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? :)"

Comments

Go for the obvious: dog, gun, gun safety course

[greenmars]

Use what works, not what you see in the movies.

Re:Go for the obvious: dog, gun, gun safety course

[BoneFlower]

Agreed.

I'm very pro gun, but its not something to be taken lightly. Guns were designed to kill, and they are incredibly good at that. While in the right hands they can be very safe, they have a great deal of power that if you do not respect will bite you in the ass.

Get a dog

[rustin_ross]

Studies have shown a dog with a good bark scares away most would-be attackers. There have also been studies showing dog companionship actually lowers the blood pressure of seniors.

Go minimalist

[smoyer]

If you don't have anything of value, then you don't have to worry about someone ripping off your valuables. The things in life that are worthwhile are rarely tangible. If you're living in the crossfire of someone else's greed ... Move!

Not Really High Tech or Geeky

[HawkPilot]

Get a Dog. Preferably a big scary looking one. Is it High Tech? Sure, Think of it as bio-tech / Genetic engineering. After all, the domesticated dog is largly a creation of man. (ie.. cultivating certain breeds.) It certaintly isn't new tech though.

Re:Dog

[barzok]

A real dog, minimum 50 pounds. Anything smaller isn't a deterrent, it's an annoyance.

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[samtihen]

I own multiple guns, all of which stay locked, and unloaded, until I plan to use them for reasons other than home defense. The reason? "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder" - Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998. It is NOT smart to use a gun for home defense.

Neighborhood Watch

[usefool]

Personally, I believe the most effective way to deter theft is the human technology. If your neighborhood is suffering from increased criminal activities, I am sure you're not alone.

So get together and patrol the streets together.

Nowadays thieves ain't that scared of high-tech security devices anymore, they will always find a way to get around them, but it's just that much more difficult to get around 2 or 3 pairs of watchful eyes at night.

Re:Neighborhood Watch

[st0rmshad0w]

They are't scared of neighborhood watches either. The local neighborhood watch in my old neighborhood was robbed at gunpoint TWICE, despite having walkie-talkies, celphones and 2 dogs. They were predictable, unobservant and clueless.

Get the local PD to TRAIN any neigborhood watches, otherwise they just turn out to be victims.

Re:Neighborhood Watch

[Zak3056]

So get together and patrol the streets together.

If you live somewhere where crime is so bad and the police presence so low that the residents have to actively patrol the streets in groups, you need to move. Unless you intend to take back the streets Charles Bronson style, things probably won't improve even with the patrols.

Ideally, Neighborhood Watch consists exclusively of alert neighbors who know what to look for, and who to call when they see it. It sounds overly simple, but that's really all there is to it.

I vote

[ssclift]

Recognizing that crime is often (not always, but often) a product of personal desperation I vote for candidates who will do things like:

• Reduce the gap between rich and poor by progressive taxation and ensuring every working person has a living wage.
• Reduce the incentive to steal to support drug habits by making programs such as doctor-prescribed methadone (or even heroin) available.
• Reduce the incentive to commit crime by reducing the factors that force people into desperate poverty, like making medical care universally available.

At first, it may seem that, economically, you are better off keeping more of your dollars in your pocket (especially if you need them to pay the fees for your gated compound or personal home defense equipment). There is another equilibrium, which does mean higher taxes but on the other hand, makes the streets safe and crime less common, which is to reduce the societal risk factors that promote crime. Most wealthy Americans, for whom gated life and home defense is a minor cost, call this "rampant tax and spend looney pinko socialism". Many Europeans call it "responsible government".

Admittedly, shooting the "perp" and/or throwing him in jail does lead to a satisfied feeling that you have avenged, say, your Mum's honour. As many non-white citizens of your country can tell you, and good research has shown, your current system does actually promote, rather than prevent, the crime you wish to stop (cf. recent Cringly article as a starting point).

Want a safer society? Make sure it's one where everyone has a genuine chance, which doesn't oppress you if you're poor/black/unlucky, which is based on sound research and reasoning about policy (not 4000-year old policies promulgated in middle-eastern nomadic herding societies). Keep the police around to keep the hard-core cases under control.

It takes a little longer, and you guys nearly had it in the 60's, but it's worth it.

Re:I vote

[aelbric]

Oh god, here goes my Karma.

I am so sick and tired of people saying that, because I am successful, I need to be taxed ridiculously to carry people who aren't (more than a third of my income at last count). What the hell happened to personal accountability?

I grew up inside the city of Detroit on the low side of the economic chain. My prospects getting a high-paying job handed to me or a college education as an entitlement were exactly zero. You know what I did? I joined the military at 17, got myself educated, Got a job at 22 making 16K a year, worked my ass off for over a decade and MADE SOMETHING OF MYSELF.

You are now telling me that I have a social responsibility to "share" the fruits of my hard labor with some dumbass who made the poor decision to throw their life away on drugs or being too irresponsible?

Now I agree that people who need healthcare and the elderly and very young need assistance. However, these able-bodied societal leeches that suck down money from those of us that are middle class can rot AFAIC. Lock them up and throw away the key. If they are illegal deport them. Quit acting like being stupid and irresponsible is some kind of disease.

Want a safer society? Quit coddling our youth and giving them the idea that success will be handed to them. Teach them that you can only get ahead by trying your best and that there will always be someone out there better then you. Motivate them to reach their potential and not expect the government or anyone else to take care of them.

The only way to improve society is to make human beings independent of the political structures that are likely to hold them down. Anyone who says differently has a hidden agenda.

Re:I vote

[Whyte]

I do believe that social policies do have a direct impact on social behaviour and expectations. There is a very fuzzy "line" that otherwise law-abiding people can be pushed over by circumstances. I'm saying that if there is a investment through social policy that pushes few people over than line then it can result in a net savings for society and fewer individual incidents.

Not all poor people are criminals, and not all criminals are poor.

There might be a corrilation between being poor and committing a crime. But that isn't proof that it is "the" or even "a" cause of crime.

It can and has been argued that people who are poor and criminal might actually be poor because they are criminal, not criminal because they are poor.

Its one of the things stressed in self-control theory research. Only two elements are universal for criminality. The opportunity to commit a crime, and an individual who is unable to restrain himself from committing a crime. This a fairly basic tenant of the theory.

The innate nature of criminality seems at least in part to be validated by the total lack of corrilation between "treatment" of criminals and "reform" of criminals. So far the only thing that seems to decrease criminality (impirically speaking) is the age of the individual.

But then this is what criminologists and social science researchers have been trying to determine for centuries.

The only proven social policy for reducing criminality in citizen populations is to educate and maintain children. Particularly through strong family and community structures. So stop throwing money away trying to reform repeat offenders. Spend it on promoting strong families and well educated children.

Re:I vote

[Whyte]

No, I phrased that as I ment it. Family AND community structures. Either can serve the purpose of providing a nuturing environment for a child.

I'm not sure what social judgements are so unnerving to you since you didn't give me any examples, but I will say this.

Historically, through present day the family structure has been the primary social institution tasked with raising our children. Not all family structures are organized the same, but strong family structures all offer several critical benefits. Stability and support being the chief benefits. When children are raised in an environment in which these are lacking, they often find it easy to live outside of social norms and moras.

Criminal law is actually nothing more than an exercise in governemental (democractic in our case) enforcement of social norms and moras, int he hope of protectin social order. Thus criminality is the subjective abandenment of social norms.

I really believe we need to strengthen our family codes not our criminal codes. There should be more effective sanctions directed at bad parents and caretakers.

If the unnerved about "promoting strong families" was directed at the whole homosexual marriage debate, let me also say this. If it was up to me, I wouldn't classify a heterosexual couple as a family for social policy concerns unless they also served as a primary caretaker of children (that includes tax breaks and everything). Mainly because I see child-rearing as the only true purpose of family structures in society.

If you want to see some very interesting research on criminal causation and social policy look at some of the work done by Doctors Hirschi and Gottfredson over at the University of Arizona. They've come to some very interresting and logical conclusions.

I don't believe any of their journal publications are open source. As such you'd need access to a university research library, but you might be able to find reviews of their material if you google them.

Re:I vote

[gcaseye6677]

While you do make an excellent point here, it's worth remembering that there are people who simply live outside the rules of polite society and will steal from others simply because they find it easier than working for their own money. These people tend to commit the vast majority of crimes. Crime rates are generally higher in areas that have poor economies, but there is still crime in wealthy areas where jobs are plentiful. So I'd say that while you are correct in stating that we don't want to have a large underclass with nothing to lose, we still must acknowledge the fact that there will be people who feel they have the right to take other peoples' property and we must be prepared to deal with them.

Re:I vote

[CynicTheHedgehog]

And in order to do away with terrorism we should all convert to Islam. This is the most asinine thing I think I have read all day. Everyone in America is given a free education, access to public libraries, opportunities at need-based scholarships, loans, and grants, among other things. If someone is predisposed to resent the hard-working and successful, making them less poor is not going to stop crime. These are not acts of desparation, they are acts of resentment. It's the "I gots ta get mine" syndrome and it's not going to stop by installing a socialist government. People commit crime because it's easier than working for an honest wage, and that is not acceptable.

Punishing the hard-working and law-abiding because some shiftless layabout can't be bothered to better themselves with the plethora of private and government assistance is not the answer. Last I checked socialist England has the worst crime in the world, and they've only got that little bit of island to look after!

Re:I vote

[AK Marc]

I am so sick and tired of people saying that, because I am successful, I need to be taxed ridiculously to carry people who aren't (more than a third of my income at last count). What the hell happened to personal accountability?

I think you completely missed the point. Paying 10% of your income for support for the poor prevents you from having to pay 15% more for insurance, 15% more for law enforcement, 15% more for prisons, 5% more for firemen (there was a recent hotel here that was under construction where homeless people broke in to spend the night and burned it down accidentally), and so on.

You can pay a little up front that goes for job training, literacy, and other things, or you can pay more for that on the back end because the people you wouldn't help became a burden on society. If you want to save money, you will support services for the poor.

You are now telling me that I have a social responsibility to "share" the fruits of my hard labor with some dumbass who made the poor decision to throw their life away on drugs or being too irresponsible?

No. I'm telling you that it is cheaper to give them a little support, than not support them at all. But you seem pretty bitter and hateful. Perhaps you'd prefer to spend the greater amount of money to clean up after them because it means that their lives are more miserable.

The only way to improve society is to make human beings independent of the political structures that are likely to hold them down. Anyone who says differently has a hidden agenda.

So, helping an adult learn to read and teaching them how to write a resume so they can get a job and be productive is holding someone down and I must have a hidden agenda for wanting to help illiterate people? Boy, I don't know what happend to you when you were in your disadvantaged youth, but you turned out as some seriously damaged goods.

My preference

[Venotar]

Is a Steyr M-40 with nightsights and hyrdroshock rounds. Does dead count as injured?

Deter, Detect, Defend

[chill]

1. Get a club or some such for the car, to help prevent the car itself from being stolen. A removable face plate on the car stereo. Don't leave anything of value visible in the car. (Deter)

2. Outdoor video camera tied to the motion sensing light. This way, if something does happen, you have a record. DON'T go for the cheapest camera. It doesn't do any good if you can't recognize anything in the video. (Detect)

3. Defend is harder, since you said you don't want anything that could hurt anyone. A shame, as pain is a very effective deterrent. I'd suggest a nice rottweiler. They are lovable to those they know, but can be very territorial. Measure the distance from the front porch to the car, and affix a chain to the porch that is about 6" short of the car. With some sort of quick release, just in case.

A pump shotgun in case anyone gets nasty ideas and tries to enter the house. They take little skill and are quite effective at short ranges.

Combination approach...

[rtilghman]

1. Motion sensing lights at proper heights placed for full coverage of important areas

2. Motion detector webcam with pre-programmed scanning capabilities (the wireless Toshiba unit is superb http://www.toshiba.com/taisisd/netcam/index.htm)

3. Alarm system securing all major entranced points, and if you can afford it all the screens as well

4. Dog. Even if its a cuddly licker like a lab, dogs can hear and sense things no alarm system can handle. I'm constantly amazed how my lab KNOWS when someone is coming to the house, even when the car is still in the road!

Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially. Killing someone is a tough thing, and 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.

Or as my friend always says, if you DO end up having to shoot an intruder make sure you finish the job... ;)

-rt

Re:Combination approach...

[clone22]

The motion sensing webcam is a great idea. They can upload images to the internet during the crime, so even if the camera is stolen you know who did it.

Re:what i think

[antifoidulus]

It really depends on if she is dealing with professionals or hoodlums who think they have some vendetta against the world because their parents are only upper-middle class. Against the former, motion detectors are useless, car alarms are useless(they can disarm them quickly and there is too much "boy who cried wolf" with them, they go off so often nobody even cares), and clubs will be useless. Against a really good criminal, guns will be useless too, but more than likely they are just dealing with people who are probably too high to figure out ways around any of those defenses.

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[renehollan]

...ess "spread" to more vulnerable areas. Gunshot is nasty.

While it is easier to kill intentionally with a powerful rifle, it is easier to kill, or seriously maim, unintentionally, with a shotgun.

Of course, it is hard to be effective with a rifle and not lethal. (well, relatively speaking: it takes an accurate shot, and acuracy is something that tends go go out the window when one is surprised or frightned).

Re:Alarm (to notify) Gun (to defend)

[Skyshadow]

I prefer non-lethal approaches.

Guns are problematic. First, there's the obvious safety issue of having a gun in the house. Second, there's the fact that if you miss (or even if you don't), you could toss a bullet through a wall and kill your kid sleeping in the next room or the neighbor down the block.

Pepper spray is good stuff. It's effective over any range you'll encounter in your house. It's nonlethal, so you can use it without being 100% sure of your target (is that shadow an intruder or my 16 year old sneaking back into the house?). It's even effective if you don't have a clear shot -- spray it into the hall and you'll deny access to a section of the house while you dial 911. And if your kids find it, the worse that can happen is they'll spray themselves and need an eye wash. Painful, but beats a bullet in the head.

Given the real risks of even keeping a handgun, in most realistic scenarios (aka, 35 gang members probably aren't going to rush your house), pepper spray is a far better solution given the overall risk/rewards.

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[Albanach]

I don't think he mentioned where he was from. In many countries you'll go to jail if you shoot an unarmed intruder. Kill them knowing they're unarmed and most European countries will see you on a murder charge.

two things

[maxpublic]

a very big, territorial dog, and a gun in case the dog isn't an effective deterrent.

The FBI tells us that somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 crimes a year are prevented when the intended victim pulls a gun. The gun is only discharged in 1/10 of 1% of these instances, usually into the air and not at the criminal. So a gun is a very real deterrent, and the odds that you'll actually have to fire it at all are 1 in 1,000, if you're the target of a crime.

Most criminals are cowards. Most criminals will run if their victim is armed *even they're armed themselves*. Don't believe the claptrap that if you own a gun you'll get yourself involved in a shoot-out if you're the target of a criminal. The odds of that happening are extremely low.

Max

Re:two things

[danharan]

Where the heck did you get those stats?

And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot? Three times more likely IIRC. Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.

A dog is a good idea because it's a great deterrent, and a good alarm. Then call 911.

Re:If you're American...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, is it? I'm glad you think so. I also hope you think it just as funny when one of your loved ones is shot as an innocent bystander one day, just because someone else was "protecting" their oh-so-valuable property.

Jackass.

Re:Good question..

[DaveOke]

Webcam? God no!!!! Cameras are pretty useless when it comes to stuff like this. All they do is say, "Yep... someone stole the car!" Being someone that installs alarms and CCTV systems, here's some steps you could take:

First you should install a photo beam across your driveway and use EOL resistors to detect tampering. Have it connected to a outdoor/indoor siren to alert the homeowner and the neighbours. Use a self or central monitoring service to alert a pager. Use a decent system like Paradox and avoid mickey mouse systems like radio shack.

Also, this is probably the wrong place to come to ask about home security.

uh huh...

[jpellino]

Until the police benevolent society office drives into the driveway to solicit for their annual fund. Having a gi-normous gun automagically enter the sights of an armed officer prolly isn't on your list of intended consequences... Remember people have been cut down for brandishing a 3 musketeers bar, much less a large gun-ish erm, - gun.

But hey, it's your descending aorta.

Best Tech - Social Engineering

[kerskine]

I bet your Mom is a really nice person because she's got a son who cares about her. She should use that "momness" to get other people in her neighborhood looking out for one another. Here's what your Mom should do:

1. Get a pencil and notebook
2. Locate all the houses in sight of her own
3. Knock on all the doors, introduce self
4. She tells them her story - car broken into - and then tells them to be alert
5. Then - most important step - she gets their name and phone number
6. optional step for bonus bingo points - leave a plate of cookies

The goal here is to get people aware, know that there's someone in the neighborhood who cares, and get them calling the police whenever something isn't right. Having known a number of police in my lifetime I can tell you that they don't mind checking out a "suspicious car/person" while their on duty. Just like Open Source, many eyes improves security.

Moronic Short-Term Solutions...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Another bleeding heart who thinks a Band-Aid will fix the problem.

If you care so much about the plight of dogs, how about discouraging people from owning pets to begin with? Reduced demand leads to reduced supply. Fewer dogs are bred, and fewer dogs are killed. It's not rocket science.

My Advice: Bring The Pain

[Bloodmoon1]

Look, I understand not wanting to hurt people, but you have to realize anyone that is commiting a crime against you is typically a peice of shit that deserves to be hurt.

I was once the same way, but having been robbed/stolen from several times in the past, my general philosophy has evolved so that as far as I'm concerned, once someone has decided that it is both necessary and appropriate to try to steal from or injure me or those under my protection, they have made a conscious decision that their life is now forfit. As such, I'm now the proud owner of several firearms that are kept with me basically all the time and will NOT hesitate to shoot to kill if necessary.

This brings me to an important point, if you decide to adopt my general outlook on things, get intimately familier with your local and state laws on when you can and cannot use leathal force, they vary greatly from place to place. For example, in Colorado where I live, it is perfectly legal to kill someone if you feel they have both the opportunity and means to injure/kill you or another person. This can amount to them saying they're going to kick your ass, then charging you. It's considered perfectly clean to throw down and blow their ass away right there. However, it is not legal to kill in defense of property unless it is to protect yourself/others. So you couldn't go outside and kill some duche for stealing your car stereo (sadly) unless he pulls a knife or something on you when you confront him. You could still beat his ass, just don't shoot or you'd likely eat a manslaughter charge. Now if he's trying to burn down your house and you do the world a favor, that would be fine, as arson often directly endangers human life. Meanwhile, in Texas (among several other states), it is perfectly leagal to kill in defense of property, so you will without question want to check on those laws.

Other than that, all I can tell you is to remember that anyone commiting a crime against you quite likely doesn't give a shit about you or anyone else and could care less what happens to you. I recommend you do the same when it comes to them. Oh, and make sure to shoot to kill. I can't count the number of times I've seen news stories where someone has been paralized robbing a house or mugging someone, but then managed to sue their victim and win a sizeable judgement in civil court. So make sure the only people that can sue are their family who will have a much harder time convincing the judge that they need $2 million to make up for the loss of that abortion their mother should have had.

It's a cold, nasty world out there. All you have to do to ensure your continual survival is just be the most stone cold motherfucker on the planet. Hope that helps. Good luck.

Re:My Advice: Bring The Pain

[Bloodmoon1]

Good luck with that.

Just hear me out here. If you read the Declaration of Independence, it more or less says people have not only the right but the responsibility to overthrow corrupt governments for the good of the country (country and government are NOT the same thing). Combine this with the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is there to ensure people have the means to overthrow the government if need be (anyone that says it's there for hunting is a moron), and you can clearly see the founding fathers of the U.S. intended for the populace to always be able to keep the government in check with the threat of revolution if the governement became corrupt.

Initally, a farmer could more or less be on par with the military if he could afford it. As time has went on however, that parity has been lost, as more and more weapons are illegal for civilians to have. This is not what was intended when this country was founded. I, as well as any other citizen, should be fully able to have nuclear weapons and fully stocked aircraft carriers if I can afford them, not to mention assault weapons and other non-WMDs. It may sound extremist, but it would ensure our government stays true to its principals for all time. Now, you can take that as funny or insightful or whatever, but taken strictly, it's the damn truth.

And just remember, a man with a gun is a citizen, capable of defending himself, his country, and his fellow citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. A man without a gun is a subject, who must depend on others for protection. I know, a gun isn't going to stop a bomber aircraft, but it is going to go a long way if everyone takes up arms. Look at how many problems we're having in Iraq, and that's only thanks to a very small minority of the country who views us as hostile invaders and has taken up arms against us. While we are winning, a small, dedicated group is managing to heavily slow the progress of the mightiest military humanity has ever known. Weither or not they are right is irrelevent, they are getting results.

I always hope and pray to whatever god that I'll never need to actually kill anyone, but at the same time, I'll gladly slaughter this whole damn world if that's what it takes. You just go ahead and look me up if you should require protection at a later point in time. You will, of course, have to get up to speed, but most of the world has grown complacent over time, so we can't hold it against you.

A world of strife, the only world a true soldier can be happy in.

Circle of violence

[sokk]

Killing someone because of trespassing? Someone that's almost surely unarmed!? That's the last solution I would've chosen, if at all.

Flame me all you want, but deep down you know it's wrong. Guess Michael Moore was into something in the movie Bowling For Columbine.

Re:Circle of violence

[PaulBu]

The fact that law allows for that does not mean that one's personal morals would not interfere to try to negotiate a peaceful resolution with the intruder. And if he is indeed unarmed he try to disappear as quickly as possible after the first shot in the air IF he gave you enough time/distance to make that first warning shot. And if he is just a harmless junkie he would stay clear from your house after that.

On the other hand, I can imagine that people who would engage into a fight with someone armed are armed as well, and maybe there onto something more than stealing your TV.

I wanted to post thin on the recent assault rifle thread, but did not have a chance. Do not you think that the world history might be slightly better if at least some Jews in Germany in 30s or more Russian peasants in 20s would have utomatic rifles? At least the Russian peasants had their guns they used to "hunt for rabbits" and were able to give at least some hard time to the "authorities". (Disclaimer: I'm from Russia originally). Why German Jews (and Russian "intelligentzia" later in 30s) did not put up ANY armed resistance at all, even after having pretty good reasons to believe that after they leave their house they will never see it again and most probably will be dead, is still a puzzle for me...

And yes, this is kind of a situation which trespass laws are designed to prevent, "my home is my castle", and so on.

And, by the way, the parent poster never mentioned "killing someone because of trespassing", he gave a pretty good and solid advice on how to learn to use your gun safely and effectively, if needed.

Paul B.

Re:Circle of violence

[winwar]

"Maybe they shouldn't have ignored the "No Trespassing" signs posted on the property?"

It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing.

I have trespassed numerous times-it is virtually impossible to do geology field work and not trespass and some time. Most of the time, you won't know it (think rural areas, not reliably posted). In other cases, it is perfectly legal to enter an area that has been posted "no trespassing" - many times people who post those signs have no right to post them.... Maybe they are entering your property to ask permission, ever consider that?

"Where's personal responsibility?"

If they call the police and cite me for trespassing, I will accept the consequences of my actions. I have been confronted before but never cited - so, was I actually trespassing?

You don't go shooting someone because they trespass. You shoot someone because you fear your life is in imminent danger (or someone you are protecting). If they are in your house you MAY have a case. On your property, not likely. Sure, you may not be prosecuted but only a fool would take that chance....

Re:Circle of violence

[renehollan]

Why German Jews (and Russian "intelligentzia" later in 30s) did not put up ANY armed resistance at all, even after having pretty good reasons to believe that after they leave their house they will never see it again and most probably will be dead, is still a puzzle for me...

Ah, my friend, you have not studied your history...

Hitler had disarmed the Jews long before they were being carted off for slaughter. He was praised at the time by many world leaders for bringing about peace.

The U.S. founding fathers had it right, though I prefer C. Heston's version: "... from my cold, ... dead, ... hands!"

Re:Circle of violence

[winwar]

"Shooting doesn't mean killing."

No, but the generally accepted rule is, two in the chest, one in the head. If you have the right to shoot, it is because you believe your life is in danger. If the first two bullets in the chest don't drop the person, you assume they are wearing body armor and aim for the head. A shot to the head will tend to kill someone (as will a couple bullets to the heart).

The alternative (if they have a stabbing/slashing/blunt weapon) is to aim for the groin with the third shot. If they can't walk, they can't harm you.

Only a fool aims for a body part (hand, etc), fires a warning shot, or flashes a weapon. In the first case, you are likely to miss. In the other cases, YOU become the aggressor, and make it legal for other guy to KILL YOU!! If you are not willing to kill someone (or shoot them in locations likely to kill them), you should not have a firearm for self defense. PERIOD.

Re:Circle of violence

[winwar]

"And if he is indeed unarmed he try to disappear as quickly as possible after the first shot in the air IF he gave you enough time/distance to make that first warning shot."

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!?!?! Where the hell do people get the idea that a warning shot is EVER a good idea. Too much TV or movies perhaps?

Repeat after me. NEVER, EVER, fire a warning shot. Either you are justified in using deadly force or you are not. Period. The only time you discharge a weapon in a self-defense situation is with the intent of hitting the person/thing causing the deadly threat.

If you fire a warning shot, you become the aggressor. The attacker is now justified in killing you because they are (rightfully) in fear for their life.

Re:Circle of violence

[PaulBu]

Ah, my friend, you have not studied your history...

Ah, my friend, I did study my history and my Penal Code too, and in the parts of the world I am from it was outright illegal for a private citizen to own a weapon for self-defence, any weapon (not only a gun, as far as I remember carrying a knife longer than palm width was illegal in Soviet Russia as well, and I personally spend a night in jail for wearing a heavy-metal style bracelet with metal spikes ;-) ). There were exception, for hunters, of course (but still assault style weapons were not considered to be for hunting, at even shotguns were heavily restricted), and the most "funny" one was for daggers wore as part of traditional national dress by people from Souther Russia/Caucasis. What is going on down there NOW is a good example of "...only outlaws will have guns", unfortunately... ;-(

Hitler had disarmed the Jews long before they were being carted off for slaughter. He was praised at the time by many world leaders for bringing about peace.

Still, if several armed men come into your house to take you away and kill, one would expect at least some would try to grab a gun from one to shoot the others. And do not tell me that Jews were all those harmless scholars and merchants -- at least now Israeli soldiers are quite tough, are not they? Maybe it took them 50 years, who knows...

As to "many world leaders" -- did not know that, have any references? I woudl not be surprized at all. Can not trust those "world leaders" at all, can we?


The U.S. founding fathers had it right, though I prefer C. Heston's version: "... from my cold, ... dead, ... hands!"

I guess we are on the same page here, my friend!

Paul B.

Re:Circle of violence

[madcow_ucsb]

Seriously. As they taught my dad in the military re people hopping fences into the SAC missile bases and he later taught me, "While you're shooting at his leg, he's shooting at your head. When you need to shoot at all, you shoot to kill. If you don't need to kill, you don't need to shoot."

Of course the key is to know when you need to shoot at all. Some asshat trying to steal my car isn't worth killing. The cops and insurance can handle that one. Some asshat coming thru my window with a gun? Well, he won't get as much sympathy.

But in any case, you never ever ever point the business end of a gun at something you wouldn't be willing to kill. Be it a thief, your dog, or your teenage kid sneaking in in the middle of the night.

Rant mode on...
It boggles the mind how little people know about firearm safety. I mean it's not hard. The concept of someone who owns a gun actually thinking "well, I'll just shoot his hand and make him drop his gun" really gives all gun owners a bad name. Behind all the anti-/pro-gun rhetoric, a loaded gun in your house has only one purpose: to kill. I'd argue there are some (albeit very few) cases where that's morally justifiable. But if you're not comfortable with that concept, then you should think long and hard before putting that 9mm in your nightstand.

It's a shame they can't teach this stuff in school...

Rant mode off...

Re:10 in the pen

[Veridium]

I heard it slightly different... Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Re:Location, location, location....

[Anonymous Coward]

well, that's because they're NAVY bases. He's a wing nut. Live on a base that has lots of nuclear weapons and you will love it.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he didn't set out intending to kill anybody at all. In response to repeated roberries, he set out to defend his business, which he has every right to do. Why the hell are you defending the robbers anyway, instead of the poor old man who was repeatedly victimized? Get your priorities straight!

But, it banned weapons that LOOKED MEAN

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the semi-auto "assault weapons" that were banned were all based on the same high technology from about 1911... the same technology that exists in many utilitarian arms that the libs did not (YET) have the courage to go after.

Report it!

[ayeco]

An increase in crimes = increase in patrol.

Please DO report it to the police. Some people say it's a waste of time, but they are wrong. While you might not see a detective looking into your case, your issue will be documented and will be part of the police departments stats.

As others have said, boobie traps might sound like a good idea, but they aren't. As you have said motion sensors and car alarms don't stop someone who is really wanting to steal something.

Be pro-active - don't leave anything in the car that can be stolen (or seen to be stolen).

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[BurritoWarrior]

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder" - Arthur Kellermann, MD, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998

So is a knife. And it is used more frequently to kill people in disputes.

But that doesn't make for good drama (often called News), does it?

You should keep your firearm properly secured, but loaded.

Why?

[sgant]

Sorry, I'm not that afraid to buy a gun to kill someone.

And yes, if you buy a gun and take safty courses etc etc and practice...you're practicing to kill someone because they broke into your car. Wow, that really fits the crime.

Where does all this fear come from? I've walked in the Robert Taylor homes near Chicago before...wasn't hassled, didn't get killed, didn't get mugged....no one bothered me. But to hear reports of there you'd think it was a war zone.

Then it comes down to the final moment...could you really pull the trigger? Are you justified shooting someone that's just breaking into your car (after all, you suggested buying a gun and the original story is about a car break-in).

And why a gun? Why not a baseball bat? Why not a sword? Are you afraid the criminal may also have a gun? Then what does it turn into, a wild west shoot-out? Do you dive behind the sofa and fire over it? Break out a few windows and start blasting? Better practice the "cop roll" so you can jump out from behind the sofa and get that critical shot like all the cool guys in the movies do!

I mean..come on. It's not THAT bad out there. Sure, I've had stuff ripped off before...but I never wanted to protect it with deadly force. I'm not that scared to resort to taking another life.

Could you really kill someone? How many people, at the critical moment, freeze up? How many people, even after taking courses still screw up in the moment of truth due to nerves?

I grew up with guns. I was born and raised on a farm in Virginia. We would hunt deer to put food on our table every year...it saved us money. The pride and joy of my father, brother and me was our 7mm Weatherby Magnum we'd hunt with. But it was a fact of life. We didn't have guns to protect ourselves, we had them to hunt to put food on the table. I guess now that's very politically incorrect to do...but we weren't advocates...nor were we Ted Nugents either. It was cheap meat. Nuff said.

I'm 42 now, don't own any guns...not because I'm afraid of them or think their evil...I just don't own any because I just don't own any. Never really needed one and I don't hunt anymore. Also, never been in a situation to where I would think "boy, wish I had a gun right now".

But anyway, to each their own...just hope some goofball who's scared shitless doesn't shoot through my window by mistake. lol

Re:Dog

[DissidentHere]

Amen! There are tons of great dogs looking for good faimlies. Usually, the dogs are great, but the familiy couldn't take care of them correctly (and thankfully recognized this), had to move, or just realized that they aren't 'dog peope'.

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.

"Concealed Kerry"

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we're putting out some truth on gun bans, I recently read an NRA article on Kerry the lifelong hunter -- "the only man in America who wears blaze orange AS camouflage." Of course, it detailed his duplicitousness in regard to gun ownership, noting his 100% perfect voting rating by gun control AND anti-hunting animal rights groups.

The article mentioned an un-passed bill S.1431 that Kerry co-sponsored, about which I had been unaware. It would allow the Attorney General to ban private ownership of any weapon that has been procured for use by the military or federal law enforcement use. Wow! That would go far beyond "assault weapons," into just about everything. The first thing I thought of was the Remington 870 shotgun, used by most all police agencies. But, there are lots of other utilitarian shotguns and rifles bought for special needs or game wardens, and even .22s are used for training, etc. (Then, you'd have to wonder if they wouldn't just make up a reason to buy one of everything else, just to get 'em included.)

Buying A Gun Won't Deter Criminals

[reallocate]

To cut to the chase, about the only thing you can do is make certain the car alarm is working. Consider installing a good alarm system in your mother's house, since a car is expendable, but your mother is not.

Ignore the testosterone-laden bozos who tell you to buy a gun for your mother. A gun will have no deterrent value. Criminals are not telepathic. They will not know there's a gun in the house they're about to break into.

Once a criminal is in the house, of course, your mother can wave her gun around. That may, in fact, protect her. It may also involve her in months and months of legal anguish. If you do buy her a gun, be sure you also buy her some training so she doesn't shoot herself.

Remember, too, that the cops' job is to catch people after they commit a crime. Unless you can talk the local town council into stationing a police patrol in front of your mother's house, I wouldn't expect too much from them.

In the end, the real solution may be to move, if that is realistic.

Re:Buying A Gun Won't Deter Criminals

[east coast]

Ignore the testosterone-laden bozos who tell you to buy a gun for your mother.

Oh yeah, cos everyone with a gun thinks they're Rambo. Get off your stereotypes. Most people who own firearms for defense do it because they realize that an ADT system doesn't stop a robber from cutting your throat. There's a reason some call it the great equalizer.

It may also involve her in months and months of legal anguish.

Versus the years of anguish if she's raped or assaulted or the mere fact that she than realizes she has no real defense? Or how about the chance of an eternity in a grave because ballistiphobes won't face the fact that yes, guns are a tool and are your best defense.

If you do buy her a gun, be sure you also buy her some training so she doesn't shoot herself.

And she's going to need plenty of training. There is statistical proof that firearms in the home are pretty dangerous. Too many people think they're going to buy a gun and a box of shells and only use it in time of need. The truth is that your mother should attend a safety a course and a defense course and she should also hit the range regularly. It's certainly not like the movies... It's not as "point and click" as some would have you believe either. She also needs to understand that home defense with a firearm is nearly as good as telling her to kill someone. You can't hope to brandish a pistol and scare off a robber.

Re:Circle of jerk

[teasea]

A person who would break into an occupied house is taking a risk. This burglar knows people have guns. I assume he is aware that to maintain his freedom, he may have to fight the occupant. Violence is inherent in the act of breaking and entering.

Robbing a house is no different from robbing a bank. If you rob believing that everyone would rather give up their property than hurt someone over material goods, you're in the wrong business. I won't risk my family on the assumption that a burglar is working within a code of ethics.

Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for home defense.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I tend to agree with you but how is a rifle which fires a more powerfull cartredge offer a greater opportunity not to kill?

Compared to a shotgun? It's the difference between one small hole and a saucer-sized circle of nine big ones (or one saucer-sized hole, depending on the shotgun load).

But it is hard to generalize, since rifles and their ammunition come in a wide variety of calibers, energies, and bullet expansion characteriesics. Just remember that the shotgun shoots more bullets at once, propelling them with more total powder, to get the general idea. One shotgun blast is like emptying the magazine of a rifle.

Downside to both rifles and shotguns: They're long (even the "short" ones). If the bad guy gets within arms-reach (which he can do from across the room in under a second) he can get behind the muzzle and you're toast. A pistol MIGHT be usable even while he's wrestling with you or knifing you.

That time issue, though, is why, as part of your training, you learn a two-sided coin:

Heads: You NEVER point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

Tails: If you are pointing a gun at the bad guy, you ALREADY DECIDED that you're justified if you use it and you're going to pull the trigger if he makes ONE MORE MOVE toward you.

Once the gun is pointed you don't have time to wrestle with your conscience if it turns out you have to use it. So get that over with (and the safety off) BEFORE you point it.

Don't try to wing him, either. Not only is it a bad idea self-defense wise (it's hard enough hitting him near the center of the torso in a stressful situation), it's also evidence that you didn't think deadly force was necessary (so why did you use it?) This can turn a justifiable homicide into assault with a deadly weapon once it gets to court.

Either you fear for life-and-limb (of yourself or someone properly under your protection, like a family member or guest) or you don't. If you do, you are justified in using deadly force - and the bad guy gets to take his chances (about one in four) of dying as a result of his criminal decisions. If you don't, you're not justified in shooting, or pointing, at all. (At least in most jurisdictions. Some, like Texas, let you defend your home, car, etc. Others still have a "fleeing felon" rule - or a judicial interpretation (Oregon) that you might fear the crook is running out to his car to get some firepower or reenforcements. Still others (like MA) require you to flee if you physically can, even at home, abandoning the baby and risking a shot in the back.)

For myself:

Home defense at the townhouse: 12 guage shotgun with #40 birdshot. Quite as effective as 00 buck at in-house distances, but passing through a copule layers of drywall will slow it down enough that it won't kill the neighbors.

Ditto at the country house: 12 guage w/00 buck. (Closest houses are over 1/10th mile away and the siding is wood over wood, shots where a good guy is behind the bad guy and an interior wall virtually impossible.)

Personal carry: 38 special airweight for cities, 45 ACP backup for country hikes (where I might have to deal with a coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, or bear). Will probably switch to 357 magnum now that NV alows more than two on the license, since slide-actions are more often problematic in a pinch. Both only where it's legal, of course. (I.e. in NV but not CA.)

And of course the personal carry pistol can be used for home defense if you happen to have it handy - like when you've just arrived, are unloading the luggage, and haven't pulled the shotgun out of the safe yet. A likely time for a bad guy to come at you, when things are open and you're distracted.

Re:If you go this route...

[fuzdout]

You are absolutely correct. Call me a troll, but speaking as a dog trainer I have found people have *more* problems with "shelter" and "rescue" dogs. Most dogs end up there because they have issues that most normal families can't deal with. Wether that is epilepsy (and while one may feel sorry for dogs with epilepsy why would you purposely adopt one when you can get a dog with no health problems at all?) or a strange/weird temperment. Yes, there are some Good Dogs that are left because owners are moving or whatever but many, many have issues that go beyond that... Which is why they are given up in the first place. I also recommend getting a purebred as you have a much greater chance of knowing how big, and what kind of temperment your dog will end up with and energy level, trainability etc. Mix breeds are purley a gamble and some turn out good, others poor with far more variation than the purebreds. Also better if you can see/meet the parents of your new puppy and see health cerificates clearing from genetic diseases like hip dysplasia and cataracts -info you will never have with a dog on unknowen ancestery and orgin. Also, the shelter environment seldom shows a dog's true temperment. Takes about a month of living with a dog in a home environment till you can see what he is like (as opposed to a shelter which the dog is only there abour 14 days).. Also, for the record, last time I was at the animal shelter it was all mix breeds. No purebreds except 2 Dalamations and a couple of pit bulls.

Also with regards to Parvo as someone mentioned, you don't know if the dog has it in a couple days as it takes weeks to show up. Also it can last in an area for months. Shelters are constantly exposed to it as they pick up all kinds of animals. After being around an animal that has been exposed or in an exposed area you should always change your clothes, step your shoes in bleach and shower before spending time with your own pet.
If you don't want a puppy many responsible breeders have adults available occasionally that are retired from breeding or showing and usually have extensive handling, even training, some are even housebroken and most are crate trained and good with kids.
And yes, when I look for a new working dog, first place I head off to is a responsible breeder of proven working stock that has good temperment, easy to train and very healthy.

Re:been debunked

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell anyone... but the founders allowed for our right to bear arms largely so that we can remain free of those "few well trained and monitored men," should their training, monitoring and leadership evolve toward tyranny.

They might also have predicted that dialing 911 won't get those "few well trained and monitored men" to your door in time to save you, when the need arises.

>> Weapons are a neccesity amongst a few well trained and monitored men that enforce the law, not in your in your drawer.

Re:its obvious

[gibbsjoh]

Canadians are also better educated than Yanks. Go figure.

as usual, one step left out

[SuperBanana]

Nowhere in your article did I see:

"Keep the gun in a location where it cannot be stolen and cannot be used by your 12 year old to shoot his best friend or himself in the face while playing with it". IE, in a gun safe, or with a trigger lock, etc.

I used to drive by a billboard every day that had about 12 pictures of kids, all who shot themselves or were shot by a friend, playing with a parent's gun.

Re:been debunked

[Warshadow]

-------------
Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US. We watch your shows, we listen to your music, we buy the same cars, food, etc. Except we have very strict handgun laws, and you don't. We even have the same % of rifle ownership as the US per capita, its just the limited access to handguns and assualt-style semi-automatics that makes up the difference.
--------------

You're a bit vague here. Are you talking per capita or using real numbers?

Canada has ~10% the poluation of the US. So by your own arguments it's actually more dangerous in Canada than in the US!

Example:

US Population: ~294.2 million
Canada Population: ~32 million

That makes the Canadian popluation ~10.8% of US population.

Lets says there are 100 deaths per year in the US caused by handguns in the hands of criminals or law abiding citizens. That would mean there are 20 deaths under the same circumstances in Canada (using your statement), but the population of Canada is only ~11% of the US population. That would mean there are more gun deaths in Canada per capita than in the US if I were to use your argument.

All these arguments are a load of crap though. The problem you run into with the misuse of guns or accidents is caused by people not being educated about guns. Based on my experience people who are brought up around firearms and know what they can and can't do are more likely to have a healthy respect for them than those who don't (not that there aren't exceptions).

If you don't want to own a handgun that's your choice and more power to you, but if I choose to own one and handle is properly and safely then you should have no worries about it at all.

It all boils down to as has been said before: Gun's are the problem, people are the problem. I'm of the belief that you DO NOT point a firearm at someone unless you are being threatend and intend to shoot that person if matters escalate.

In a perfect world there'd be no need for firearms for self protection, but as we all know we don't live in a perfect world. I know a handful of people that are alive today because they had their pistol with them and ended up in a situation they didn't start nor want to be in.

There seems to be this demonization of "pro-gun" people by many anti-gun people. Just because I support my right to own a firearm doesn't mean I'm some whack job who's going to run around waving it at people!

I'm sure I've made plenty of typoed and that my grammar is horrid, so any comments on that subject will be ignored.

However if you have something constructive to add I will read and absorb it.

Re:Alarm (to notify) Gun (to defend)

[Kohath]

The guy you pepper spray can get pissed off and come back and kill you tomorrow. (What's the worst you can do to him? Pepper spray him again?)

The intruder you shoot in your hallway won't be bothering anyone ever again.

Pepper spray is a useful weapon. It's an incomplete substitute for a gun though.

Re:been debunked

[dustinbarbour]

Yes.. trust the police to be to your house while an intruder is still inside. Are you crazy? Get rid of your gun and the criminal (who might have a gun and no fear of using it) has all of the advantages. Screw that. Give me a multi-shot shotgun any day! Just the sound of that shotgun cocking is enough to scare off most home invaders.

Re:arm yourself, no more worries!

[rw2]

England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.

So, according to my buddy in England who I just IMed he says that's not true. He says to my question "how hard is it to get a gun license", "not so hard as long as you are clean, paperwork mostly"

Further, I notice on the page you link that England has a high rate of muggings and such. The US is still spanks them at homicide.

And in Australia, where guns are also almost impossible to legally own, criminals that can't get guns have been resorting to swords (which some Aussies want banned now) or crossbows (as per the story about a man's life being saved by his cell phone).

I'll take my chances against someone with a sword versus someone surprising me with a pistol. In any case, it is also false that it is anything like virtually impossible to get a gun in .au

The rules there are that the prospective owner be over 18, complete a safety course and demonstrate himself to be "fit and proper". Fit an proper is defined as not mentally ill, not a recently released (i.e. ten years) felon and that he's able to properly secure his weapons.

As to a fight against an oppressive government

This is a red herring and I wish gun rights folks (as I myself am) would stop using it. There is no way a pistol is going to take back the country from armored humvees, balckhawk helicopters and laser guided munitions. It simply will not happen.

The second ammendment is designed to allow the states to form militias and that is still the only way that people would ever be able to beat the federal government. And if they do, it won't be with the junk they have laying in their basements (hopefully in a safe bolted to the floor).

Re:been debunked

[fuzdout]

>Been in the army. Enjoyed shooting, but if me giving up my right to own a weapon reduces the chances of people being shot in my country, I'd gladly give up that right.

Actually the problem with "outlawing" guns is the same as England faces (they have that law): Only the bad guys have guns! Just like anything illegal, there are people who will find away to get a hold of it. Just like drugs. SURE they are illegal, doesn't mean there aren't anyone dealing and buying them. So the gang and the murder and rapists end up with guns and the upstanding citizen has fewer options of self-defense when the murder or rapist attacks..
In parts of the mid-west and North Carolina it is common practice that most people have guns. You go to a bar and nobody dares try and hold the place up because you draw your weapon and about 50 other people around you draw there weapons and aim it at you. The crime rate is overall much lower than other parts of the country as most people are armed and willing to protect themselves or even stop another's crim with it.

Also, if kids are taught to respect fire-arms and not play with them and the gun is not treated like a big deal kids won't play with them. My father had two hunting rifles in the closet for years and neither me nor my sister ever even tried to play with them. If we asked questions dad would show it to us but we never tried to shoot anyone with it and it was never any kind of big deal. Just another article in the closet (the gun didn't have locks either). Friend of mine, similar thing, grew up with guns, was taught respect and even how they work but never went crazy shooting his siblings or school.

Re:been debunked

[ergo98]

While the number is still about 2500 deaths lower for Canada, no statistic can take into account the fact that the US has far more urban areas with more people packed more tightly together than Canada.

Errr, this is nonsensical. Per capita I'd wager that more Canadians live in urban areas than in the US.

I wish the origin of this thread didn't start another bullshit Canada versus the US thread - As a Canadian I'm sick of hearing people beating their chest and bleating about how great Canada is, just as I'm sick of all the ridiculous FUD slams at Canada that follow. Anyone mentioning Canada in a thread about the US needs to be brutalized.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[gcaseye6677]

As previous posters have pointed out, the man did not set out to kill anyone. He just took precautions against future crimes and waited until the armed robber clearly posed a threat to him.

I will never understand people like you, who are bothered by the average person having the right to defend themself when their life is clearly being threatened. Does it make you feel better if only the police can have means to protect anyone? You know, the police can't be everywhere, and they're not going to take responsibility for every crime that they could not prevent. Morally, I don't know how you could say that a person robbing someone else has more rights than the one being robbed. I'm not advocating vigilante justice, far from it. I'm saying that somebody should not be legally required to submit to the whims of armed thugs.

Re:been debunked

[Agripa]

We have a proportionally high number of murders using weapons other then firearms including knives and clubs. Unless the availablility of firearms can somehow explain violence using other weapons, it is not sufficient in itself.

Just the sight of a burglar alarm

[professorfalcon]

The number one rule of burglars must be to go for the low-hanging fruit. (Wow, same rule applies to performance tuning...)

I think burglars are smart enough to notice the burglar alarm sensors around the windows. Just the sight of these can make them choose another house instead of yours. I know someone whose neighbors have all been robbed, even during the afternoon with all sorts of people around, but his house has been spared all these years, thanks to the alarm system.

Get an alarm system with the monitoring through a reputable company.

Re:been debunked

[Firethorn]

, as the hugely disproportionate rate of gun deaths in the US

Compared to where? North Korea? The middle east? Large areas of Africa?

And why single out gun deaths? Even though guns are popular suicide devices in the States, Japan manages to have a much higher suicide rate. Do you think that somebody being killed with a gun is worse than somebody being killed by a knife or a club, or poison, or a car for that matter?

We were so pastoral before firearms were developed, weren't we?

Re:been debunked

[rlp]

Yes, that certainly explains the low crime rate in Switzerland where every male between 20 and 55 (as a member of the Swiss Army) is required to keep an assault weapon and a case of ammo at home.

It also explains Britain, which recently instituted draconian gun control laws, only to watch the crime rate rise dramatically. Curiously, British criminals seem to have no problem with violating gun laws.

Being 100% serious here.......

[GuyFawkes]

This is like the two guys from the nature film crew, one cameraman and one soundman, filming the lions... one of the lions gets all menacing and starts to make a run towards them...

The sound guy kneels down and starts taking of his boots, the camera guy starts laughing and says "you won't outrun a lion like that."

The sound guy says "I'm not trying to, I'm only going to outrun you."

OK, same principle applies, and I'm being 100% serious here.

You do NOT need to make yourself 100% impregnable, you only need to make sure you aren't the most attractive to the thieves etc

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[Firethorn]

Well, they are a special purpose group. Kinda like how the brady bunch are dedicated to exposing all the dangers of firearms.

The trick is, who's more carefull with their research? Who's more accurate? From my looking at many of the brady campaign's ads pushing for renewal of the AWB, I've seen downright misleading ads, trying to convince people that machine guns will flood the streets when it expires. In actuality I'll be able to get a semi-automatic rifle with a flash suppressor (makes the firearm look more authentic), bayonet lug(can be useful for attaching accessories other than bayonets), and folding/collapsing stock(easier storage, fit more people) again.

Remember, the Maryland Snipers could have done their murders with a black powder rifle, bolt action, or single shot just as easily, if not more. And they didn't use an "assault weapon" according to the law, as it was a post-ban rifle, without the folding stock, bayonet lug, or flash suppressor.

Cost-effectiveness.

[Grendel Drago]

However, these able-bodied societal leeches that suck down money from those of us that are middle class can rot AFAIC. Lock them up and throw away the key.

You do know how expensive it is to imprison people, right? Especially since we have to make room for a hojillion non-violent weed smokers, and thus build new prisons?

It's cheaper to educate and train someone than it is to imprison them. But both cost money, both are social spending. It's just that the latter option doesn't even pretend to have a positive effect; it just tried to prevent future harm.

--grendel drago

Re:Sentry gun

[random_static]

2-inch-thick steel front door?!?!!

WTF are your walls made of, dude? discarded battle tank glacis plates?

Re:But the bumper sticker is...

[slackingme]

Wow! You've got bumperstickers that keep away 'thugs'? Cool.
I'll trade you this rock that keeps away tigers..

I don't think it's the bumperstickers, man. I think it's the carparts on the lawn and the lack of valuables, besides beer and NASCAR tapes. The fact you're a half-cracked redneck with a safeload of shotties doesn't change much if you've got nothing to take.

It does mean any thirteen year old kid doing a house raid for kicks will become armed.. with your weapons!

Oooh, you're a statistic!

Re:Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for home defens

[zbuffered]

Having read articles (I might even have one handy) about police who've emptied 9mm handgun clips into bad guys, only to be taken out with a single shot from a .22 pistol (the bad guy later bled out and died, but his blood pressure was high enough for him to return fire for at least 30 seconds), near-lethal force means you drop your attacker and hope he lives. If he's on his feet coming at you, you're still defending yourself.

Those same articles reccommend shooting for the pelvis instead of the chest. Still a wide target, but if you break the pelvic bone, your attacker's body will not support their weight and they will fall. A man with a lethal wound to the chest is not necessarily going to stop coming at you until he bleeds out.

Re:been debunked

[slntnsnty]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

I find that offensive

[argoff]

I find your attitude offensive. There are so many honest people in the world who have had desperate circumstances, unequal wealth, and bad situations - and who were good honest and even productive inspite of it all. In fact, the history if the United States is made of such people. You really slap these people in the face when you suggest that "well all we need is the right circumstances"

The best way of all to stop crime it to show people that they are destined by choices and not curcumstances. The second best way is to set a good example.

Taking money from one set of people just because they have more - is a great way to teach people why it's ok to steal and take things - just because you percieve you need it more than they do. Making social programs that center arround circumstance is a great way to teach people that it's not about their choices but their situations. It would seem to me that all of those would have the exact opposite effect as intended.

Not to mention that history has shown that the only effective way to reduce poverty and bad situations is to increase freedoms - especially economic freedoms, a progreesive tax does just the opposite. It's like that saying - if you can shit on one wealthy man - then you can shit on 10000 poor men.

Some simple things: all "low-tech"

[helix_r]

I live in Baltimore city in a _very_ high crime neighborhood (albeit one that is rapidly gentrifying ). My neighhors and I have encountered all kinds of criminal activity.

Some suburban blowhards will say to get a gun first, but there are a number of things you can do that are more effective than having a gun. Simple preventative measures will go much farther than a loaded gun in the closet. If you have to have a gun, fine, but do the things below FIRST:

1) Keep an eye on things. Call the cops whenever something remotely suspicious is happening. Don't hesitate to call 911. The system can handle a tremendous number of calls and they know how to prioritize. Even if the police don't respond to the call, it is logged and stats are collected. In most urban areas, 911 call stats are used to allocate police resources. When calling 911 be accurate, specific and unemotional.

2) Don't leave _ANYTHING_ in your car and use a club. Larceny from auto is the hallmark of a drug addict criminal. They want easy targets. Even change on the dashboard is worth breaking a window to them. They don't think like normal people. Be discreet, don't show off wealth or new acquisitions.

3) Get to know your neighbors. Share information. Talk about what is happening in the neighborhood. The police in your area may offer "neighborhood watch" programs that educate folks about crime. This is usually done through their community relations department. Its a good way to learn about real crime prevention.

Please don't get a gun because some armchair libertarians on slashdot think its a good idea. If you have a gun, it is only useful if you confront the criminal. In the VAST majority of property crimes, you never even SEE the criminal. In those rare cases where you happen to catch the punk, you will discover something that is NOT what you expect: often a child, or a desparate drug addict who couldn't care less about risking his life and yours to get away. If you have a gun and display it, you have to be prepared to kill someone and face the permanent consequences of a potentially tragic mistake and the tremendous guilt that any normal person will feel even if they kill in self-defense.

Re:been debunked

[Warshadow]

I'll agree with populations density, but I'll disagree on less crime in Canada. Perhaps straight up numbers because Canada has sush a smaller population, but I'll imagine per capita crime in general is probably about even.

I really see no real evidence about the violence and temperature link. In my personal experience of traveling throughout the US I'd have to say the warmer it gets the nicer folks are.

See Louisiana is an interesting place. Originally settled by... yep Canadians and these descendants of canucks love their guns!

But now we're on the issue of violence and crime in general and not the original topic of guns.

It's a truth when people say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does the gun make it easier? Absolutely, but if someone wants to kill another person they're going to do it whether or not they have a gun.

Guns were invented for one reason and one reason only: To kill people, but as time has gone by they've been used for other more useful things (hunting game for food) and now more recreational things (target shooting, hunting, etc..). They're still used to kill people of course, but taking the guns out of the hands of the people who are using them in a responsible way does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem with gun related crime.

Think about it; if you were a criminal and going to lets say murder someone.

Would you: A. Go to the store and buy a gun that perhaps can be traced to you.
Or
B. Buy or steal a weapon that's not going to be tracable to you?

Oh sure there are those who have even less brain cells than your average thug and would buy one through legitimate means to commit the crime, but I'd say there's not too many of those types when compared to the whole.

Move somewhere safer if possible

[syousef]

Seriously. The problem doesn't sound like its going to be fixed by arming yourself to the teeth. If your neighbourhood has turned into a sewer, putting up sewerage barrackades is only a temporary solution.

Re:been debunked

[tchdab1]

>And why single out gun deaths?

Because we're discussing the disadvantages of keeping guns around, not the disadvantages of dying. Please pay attention and stay on topic.

Re:Under no circumstances listen to rtilghman.

[rtilghman]

Its not propaganda and lies, unless you happen to be a member of the NRA (in which case any argument that doesn't put an automatic weapon in the hands of a fourteen year old is a lie).

I come from a family who has a long history of hunting and gun ownership (mostly shotguns and duck hunting). I will state emphatically that owning a gun is just a pointless danger, and is utterly unnecessary if you take the proper precautions I otherwise indicated.

Even if you don't buy the danger of having a gun present in a situation (it is a danger, but your entitlted to your opinion) you WILL be sued for damages if you shoot a trespasser in almost any state except Texas. In that case your brash gun ownership results in someone gaining the ability to sue you for your home instead of robbing something from it.

Of course maybe you live in South Central LA or something, in which case I would suggest a final step... MOVE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT DOESN'T HAVE PEOPLE WITH GUNS WHO WANT TO KILL AND ROB YOU.

At the end of the day I own nothing that is even fractionally as valuable as me and mine, and I don't have any interest in buying a weapon that could pose even a minimal risk to them (accidental firing, intruder use, whatever). And before you evem talk about gun locks don't make me laugh. Almost every person who owns a gun that I've seen doesn't even USE a gun lock, despite what the NRA might argue to the contrary.

An 802.11 webcam? WTF?
While this is a good geek answer, a webcam is not good security. It is possible to set up good video surveillance with recording, but this is not the way to do so.

I pointed to that webcam because it was cheap. If you can afford a CCD system by all means, install one on your property and disclose its presence. As for your comments they only show your ignorance. The purpose of a CCD or camera system is as a deterant... numerous safety studies have clearly shown that a perpetrator is substantially less likely to target a residence or property that is monitored. The reasons are obvious... if the systems presence is diclosed they know the house:

1. is monitored

2. has occupants who take security seriously

Forget this. Get a real professionally installed monitored alarm system, with active+passive motion sensing and zoned sensors. If there are areas of the house which grandma never uses, she can enable not only the perimeter sensor, but also the motion sensor inside that zone.

Ah, I see, so if you can't afford a $10,000 wired multi-zoned system with 24x7 monitoring (all decent alarm systems have 24x7 monitoring, so I don't know WTF you were accusing my proposal of with that) you should just throw up your hands and open the door?

Your comments are ludicrous, your opinions asinine, and that last one just proves it. Most people don't have $15,000 to drop on home security or live ina fortress champ, but thanks for making obscene rcommendations that the OP obviously couldnt afford.

-rt

Re:I already used my allowance of 'wrong' today

[MoriarGryphon]

Ack. I admit being wrong. I never noticed that part of the penal code, it goes 100% against what they taught us in the CHL class. (And what the questions from the test, too.)

However, keep in mind part 3, that the deadly force must be the completly last resort. If you think you can possibly tackle the guy without sustaining serious bodily injury/death, then you can't shoot him.

True, but the likelyhood is next to zero.

[tentimestwenty]

In the extremely unlikely situation that someone breaks into your house while you're there, follow these steps:

1. Yell "I have called 911 and the police are on their way." There are very few people that aren't going to turn and run.
2. If they aren't scared away try to escape and call police from a neighbour's house.

There are so few home invasions to start with and so few that are with intent to physically harm, the miniscule amount left over could be discounted as freak occurrences. People have a way of seizing on the worst case outcome no matter how rare and using that as a justification. Realistically, neither the event, nor the overblown countermeasure will ever be tested.

Like I said in the parent post, install a security camera or get a dog. Both are social deterrents that in time will dissuade thieves from trying anything as risky as home invasion

Re:Don't be a metrosexual

[atriusofbricia]

Speaking as someone who owns a few weapons, you are totally right. You had better be prepared to use that weapon when you bring it into play. If you are not, you are better off not going for it.

Do not try and bluff with a gun.

Only pull it if you are fully prepared to use it. Otherwise you are just putting yourself and others in danger.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[Chomp]

I guess I should know better than to enter into the gun debate. What is that line out of "Pattern Recognition" referring to it being something Americans and non-Americans each wondering why the other just doesn't "get it?"

I'm glad I live in Australia. You know that our rate of murder (per capita) is less than a quarter of the USA's? You know why that is? It is because we don't have this screwed up attitude that says because someone entered our home we have the right to end their life. It is because we don't have this screwed up idea that "defendin' mah family" means killing a fellow human being.

It makes me sad that those people can't see how such an attitude diminishes themselves as a person, and diminishes society along with them.

One more thing before I'm done. Many people use the "murderer in the night" as a justification for their beliefs. This is know as a fallacy of false vividness, where a colourful description is used to avoid confronting facts. Firstly, non-violent burglaries outweigh violent ones by about a bazillion to one, so if someone has broken into your house, a non-lethal response is most likely to be appropriate. Secondly, most people are murdered by people they know, not strangers in the night. And of that group, a fair proportion are family members.

So go ahead, buy a gun and shoot the stranger at the door if it makes you happy. Just ask the people who accidentally shot their son/daughter sneaking home after a late date if it was all worthwhile.

Re:Americans and their guns...

[NerveGas]

It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.

Remember the massacre of the Israeli olympians in Munich? Well, about two years ago, I had the pleasure of speaking with the person who was the deputy mayor of the Olympic village at that time. He went into great detail about how they, as Germans, were very eager to prove to the rest of the world that they were an educated, enlightened society - that they didn't have need of heavy security, armed guards, etc..

The then told me about how horrible the massacre was, and the deep, personal pain that he endured having to assist the families of the slain athletes. After he had finished, he told me this:

"We thought that we were so educated and enlightened that we didn't need weapons. What we didn't realize is that no matter how enlightened we were, there are others in the world who are not."

You can be as enlightened and educated as you want, but when someone comes into your house with a baseball bat, smashes your face in, then rapes your wife and daughters as he chokes them to death, your enlightenment and education gained you exactly nothing. That's right, nothing.

And if you believe that the life of said murderer/rapist is so precious that you and your family should give up your lives so that he won't have to, well, good luck with that. The gene pool will be better off without you.

The best solution, as mentionned previously, is to have good neighbours and not expose your belongings.

Again, you're living in a dream world. Your neighbors can move and sell their house, then what do you do? I guess you can spend your entire life moving from place to place, but I don't believe that should be necessary.

And "don't expose your belongings"? HAH! I had a car that was broken into four times in three months, all in different areas. In no case was there anything of value in the car, and nothing was taken. These worthless little streat punks cost me over a thousand dollars in broken windows just so that they could take a peek inside to see if there was anything of value. People are mugged and killed often when their total possessions are worth less than $20. For someone of such esteemed education, you seem to have very little dealings in reality.

Steve

Robert Heinlein's Security Advice

[deathcow]

Actually, the advice is from Lazarus Long, the very long lived character from "Time Enough For Love", his advice?

Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect.

Re:More non-gun US murders than total Canada murde

[GimmeFuel]

I've done significant research on violent crime in the US and no one really knows why the murder rate is so high

War on Drugs and gun control. That's it.

The War on Drugs inflates drug prices, which means selling drugs is a really profitable business. This finances gangs and provides incentive for them to kill each other in turf wars.

Gun control prevents individual citizens from owning guns and defending themselves against criminals.

Of course both of these effects vary greatly depending on location - this is why places with a bad gang problem and lots of gun control - NYC, Chicago and DX for example - have crime the worst.

Re:One of many differences: War on drugs

[thrash242]

This is one reason why I think drugs should be legalized. Think about how much crime (and the load on police and prisons) would plummet if drugs were legalized. See Prohibition in the US. Drug prohibition causes more problems than it solves. All it does is criminalize people who use drugs and don't bother anyone. Most drug-related crime is caused by gangs killing each other for turf and junkies mugging people to get their fixes (I'm just guessing, I have no figures to back that up). If drugs were sold at legitimate stores, the prices would drop and noone would buy from gangs anymore. How many people buy cigarettes or booze from dealers in an alley? How many people steal to support their alcohol or tobacco habit? Not many in both cases, I bet. Except maybe in NY, where taxes are so high on cigarettes that they cost about $7 a pack, last I heard.

I, for the record, do no drugs other than caffeine and very moderate alcohol. I'm actually personally against drug use, but I see that laws against it accomplish nothing. What you do with yourself is your own business unless you hurt someone else.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[HalfFlat]

I don't understand.

Why is it okay to shoot someone for stealing and taunting? Their life (or in this case, the use of their leg) is more important than your stuff? Your pride? This is the impression I'm getting.

Stuff can be reacquired. There is insurance as well. Criminals occasionally even get caught by the police. But people don't get better after being shot to death. Splintered knee caps don't magically repair themselves.

The only case where it seems justifiable to maim or kill someone, is when not doing so presents the high likelihood of worse happening. Even then, it is all too easy to make a mistake in judgement, and one can't make amends for mistakes like that. To think that wounded pride and a car is worth someone's life just boggles my imagination. Seriously, you think that's ok?

Re:been debunked

[Blastrogath]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, no matter how hard you wish to. Guns exist and are common throughout the world. Do you think that the government can stop gun running any easyer than drug smuggling?

All that a ban on guns will do is take the guns from law abiding people. Criminals will still have them, and the near assurance that their potential victims are unarmed.

Re:What doesn't work, what might.

[teddlesruss]

Several people have now mentioned these devices that track locate and squirt moving targets such as rabbits and pests.

No-one's said that they can be filled with things other than cold water or fox pee. Like HiLite bright Dye... Combine your webcams with a nice bright dyemark and your perpetrators may well be a bit easier to find...

Not lethal, not (usually) harmful, but it might be effective. Especially if you have a few of these things set up around the place...

Not illegal...

[raehl]

You can have as many static firearms with trap mechanisms as you want.

But if one of them actually SHOOTS somebody, you can expect to spend time in prison for negligent homicide (if the setup worked well), plus have the victim('s estate) sue you for everything you're worth.

Occam's Razor

[stephanruby]

Follow Occam's Razor. Think of the simplest answer you can possibly think of and find a way to achieve it.

In my case, I moved to a safer neighborhood. It took me two years to effect the move to one of the two neighborhoods I had in mind, but the wait was worth it. My neighborhood is now safer and cleaner, and yet I didn't have to sacrifice on the amount of rent I was paying, nor did I sacrifice on the amount of time I was spending on the commute. It took a while, but my patience paid off.

Now, I don't know the age of your mother, but assuming she's getting older. Do you think her neighborhood is going to improve, or get worse? And as she does become older, do you think it will get easier for her to move, or not? It's never easy to move and it's never a good time to move, but it's usually one of the best and healthiest solutions.

Re:Americans and their guns...

[10Ghz]

It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.

"Europeans don't own guns" is a vastly over-generalized myth. Hell, I live in Finland (an European country), and this country is full of guns. Hunting-rifles, shotguns, pistols, few "souveniers" from the war.... You name it. 6% of Finns are active hunters, and many others own guns as well.

I don't hunt, but I grew up surrounded by guns. I shot my first shots when I was about 6 years old, my father teached me how to handle guns and how to live with them. Hell, he even showed me how to take them apart and put them together (blindfolded if needed. he was trained as a gunsmith by the Army) And he did that before I was eight years old (he died when I was eight). He thought that it would be alot better to learn how to handle guns than to pretend that guns don't exist. If there's one thing I remember him teaching me is "You never, EVER point a gun, even an unloaded one, towards another person, unless your intention is to kill him". Of course, killing in this context referred more to times of war than home-defence.

Remember the massacre of the Israeli olympians in Munich

Yes. And I fail to see how armed general population could have prevented it.

get to know your neighbors

[SgtChaireBourne]

I realize the post was a request for solutions for geeks, but meet your neighbors. Invite them over one address at a time for 45 minutes over a coffee or whatever. Keep it simple and friendly. No politics, bragging, etc. out of your mouth and let it slide if your guests let something slip. Small talk for 20-30 seconds if you see them on the street or at least wave.

What does that do? Not much, at first but then they know who you are and some will also get to know their neighbors better. Some may even become better friends.

I've done that in many places and in other places my neighbors have beat me to it. One street still has an annual block party to this day.

Millions of car alarms go off so often for no reason that it's no deterrent. However, you will act different when someone you know sees a problem with your car or other liabilities if they know you or vice versa.

Second, if your mom lives in a neighborhood with too high a yuppie content, then it may be easier to move than to retrain them. They're not community builders, but instead they rather let it fall apart.

I'm sure your mom can handle these thing, but they take a few months to a couple of years to kick in.

Re:been debunked BULLSHIT ALERT

[perly-king-69]

Bullshit. In Britain we have incredibly few gun related crimes. It's big news, really big news if someone is killed by the bullet in this country. It's not an everyday occurance and has hardly risen dramatically.

The problem is yours. The US glamourises violence and gun use. Every other film coming out of the states features guy shooting each other. Your head of state poses aboard warships. You're OBSESSED with guns, with violence, with killing.

I think it was Shaw who said the US is the only country to have gone from Barbarism to Decadence without experiencing Civilisation.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[xSauronx]

seriously, you think im the only one he'll ever attempt to rob?

seriously, you dont think theres a chance this guy who is robbing people may one day kill someone for a tv to save his own ass from going to jail?

seriously, you think i *care* if that guy stays alive when theres a chance he could not just rob, but even potentially kill someone quite innocent?

yeah, if he breaks into the house of a gunowner i dont care if he gets shot. if you dont want a gun, and if you see a guy robbing you and want to say "oh i forgive you" thats ok.

i dont want to say i forgive you, i want to point a gun at him and tell him tohave a seat while the police get a donut and come over. and if he wants to attack me, i want him dead. because after me theres my wife and 2 infant children in my home and i wont have them feel threatened because i thought id say "i forgive you, have another chance" to some prick who though he could come into *MY* house and do what he wants.

Re:its obvious

[funkydom]

Again, the niggers. And if it weren't for American medicine, you would be trying to heal each other with maple leaves and living in igloos. Eat shit you fucking communist.

Yes ladies and gents, this guy lives in the most "advanced" and "powerful" country in the world... The country where all they seem to know about the rest of the world is stereotypes they learn from their TV shows and Hollywood films.
The country that brands any other country that doesn't share its views or have an individualist capiltalist society exactly the same as it has "communist".

Wouldn't be so frustrating for the rest of us if these pig ignorant people weren't pilfering away a quarter of the world's resources while they sit scratching their fat asses watching Friends and wallowing in their self important air of smugness.

Re:Americans and their guns...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the massacre of the Israeli olympians in Munich?

Yep tragic, but not preventable by arming the populace as mentioned above. Also how many other similar incidents have there been, the only one I can think of in the last 10 years that would have been stopped by armed civilians was the Hungerford killings, which incidently were committed by an armed civilian before the UK limited gun ownership.

You can be as enlightened and educated as you want, but when someone comes into your house with a baseball bat, smashes your face in, then rapes your wife and daughters as he chokes them to death, your enlightenment and education gained you exactly nothing.

How many people do you know that this has happened to?
I don't mean heard about on the news in a country with half a billion people, I mean how many people you speak to face-to-face have had this happen to them. How many they know. I live in the UK and while I've heard of this occassionally (once every 5 years or so) on the news I don't know a single person who has suffered such an attack.

I do however know of hundreds of drunked arguments that would have gone a lot further than simple wound-up fist-fights had guns been in every home. Maybe thats just the culture we have here but it'd be a far more dangerous place if every drunken twat on a saturday nite was armed.

Re:been debunked

[DrMaurer]

There's quite a difference between feeling and being safe.

The reason why nukes are different is a matter of scale, you have to point and pull the trigger at each person as far as a gun is concerned, nukes kill indescriminately. The scale down part of your analogy . . .

I don't own a gun, but if someone wants to, what right do I have to take it away? Your right to swing ends where my nose begins, right? Their right to own a gun is when a bullet comes through my wall. "But that's too late." Well, sorry, I really don't know how to argue out of that one from my base assumptions, it's just a gut-check feeling I got. I honestly think it's rediculous to have an arsenal, or even say the words "assault rifle" and "hunting" in the same sentance, but it's not the goverment or anyone elses place to tell anyone they can't be rediculous (or even immoral) if they are not actively hurting someone else (this follows a reasonable man standard, a flaw in the system, I admit.)

For an interesting exercise, replace any of the following sticky and polarizing topics: "dope" or "gay marriage" or "abortion" for "guns" in:

>Guns for people who want guns; no guns for people who don't want guns. _Freedom_ is the key there.

Everyone should read "Ain't Nobody's Buisiness if You Do," for a better explanation of this kind of position, if ya'll are interested.

thanks

Re:One of many differences: War on drugs

[BreadMan]

I couldn't agree more. The "war on drugs" has resulted market distortions that make more problems than the fix.

The drugs themselves are *very* cheap to grow and produce. A free market would result in lower priced drugs, so even if you were a listless addict, you'd need to steal less in order to support your habit. I'm also betting that most casual users would pay for the better quality of a branded product, resulting in a decent market for companies wanting to supply the average user.

I also don't like how personal liberties have been eroded by the need to enforce current drug laws. The bar for searching your person and property has decreased and the rules reporting certain banking transactions shouldn't be tolerated. Plus, the ability for the government to impound your property just for suspecting you're involved in something illegal is shameful.

Bet you didn't know the US as once "dope fiend's paradise"

Re:Americans and their guns...

[Sinterklaas]

It's common for Europeans to believe that they're enlightened enough not to need guns. Unfortunately, they're living in a dream.

Remember the massacre of the Israeli olympians in Munich?

You mean the one that happened over 30 years ago? The crime that was committed by non-Europeans against non-Europeans and just happened to take place in Europe? Is that supposed to tell us anything more than that international events have to deal with the problem of 'imported' violence and need proper security?

You can be as enlightened and educated as you want, but when someone comes into your house with a baseball bat, smashes your face in, then rapes your wife and daughters as he chokes them to death, your enlightenment and education gained you exactly nothing. That's right, nothing.

OMG, think of the children!!! Look out for the terrorists!!! WMD!!! Terror alert red!!!

Thanks for discussing things objectively, without resorting to scare mongering. Now seriously: if someone breaks into your house in Europe, then 99.9% of the time they are there to steal your things and they carry at most a knife for self defense. Usually they are also smart enough to make sure you are not home, so you will usually notice the break in by simply missing stuff. If they do break in when you are present, calling the police and making a ruckus will nearly always be enough to scare the perp away.

Statistically, it is far more likely that you die in traffic than that you get murdered (unless you are a criminal). And even if you get murdered, it is more often by someone you know than a stranger, which means that it is unlikely that you will feel a need to get or pull out a gun until it is too late. Some of these statistical facts are also supported by my personal experience. I have had family members die in a traffic incident and many years ago, a girl in my class was killed by her father (who killed the rest of the family and himself too). Other people I know died from health problems. I have never seen a 'live' gun except when carried on the hip of the police officer. I have also never had a knife drawn on me.

So for my safety, I would first look at making my commute safer and then I would care about my personal health. Buying and carrying a gun for my safety would for me be like carrying a helmet to protect myself from tiles falling from the roof. Sure it can happen, but I refuse to worry about things that happen so rarely. If I stop living life because I go through life in a constant panic and fear, I might just as well kill myself right now and be done with it.

And "don't expose your belongings"? HAH! I had a car that was broken into four times in three months, all in different areas. In no case was there anything of value in the car, and nothing was taken. These worthless little streat punks cost me over a thousand dollars in broken windows just so that they could take a peek inside to see if there was anything of value. People are mugged and killed often when their total possessions are worth less than $20. For someone of such esteemed education, you seem to have very little dealings in reality.

Perhaps that is the society you live in. However, I don't and I won't be berated for not allowing my society to be overflowed with guns, even though it has never been proven that guns stop crime.

Did Heinlein ever fire a single shot in anger?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was an armchair tactician, at least in terms of the sort of situation he's talking about here. His professional experience was as the fire-control officer for one of the main batteries on a battleship. I don't think the battle of Jutland, for example, is altogether analagous to the shootout at the OK Corral.

This isn't some anti-Heinlein thing. I might not say Heinlein was a first-class literary "great writer" like Nabokov, but he wrote a truckload of wonderful books and his views formed more of my value system than I'd care to admit anywhere but Slashdot... I love the guy to pieces. However. He didn't know shit from personal experience about personal defense with firearms. Wyatt Earp did. The fact that Heinlein's remarks "sound good" to you and me is kind of irrelevant; we haven't shot our way out of an ambush any more than he did. For all his "get the facts" rhetoric, he did tend to talk out his ass sometimes (in a fiction writer, that's not a flaw; you've got to have some intellectual balls to do that job as well as he did it).

Re:Dog

[Veridium]

You're absolutely ignorant about pit bulls. You've fallen for a media myth. Go here...
http://www.realpitbull.com/myths.html

The reality about Pit Bulls being bred to fight is, they are bred to fight other dogs. If you look into the background of dog fighting and how hands on the handlers of fight dogs are, you would begin to understand that they were also bred to be very gentle with humans.

I won't ask for your sympathy when the "inevitable" happens, because it isn't inevitable at all. I dare you to produce statistics showing that all, or even most, or even 10 percent of all pitbulls kept in a home turn on their owners. There is no evidence of that, that is pure hyperbole reinforced by the media, who don't report most dog attacks, only the ones they can sensationalize about pit bulls. You should check facts before you form an opinion.

The problems with pitbulls arise right here: this is because here in the UK the only people that have these dogs are almost as agressive as the dogs they keep

Bingo. You wouldn't want to be near a germen shepard or any other breed of dog people like that would raise. I'm not aggressive(maybe passively in certain circumstances) and I certainly don't teach my dog to fight. Dog fighting is repugnant in my opinion. And this dog was never taught to fight. Nor does this dog get treated roughly, as aggressive people would treat their dogs. I'm not a skinhead, have 0 tatooes, and I'm not a psychopath.

But you are free to believe whatever you wish, but the evidence does not support this. What you say is based on fear and media hype, not on statistics or facts.

Re:Good question..

[M-G]

Oh yes. Be sure to get your information from a certified security industry cartel member. That way you can buy the hardware at a 5000% markup and have it professionally installed so you don't realize that most of the stuff is decades old technology.

And most of it isn't terribly complicated. We have a system installed by ADT at our office. ADT does the monitoring. System started alarming due to a low backup battery. ADT was going to charge a $40 service call, plus another $50 for the new battery, but they couldn't come out for a few days. Took the battery out, went to a local supplier, and got a new battery for $20.

When we were vacating some office space, I did some searching on how to get around the installer code, and removed those sensors from the system.

Sure, your average person should probably rely on a security company for anything like this, but the average slashdotter should be able to deal with it.

Re:One of many differences: War on drugs

[thrash242]

That's true, but why should they be illegal just because they're addicive? Alcohol and tobacco are fairly addictive, yet are legal.

Keep in mind that all drugs were legal at one point, and while people may have been addicted, civilization didn't grind to a halt. Today, there are quite a few aloholics, but most still are productive members of society. It's a risk you take if you try a substance that is known to be addictive.

Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone!

[MrBlackBand]

...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."

Then I guess we are under no general duty to provide their salary? The next time some politician or police union is trying to raise police wages remember this decision.

It's cultural.

[jayerandom]

Higher levels of violence in the United States are mostly associated with the following three cultures:
* Low-income white southerners
* Low-income African-American descendants of slaves.
* Low-income Hispanic-American descendants of immigrant laborers.

All three have in common:
* An "honor culture", where personal affronts demand a violent response. This follows from their shared cultural histories of being oppressed by an aristocratic upper class, where all they had left to defend was their dignity.
* Poverty, which more than anything else is a predictor for violent behavior.

If you add enough poor people with this cultural background to Canada, Canada would have the same rate of violence and homicide as the United states.