy but they can also be chill and sweet.
The only problem with Chessies is that they are not suited to everybody. As I'm sure you know, they can also be food-protective and their wariness of strangers can lead to problems. A dog that attacks burglars is good but I've also had mine charge at neighbors who are walking down the sidewalk. You have to assert your dominance if you're going to own a chessie.
I took the not lethal approach. I live in a decent neighborhood, but unfortunatley the f*ck next door got divorced and started up his own meth-lab. I won't get into the specifics, but there were several nights I stayed awake every night at the dinner table with a 10mm S&W, just ready for the f*ck to walk through my door. I digress.
0 .a sps p?nu mber=PC170IR&variation=&aitem=4&mitem= 11
:)
What I did was went out an purchased a cheap computer and bought a Geovision G600 card, and purchased three IR cameras. The total cost was around $1500 - $2000, but was completely worth it.
Here are some links to the system and cameras I purchased:
http://www.geovision.com.tw/002/en/product-gv60
http://www.supercircuits.com/STORE/prodinfo.a
I don't think the camera link is exactly what I purchased, but it is very close. I'd love to post a link to my system to let everyone view it, but there is no way I would survive a slashdotting.
Believe me when I say that this has been very successful, not only in getting this person arrested, but also in providing me with some very hilarious footage.
Most people (esp. many anti-gun people) don't realize that the police have no legal requirement to come to your aid (at least in the US; probably elsewhere too).
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.
When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).]
1. Call for a pizza. Give your address in a loud voice, and ask that they get there as soon as possible. Say everything else quietly.
2. If the intruder isn't spooked off by you talking into the telephone, giving your address and requesting someone to arrive in a hurry, you're SOL. Now is time to call 911 and request, in this order, an ambulance and the police.
If the intruder left, calm down by enjoying your pizza.
If he didn't leave when you called for the pizza, he wouldn't have left when you called the cops, either. He probably understands better than you do that if Cop Number One shows up while the intruder is still in the house, Cop Number One is going to call for backup and sit tight until it gets there. Meanwhile, you get to enjoy whatever the intruder thinks is the appropriate way to handle a witness.
Chances are, the pizza arrived first. If you're exceptionally lucky, the intruder has finished with you, grabbed the DVD player and the PS2 and left. If you're not lucky, the intruder intended to injure you in the first place, and he's grabbed the PS2 just for spite. Now you've got someone who may perform first aid on you, or may break down and blubber. You've also a pizza, but you are lacking teeth. Or blood.
The ambulance will probably arrive next. The paramedics will enjoy the pizza while they work on you.
When the cops arrive, they'll either take a statement from you, or draw a chalk outline around you. They'll enjoy the pizza, too.
Now, all of the previous was fairly facetious, but here's the stunning fact for all of you: the police don't have to do anything about a crime in progress. They might or might not, their call. They do have to take a statement afterwards from any surviving witnesses, collect evidence, and all the other after-the-fact tasks. You, or your inheritors, have absolutely no recourse if the police are busy elsewhere, take their time in arriving, or just sit tight waiting for various amounts of back-up to arrive.
This is assuming that your 911 call got through in the first place. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, in normal circumstances, it can take 15 minutes for an operator to answer. (As I have read; I don't live in LA.) Then the request to passed to the dispatcher, who may have just sent all the cops in the area to the bank robbery on the other side of town. There are a number of reputable and scholarly (and some that are less so) publications about the folly of depending on 911 when you life is at stake. I refer you to this page from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for only one example. Searching Google for "call 911 die" will bring up many more.
Your 911 call is a request for aid, not a demand that must be satisfied. You still have to defend yourself; nobody else is going to. If you can't handle the responsiblity of gun ownership, or you haven't the physical ability and training to defend yourself unarmed, get some chemical defense foam with the strongest ju-ju available. If you haven't that, use some wasp-and-hornet insect killer right in his face... the nerve agent in the bug killer will slow him down a bit.
To sum up: you must be willing, able and properly equipped to defend yourself when trouble has come looking for you. YOU are your own responsibility.
Salt shot for a thief? Did you just finish watching "Kill Bill 2" or something?
Believe it or not, some intruders are very intent (and/or drugged to boot). I've seen a security camera video of a bank robber shot cleanly *through the heart* who ran around, shot the Sheriff dead, then ran out the door - and died in the parking lot. But the Sheriff was still just as dead.
If you're going to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are escalating the situation to the point of lethal force, and should be ready for them to do likewise. Assuming that you don't believe in using deadly force unless someone's life or body is in real danger, then it's nothing short of rediculous to believe that merely pissing the guy off is a good move. If your life (or someone else's) was in danger to begin with, how much more likely is he to shoot you in the head once you've put some rock salt in him, or shot him in the crotch with an air rifle?
Even though getting kicked in the crotch works all the time in the movies, in a real-life fight, it mostly just gets their adrenaline going and pisses them off. Sure, their nuts will be sore after the fight, but during the fight - watch out. I've personally witnessed it all too many times.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
So.... let's say that someone breaks into your home and sees you pull out said imitation firearm. Let's say that they're packing heat as well, and so decide to return fire. Who's going to win?
If the situation truly calls for lethal force, then playing with toys is a stupid idea. And if the situation *doesn't* call for lethal force, whipping out an imitation gun is very likely to land *you* in jail.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.
Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.
The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors. They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them. Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.
Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are a bit more wild and energetic than Labradors but they are also wonderful. Chessies are just as friendly as Labs but they are even WORSE when it comes to taking a break. From what I've experienced most Chessies will work or play until they literally pass out from exhaustion. They are a little dopey but not dumb, it's just that their energy is a bit too much for them to stop to think about what they are doing! They are EXTREMELY trainable and are very protective of children.
You can hardly go wrong with either a Labrador or a Chesapeake Bay Retriever but be prepared to take a lot of walks and swims if you get one!
Sapere aude!
We got our German Shepherd from a rescue and she started barking at people walking in front of our house the same night. She is the sweetest thing but you wouldn't know it by walking in front of our house, where she sounds positively vicious. She and her best buddy, a Lab/Retriever mix we got a few months later, are pretty much all we need to keep any prowlers away (we had two on the property (while my wife was home with the kids) in the months before we got the dogs). There are now much easier targets in the neighborhood, should someone be checking things out.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Perhaps a motion sensitive water sprinkler would be a non-lethal option. http://www.km01.com/gardeninghome.html/
Coyote traps of this sort are still legal at least in Washington state.
It seems to me that YOU have not studied history. Here are the facts:
"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. "
Lots more there, go read it.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Do'h. You're the able bodied societal leech ass hole. Tax payers gave you K-12 education. Tax payers gave you a military to join. If you went to college it was probably a college to received state tax funds. Sounds like you were living off society for a long time. You can give a little back. Can you name a country that has both a high standard of living and no investment in social programs? No? Those social programs make your country a nice place to live and you don't even realize what you have, or who provides it. This pull yourself up by your boot straps crap is pure bullshit. You started out on top of a society provided infrastructure that made it possible to get where you are.
The notion that any animal knows who to attack and when is completely false. We all love to think of our pets as honorable creatures, but fact of the matter is that they are just wandering around their little animal life. They don't understand what is happening in most situations.
I was attacked and nearly killed by a German Shepard when I was four years old. I did not provoke this attack (I was four, I was more into Sesame Stree than I was dogs at the time) however I do not blame the dog. The dog is just an animal who for whatever reason decided the need to attack a child visciously.
Me, I would rely on a shotgun over a pet for safty. Keep the pet for love and adoration. --Drevux
I'd be very interested to hear about the details of this installation, if they are available. What triggers are there for the alarm? What safeties are there to prevent it from going off with the owner in the car, especially while driving? Are there any safeties to prevent it from going off in the event of a crash?
Unless you're just joking and I didn't pick that up.
If you wanted to scare someone out of your house maybe you could keep pet snakes in plain view, or leave bear traps and broken glass on the floor. Appear crazy.
Hands in my pocket
It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.
That is what YOU say. Now consider the following statistics, which I have taken from this report and which are for the year 1991: (I cut the list by some countries in the midfield)
And now tell me again that having a gun in your flat is a good prevention. I guess I need to say that I am from Switzerland and have an automatic gun (SIG Stgw 90) at home (from the army), as every male citizen has, but you can`t get bullets for it (the ones you have are in a sealed package).
As for the question for security: I lock the door, that`s it, but I guess in the US that is unfortunately not enough.
this sig is useless
Out of sight out of mind: He closed in his carport so you couldn't see his car
Inconvenience potential burglars: a pet fence around the back yard (with the gate locked), storm windows and storm doors extra locks on widows and doors.
A thorny defense: All the windows had holly bushes growing under and around them.
looking like you have nothing to steal: The house wasn't the best in the neighborhood or the worst and all the improvements were either invisible to the casual observer or common place.
In summary the house was the least attractive target on the whole block with many inconveniences visible from the street, where presumably the potential burglars case the property.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
My family's home was broken into three times when I was young, so we learnt the following the hard way: - Gravel, gravel and more gravel. Cover the entire front garden down to the pavement/sidewalk right up to the sidegate/house windows with gravel. It can be dusty and gets into everything, but it's also noisy. If it's impossible to get to your front door without stepping on gravel, most theives will just walk away. - Personalise. I had a friend who bought a really REALLY old VW Beetle and she really went to town on it. She painted the words "Hi there" up on the roof, had each door a slightly different colour and left the inches of rust around the lights and handels. Years later when it was time for her to upgrade to a decent car, she left the beetle in the WORST area of town to see if her customising really was a deterrant. Three months later, it's still there untouched. Same goes for bikes and motorcycles. If you make them your own, theives will have a much harder time concealing/hawking them. - Automatic lights/motion sensors. 'nuff said. - LOCK ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS - get decent double glazing in. - Fake alarm/cameras on both front/side and rear of house. - Never be afraid to annoy the local police, it's their job to provide security if you've taken all other reasonable procautions. Get used to the phrase: "Ok so you're not going to investigate the prowler outside? Ok, I'm off to make a video diary of his movements / me shooting him / your inability to help. I'm sure the newspapers will be REAL interested. How do you spell your name again?" - Get a big dog. Call it Tison, Zeus, Thor, Mars, etc. - Have automatic timers for tvs and washing machines and lamps. Make sure to use them. - Cut up all your cardboard boxes into tiny pieces. Dont advertise that you have a new PC/TV/DVD player/ monitor etc. - Nothing looks quite so mean as a host of venus flytraps as your border plants. No kidding here, those things would deter King Kong.
That is, at best, woefully delinquent reading of the links you cite.
For a truthful comparison of firearm killings between Canada and the US, look here. In particular, check out this summary:
Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada.
> I've done all the hard math...
Maybe, but Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"Police have confirmed it is perfectly legal."
Yeah, in South Africa, but not in the US. Remember that thing in the fact about why this is a US-centric site? At least add "in South Africa" to the end of that post.
I should point out that one should never leave a baby or young child alone with a dog, especially if the dog is not familiar with the child.
The child may inadvertently/accidentally challenge the dog, which may cause it to "discipline" the child, by the only means available to it -- its teeth.
(No, I'm not a dog hater, I happen to own two dogs)
They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls
Unfortunately, it is foolish comments like these that have America convinced that some dogs are dangerous simply because of their breed. This is not the case (when speaking of AKC breeds - not dogs bred by dog fighters). The only time that a pit bull is a mindless attack dog is when it is trained to be that way. A German Shepherd can be trained the same as in the story of the person above who was attacked by one at 4 years old.
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
Check out This page
for instructions on how to build your own vehicle immobiliser. It features a warning LED, kill switch, and magnetic pickup to deactivate the system.
Pit bulls are *potentially* much more dangerous, because of their breed, than are other types of dogs, and here's the reason. Canids have an instinct, that when their opponent surrenders, they stop attacking. But Pit bulls have had this instinct bred out of them. Pits will not surrender, and will not stop attacking. But pits are usually really friendly to people - excessively so, so much that they make poor guard dogs. They were bred to fight other dogs. But f'ed-up types can train them to regard people as their target, too. These dogs are eager to please their owners, so if that's what he wants... Then you have something really, really, really dangerous. Because when they attack they don't stop until something is dead. So a pit bull makes a terrible choice for a guard dog. It's not what they were bred for. German Shepards, on the other hand, have excellent guard instincts. You can stop a well-trained German from attacking with a command. Pits don't listen to that command: they are constitutionally incapable of it, bred for centuries for their much-admired refusal to give up fighting. A half-dead Pit will attempt to keep fighting. Still a pit doesn't normally attack people, only other dogs, unless it has been mistrained. Of course you can mistrain a German Shepard too. But to suggest there is no inherent difference in the breed characteristics is irresponsible.
And please back yourself up with some proof about the AK-47 being banned... I'm pretty sure it wasn't, unless it had two or more banned features. Here is a pretty good explanation of the law with the specific weapons listed which does not include the AK-47.
Also, here is a good page about the now-expired ban and assault weapons and automatic weapons and many people here on Slashdot apparently need to be educated on the subject.
Even something that looks like an AK-47. There were several specific models banned , here they are:
-Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
-Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
-Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
-Colt AR-15;
-Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
-SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
-Steyr AUG;
-INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
-revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
So no Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models) huh. Well AK-47s are still cheaply available everywhere, although there are several knock offs that have a reputation for higher quality. It is an easy law to get around and accomplishes nothing. For that matter while the Colt AR-15 is banned, there are like 10 other manufacturers who build AR-15s that are perfectly legal. The Intertec Tec-9 is not legal under this bill but the nearly identicaly Tec-10 is.
The other provisions of the bill stated that a gun can only have two of the following:
Rifles
-Folding/telescoping stock
-Protruding pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
-Grenade launcher
Pistols
-Magazine outside grip
-Threaded muzzle
-Barrel shroud
-Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
-Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns
-Folding/telescoping stock
-Protruding pistol grip
-Detachable magazine capacity
-Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
Clearly this law is just "feel good legislation" that did nothing of substance (except cause the Democrats to lose congress in 94).
You have to spend some serious time(either training, or abusing) a pitbull to make it human-agressive. Pit Bulls have been bred for dog-agression, which is completely seperate from human-agression(Ask any animal expert, vet, etc about this one).
In fact, it is better to get a well-bred fighting Pit, as they are MUCH more stable and friendly. And, lastly, the American Temperment Test Society, who has tested over 20 *thousand* dogs, rates pit-bulls as more stable than the German Shepherd.
Don't be ignorant, think before you type, and have some sort of proof before you make a statement like that. Saying "Pit Bulls are Mindless Attack Dogs" is like saying "People with brown hair are rapists".
-Phixxr
ungggghhhh
Dogs that bite often do it from a fear reflex. A dog that is sufficiently abused will bite at strangers, and will look impressive snarling on your chain, and will make you feel like a big man walking your beast around. But a sibling of that dog, raised in a caring environment by good owners, will be a sweet and hefty lapdog.
Some breeds are made for fighting. Changes are made to the breed to make the dog harder to damage (more muscular necks, etc), but the personality needed to fight is usually brought about by abusing the puppies. A pit bull raised as a family dog usually behaves as a loving member of the family.
For more information on the innate nature of Pit Bulls, see http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm. (In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATT), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%.)
For information on links between animal abuse and spousal/family abuse, see here.
While a bit pricey, they generally are rugged, can be left outdoors for long periods of time and are intended for just this sort of thing.
Here's my Google-corroboration:
: www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.a sp%3FID%3D2110+%22Joseph+Derek+Joseph+West%22&hl=e n
A Harris County grand jury will review this morning's fatal shooting of a man who allegedly tried to break into a town house in west Houston.
Joseph Derek Joseph West, 21, was shot in the chest about 2:50 a.m. by a home owner in the 14600 block of Perthshire, police said. West, who lived in the 19300 block of Park Row, later died at Ben Taub General Hospital.
The 51-year-old homeowner, who has not been identified because no charges have been filed, stepped outside to investigate after hearing suspicious noises. Investigators later said the noises were of West trying to enter other town homes.
West allegedly approached the man with his fists raised. Fearing for his safety, the home owner fired once, striking West in the chest, police said.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bKsNa5tmZygJ
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
There has been a huge debate for decades over whether instinct shooting is superior to aimed fire using the Weaver stance.
The consensus appears to be that instinct shooting is valuable in those cases where you don't have time to get your gun OUT AND aim before firing. But when your gun is already out, you aim.
William Burroughs used to quote Wyatt Earp as saying, "Take your time". Meaning "make your first shot count as you might not get the time to fire a second one." If your "instinct" shot does NOT hit the opponent, you've just given him his chance to shoot you. As a famous pistol expert once titled his book, "No Second Chance."
Heinlein's advice is valid to some extent, but it is still preferable to be able to hit the enemy in a manner more likely to stop him than merely to "clip" him, using aimed fire. It does take more practice than instinct shooting - the SEALS under Marcinko used to burn through thousands of rounds of ammo until aimed fire BECAME instinctual. That's what you really want to achieve. For the average homeowner, of course, who doesn't have armorers to tune weapons that are so heavily used,that might not be practical.
They did a study in New York some years ago. They discovered that police officers hit what they're shooting at only 25% of the time. The reason there are still cops living in New York is that the bad guys hit what they're aiming at only 11% of the time.
The difference is practice. The minimal amount of practice cops get is enough to give them a two-to-one edge on the perps. Which is why when I was considering my terrorist campaign, I intended to practice until I was twice as good as that AND have the initiator's advantage.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!