Slashdot Mirror
Home Defense, Geek Style?
Yo Maing writes "So my mom got lives alone, and got her car broken into last night. We have a motion sensor light in the driveway, and the car has an alarm but apparently both of these deterrents were ineffective. Crime has been rising around her neighborhood, and only action the police can take is to file a report. So I ask you, Geeks of Slashdot, what tricks do you guys have to defend yours and your loved ones homes against crimes like this? Not looking for anything that would get someone injured, but more in the area of detection and repulsion. Anyone have a holographic Yeti generator to scare away intruders? :)"
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.
www.hiredinsight.com
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!
Recognizing that crime is often (not always, but often) a product of personal desperation I vote for candidates who will do things like:
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.
Is a Steyr M-40 with nightsights and hyrdroshock rounds. Does dead count as injured?
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.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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
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.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
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.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
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.
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!
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).
"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.
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.
"None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Canadians are also better educated than Yanks. Go figure.
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
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.
Please help metamoderate.
-------------
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.
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.
What is your penile percentile?
England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.
.au
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
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).
>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.
Fuzdout
..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
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.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
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.
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.
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.
, 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?
I don't read AC A human right
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.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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.
Synergy is your friend
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.
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.
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
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
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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.
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.
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.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
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.
--
This sig is inoffensive.
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"
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.