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? :)"

347 of 2,514 comments (clear)

  1. Don't be a metrosexual by taxman_10m · · Score: 5, Funny

    Buy a gun.

    1. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Randy+Wang · · Score: 5, Funny

      Buy a phaser.

      --
      --- Egads, I glow in the dark!
    2. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by samtihen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by renehollan · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, the questioner didn't want anyone injured, but I concur. I would howver qualify that suggestion with:

      Take a firearm safety course.

      Take a course to teach you how to handle a firearm effectively.

      Know thyself. Under what circumstances will you point a loaded, deadly, weapon at someone? Under what circumstances will you shoot them? When your home is being invaded is not the time to ask such questions.

      Have other family members take firearm safety / firearm effectiveness courses.

      Select the weapons of choice. I happen to like shotguns: you don't miss, and you'll think twice before you riddle your home with shot. They're safer for the neighbors too. Of course, at close range, rifles offer a cleaner shot, and a greater opportunity to not kill. A handgun? I'm not that good of a shot and I don't like home intruders that close. YMMV.

      Get instructions in the use of your selected weapon.

      Apply for the necessary permits.

      Wait.

      Purchase your weapons.

      Practice. I'm serious. You need to "be one" with it and comfortable with how it handles, discharges, kicks, etc.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    4. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by fuzdout · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree. Besides wouldn't it be cool to have a kick-ass mom like that woman in Australia who got raped and then her 80 year old mom hunted down the the men and shot their balls off and then turned herself in? That old momma kicks butt! :)

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    5. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...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).

      --
      You could've hired me.
    6. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by renehollan · · Score: 2
      Wimps.

      /. is so U.S.-centric, that I just assumed the suggestion to arm one's self presumed that as well.

      Canada is worse than Europe: there's a shopkeeper who, after the nth robbery in a month, warded off three armed attackers, shooting one of them, who later died in an ally. The shopkeeper is facing murder charges.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    7. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or disintegrate - they can't prove anything with all the evidence disintegrated.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    8. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Not going to argue with gun ownership. It's in the constitution. But I have to disagree with some of your other assertions:

      No, I abhor government help, and find private charity in the U.S. extremely generous to those who have just had a bad run of bad luck.
      Private charity only goes so far. It doesn't nearly cover the needs out there. And not everyone who's poor is just lazy. I know plently of hard-working people who are sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

      For all the "social programs" I've seen in places like Canada, they;re all ineffective hollow promise, with expensive tax burdens, that fatten some asshole politicians.
      Clearly the current tax system is corrupt. But the pork-barreling in social programs is nothing compared to the Pentagon/"Defense"/"Homeland Security" sector.
      I think a quote from Eisenhower is appropriate:

      Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.

      This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

      In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

      From his Farewell Speech, 1961
    9. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by VivianC · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      What? You don't keep any knives in your kitchen? Just put one in the dead guy's hand before you call the cops. Make sure you get left and right prints on it, in case the guy is a lefty. Unarmed problem solved. "He grabbed a knife from my barbeque/garage/sink and came after me. What else could I do?"

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    10. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    11. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've been watching too much Columbo. Try leaving your house once in a while.

    12. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by spike+hay · · Score: 4, Informative

      German shepards. I have a diabetic cousin that has one. This dog has pawed at her face to keep her awake when she has started to go into diabetic comas. It even frightened off a prowler once.

      Also, it dilligently watches their baby, and even gently plays with it.

      German Shepards are extremely intimidating, yet intelligent and friendly dogs. Excellent with children. They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls. Shepards always know who to attack and when.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    13. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Autonin · · Score: 2, Informative

      The classic example is the robber that enters, gets shot by the homeowner, and drags himself outside to die. If the guy dies in the house (or maybe just on the property) then it's clearly a case of defense. If he dies outside, it can be construed that he was fleeing. Big fat gray/grey area.

      Easy answer to this - Gun Control. No, not the Brady-thing, I'm talking about hitting what you aim at.

      Funny how a guy can't run back outside if he's missing half his head, or has a .45 caliber hole through his chest.

      Don't buy whimpy handguns. Smaller caliber's just not going to cut it - .22, 9mm, etc. Get something with some stopping power - .40, .45, 10mm (who knew the difference a single mm would make!). Smaller caliber handguns have great penetration power, but tend to do a through-and-through because of it, doing little noticable damage at the time. For close-in home defense, you don't want penetration power, you want stopping power - case in point:

      I remember seeing the video of the attorney being shot by a disgruntled ex-client outside the courthouse - the attorney was shot POINT BLANK 5 times (including the head) by the assailant with a light caliber revolver (.32 I believe) and yet stayed standing, and running.

      If the guy had used a .45, the first hit would have done it - put the guy on his ass and kept him there. I doubt he would have survived. I'm not condoning what that guy did, but it does make for a good example as to why light caliber handguns are not good for much more than tin cans.

      If shooting big iron is uncomfortable, then the previous suggestion of a shotgun (autoloading, and high-capacity, of course) is your next best bet. I'm not sure why the movies always portray people using pump shotguns - maybe it's the dramatic and intimidating Cha-Chunk that preceeds every shot fired, but I can make my 20 gauge autoloader sound very intimidating the first time (spring-close the bolt = CHUNK!). But when it comes down to 'business' that thing will reload in nothing flat, which is one less thing to worry about. Additionally, autoloading shotguns (heck, any autoloader, including handguns and rifles) will absorb some of the blow-back when firing. This is a good thing.

      I don't own a handgun, but would like to, if I had the time to spend practicing with it. Like others have said, training is a necessary requirement for weapon ownership. An untrained person with a firearm is as dangerous to himself as his assailant.

      --
      -AutoNiN
    15. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by dubiousmike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you all modded the parent up as funny, but really you should have modded her up as informative. It isn't the act that sends you to jail, its the intent. Just like an insurance claim - if you light your curtains on fire from your hand, it is arson; if it is from a candle, it is an accident. dousing your couch with lighter fluid and lighting it up, arson - f"falling asleep" with french fries cooking in the fryalator on the kitchen counter, accident - albeit with plenty on stupidity. Insurance companies pay for accidents, not arson. its all about intent. you go to jail for murder, but not necessarily killing someone.

    16. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Z-MaxX · · Score: 2, Funny
      it didn't take too much for him to 'flip' and 'kill the punks' ;)
      Or you could hiring a ninja? Ninjas are cool. They flip out and kill people too.

      If a ninja is too much for your budget or risk level, you could consider one of the other wannabe Real Ultimate Powers.

      --
      Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
    17. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seconded. I had one as a small kid, and the most dangerous thing about that dog was the tail - right at head level. That was until some guy decided to pull a knife on my mother. 65 pounds of claws and teeth.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    18. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by sporktoast · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm as geeky as the next slashdotter, so I'm down with spending $1000 on a color laser printer. But I don't really see how that's gonna help you defend your home.

      --
      In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
    19. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by atriusofbricia · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    20. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Drevux · · Score: 2, Informative
      One thing about an animal is that they are animals. They do not have the capacity to reason or analyze a situation as you and I do.

      The notion that any animal knows who to attack and when is completely false. We all love to think of our pets as honorable creatures, but fact of the matter is that they are just wandering around their little animal life. They don't understand what is happening in most situations.

      I was attacked and nearly killed by a German Shepard when I was four years old. I did not provoke this attack (I was four, I was more into Sesame Stree than I was dogs at the time) however I do not blame the dog. The dog is just an animal who for whatever reason decided the need to attack a child visciously.

      Me, I would rely on a shotgun over a pet for safty. Keep the pet for love and adoration. --Drevux

    21. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by magefile · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We come in peace! (Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill) We come in peace! (Shoot to kill, shoot to kill, men.)

    22. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by magefile · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Police have confirmed it is perfectly legal."

      Yeah, in South Africa, but not in the US. Remember that thing in the fact about why this is a US-centric site? At least add "in South Africa" to the end of that post.

    23. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by indiechild · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should point out that one should never leave a baby or young child alone with a dog, especially if the dog is not familiar with the child.

      The child may inadvertently/accidentally challenge the dog, which may cause it to "discipline" the child, by the only means available to it -- its teeth.

      (No, I'm not a dog hater, I happen to own two dogs)

    24. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by 241comp · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are not mindless attack dogs like pit bulls

      Unfortunately, it is foolish comments like these that have America convinced that some dogs are dangerous simply because of their breed. This is not the case (when speaking of AKC breeds - not dogs bred by dog fighters). The only time that a pit bull is a mindless attack dog is when it is trained to be that way. A German Shepherd can be trained the same as in the story of the person above who was attacked by one at 4 years old.

    25. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by LikelyStory · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pit bulls are *potentially* much more dangerous, because of their breed, than are other types of dogs, and here's the reason. Canids have an instinct, that when their opponent surrenders, they stop attacking. But Pit bulls have had this instinct bred out of them. Pits will not surrender, and will not stop attacking. But pits are usually really friendly to people - excessively so, so much that they make poor guard dogs. They were bred to fight other dogs. But f'ed-up types can train them to regard people as their target, too. These dogs are eager to please their owners, so if that's what he wants... Then you have something really, really, really dangerous. Because when they attack they don't stop until something is dead. So a pit bull makes a terrible choice for a guard dog. It's not what they were bred for. German Shepards, on the other hand, have excellent guard instincts. You can stop a well-trained German from attacking with a command. Pits don't listen to that command: they are constitutionally incapable of it, bred for centuries for their much-admired refusal to give up fighting. A half-dead Pit will attempt to keep fighting. Still a pit doesn't normally attack people, only other dogs, unless it has been mistrained. Of course you can mistrain a German Shepard too. But to suggest there is no inherent difference in the breed characteristics is irresponsible.

    26. Re:Don't be a metrosexual by Phixxr · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have owned several dogs, German Shepards, Rottweilers(Currently own one), Pit Bulls(I currently own two). Calling Pit Bulls "Mindless Attack Dogs" is an entirely ignorant and inflammatory statement. Pit Bulls are in no way mindless(one of the more intelligent breeds), and make *HORRIBLE* attack dogs.

      You have to spend some serious time(either training, or abusing) a pitbull to make it human-agressive. Pit Bulls have been bred for dog-agression, which is completely seperate from human-agression(Ask any animal expert, vet, etc about this one).

      In fact, it is better to get a well-bred fighting Pit, as they are MUCH more stable and friendly. And, lastly, the American Temperment Test Society, who has tested over 20 *thousand* dogs, rates pit-bulls as more stable than the German Shepherd.

      Don't be ignorant, think before you type, and have some sort of proof before you make a statement like that. Saying "Pit Bulls are Mindless Attack Dogs" is like saying "People with brown hair are rapists".


      -Phixxr

      --
      ungggghhhh
  2. Good question.. by panic911 · · Score: 5, Funny

    First I would suggest watching Home Alone 1. That kid is pretty damn clever and easily fended off joe pesci and that ugly guy. Next I would buy an outdoor webcam with some motion detection software.

    1. Re:Good question.. by spellraiser · · Score: 5, Funny
      I have just been asked to relay the following letter:

      Dear punk,

      I am NOT ugly. You sonnofabitch. Your geek ass better have some good home defense, because I am coming over there to KICK YOUR ASS!

      Sincerely,
      Daniel Stern

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    2. Re:Good question.. by DaveOke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Good question.. by mj2k · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would connect a webcam with motion detecting software to an AI system that tracked the face of the introduder and triggered an ak-47 upon target lock - no injuries that way, just instant death!

    4. Re:Good question.. by finkployd · · Score: 2, Informative

      *sigh* yet another geek with no clue about the assualt weapon ban.

      Hint, AK-47s (the media's favorite representative of assualt weapons) was never banned. Automatics were, but those have been banned since the mid 30's without a special license.

      Finkployd

    5. Re:Good question.. by dbialac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Simple Low-tech solution to fend off an intruder:

      Wait for somebody to install ADT in your neighborhood. ADT will then provide marketing materials to everyone in the neighborhood. Cut out the ADT logo and paste it on your window. Viola, no burglers. Remember, perception is reality.

    6. Re:Good question.. by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another option for motion detection software

      Works well enough. The point is to upload it somewhere remote so that a burgler can't just take the PC as well.

    7. Re:Good question.. by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Informative

      The point is to upload it somewhere remote so that a burgler can't just take the PC as well.

      I want my security system to be a deterrent, not just a forensic tool.

      I am building a home studio. $10,000+ worth of equipment. Naturally, word will eventually get around.

      So what am I doing? Everything goes in a steel cage, cabled to a bolt in the floor.

      Webcam surveillance. Clearly posted signs demonstrating camera, computer, and internet. The connection is a cellphone. Luckily I have a spare cellphone and AT&T Wireless Internet; it will be configured to dial the cellphone (permanently attatched & powered off an adapter) and use it as an alternate conduit.

      All that smart tech won't help me one bit, if the criminals think they can just snip the cable line and be done with it. Luckily, the power is a 2-inch thick stranded aluminum cable coming out of the ground. I don't think anyone's going to try to cut that without going to the transformer, 30 feet up a pole on a well lit street patrolled by police at night.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    8. Re:Good question.. by kaybee · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, it depends on how you look at it. In 1986 the manufacture of automatic weapons was prohibited. But before that the ownership was regulated as you stated. This first link on Google confirms this. Interestingly enough if a corporation buys the gun no fingerprints nor a CLEO signature is required (last I knew).

      And please back yourself up with some proof about the AK-47 being banned... I'm pretty sure it wasn't, unless it had two or more banned features. Here is a pretty good explanation of the law with the specific weapons listed which does not include the AK-47.

      Also, here is a good page about the now-expired ban and assault weapons and automatic weapons and many people here on Slashdot apparently need to be educated on the subject.

    9. Re:Good question.. by finkployd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even something that looks like an AK-47. There were several specific models banned , here they are:

      -Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
      -Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
      -Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
      -Colt AR-15;
      -Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
      -SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
      -Steyr AUG;
      -INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
      -revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

      So no Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models) huh. Well AK-47s are still cheaply available everywhere, although there are several knock offs that have a reputation for higher quality. It is an easy law to get around and accomplishes nothing. For that matter while the Colt AR-15 is banned, there are like 10 other manufacturers who build AR-15s that are perfectly legal. The Intertec Tec-9 is not legal under this bill but the nearly identicaly Tec-10 is.

      The other provisions of the bill stated that a gun can only have two of the following:

      Rifles
      -Folding/telescoping stock
      -Protruding pistol grip
      -Bayonet mount
      -Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
      -Grenade launcher

      Pistols
      -Magazine outside grip
      -Threaded muzzle
      -Barrel shroud
      -Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
      -Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon

      Shotguns
      -Folding/telescoping stock
      -Protruding pistol grip
      -Detachable magazine capacity
      -Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

      Clearly this law is just "feel good legislation" that did nothing of substance (except cause the Democrats to lose congress in 94).

    10. Re:Good question.. by M-G · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  3. Dog by flossie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you don't have any pets, consider getting a dog.

    1. Re:Dog by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Dog by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's true. End of discussion. Sure, it's cute to make this an "Ask SlashDot" and all, but we're talking matters or life, death, and property damage. The experts are well-documented on this. It may not be as geek-chic as a webcam or motion-sensing laser cannons, but by all accounts the bad guys bolt when they hear a dog.

    3. Re:Dog by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or a Cheetah if you're a cat person.

      KFG

    4. Re:Dog by Veridium · · Score: 5, Informative

      I highly recommend this route. To avoid having to go through training issues and increasing demand on the puppy factories out there, seriously consider looking into a rescue dog. These are dogs that typically are taken from shelters before their time runs out. The volunteers who run rescues tend to pick dogs who have exceptional traits like intelligence, affectionate, etc...

      In the rescue system, they are typically potty trained, given obedience classes, speyed or neutered, screened for diseases, full immunizations, and are socialized with other dogs. I adopted a 2 year old pit bull a few years back(I went to see a germen shepherd but this dog suckered me). I couldn't have asked for a better dog. She came potty trained(mostly) with basic obedience training and she's extremely loyal. She does really good with my infant children and she scares the crap out of strangers.

      I highly recommend rescue dogs after this experience.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    5. Re:Dog by spectral · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would an AIBO work? Dog AND geeky. I dont' know if they bark though.

    6. Re:Dog by pyros · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dogs are for weenies. What you really want is a guard baboon. Seriously, who's going to mess with this?

    7. Re:Dog by gricholson75 · · Score: 4, Funny

      NOTE: The baboon will not wear diapers.

    8. Re:Dog by Binky+The+Oracle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I talked about my rescued German Shepherd earlier in this thread (up in the shotgun discussion) and what you say is very true. Our GSD was abandoned and possibly abused. Yet within 24 hours she was definitely my dog - she bonded with both me and my wife, and almost immediately started protecting the house.

      She was approximately 4-5 years old when we got her, and had seen some hard times (worn teeth, heartworms, etc.) but she's been a fantastic dog and everyone in my family keeps trying to steal her from me.

      Not too bad for a dog that we were just taking in to prevent having her put down while we looked for someone to adopt her.

      --

      Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

    9. Re:Dog by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too agressive. The last one we elected, invaded Iraq on some rather flimsy evidence of WMDs.

    10. Re:Dog by DissidentHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    11. Re:Dog by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      I chose the Cheetah for a number of reasons. The first being that they're the most dog like of the big cats, even to the point of having dog like feet with dull, nonretractable claws. They won't scratch either you or the furniture.

      Second, I just watched Hatati! a couple of days ago.

      Third, they're actually a proven deterent against burglers. A woman on Long Island used to keep one and let if roam free in the yard. The police found the jimmy marks on the window, cheetah footprints around the window, and burgler footprints leading away from the window very far apart and very deep. The Cheetah doesn't have to chase to be a viable deterent. Simply arriving on the the scene seems to be all the persuasion a burgler needs to flee.

      The primary disadvantage of the cheetah is that it's primarily diurnal. For maximum security I advise supplimenting the cheetah with a leopard, a nocturnal hunter which naturally shares territory with cheetahs.

      They also hide their kills in the attic.

      KFG

    12. Re:Dog by Veridium · · Score: 2, Informative

      An important note though - while many rescue dogs have gone through some obedience training, as an owner/caretaker one really should do obedience with the dog personally. Obedience training is as much about training the trainer as it is about training the dog. This is mostly because you need to be consistentant with the dog, even after is obedience class is over. If the dog doesn't follow directions, its usually because the human isn't giving them correctly/consistantly.

      ABSOLUTELY. I was just coming from the perspective that it's easier to get started with a dog that has some training, and it is in my experience, than from scratch. I think that would be relevant especially for older people. But you definetly need to with your dog and get to know your dog. People need to understand that, even if you send your dog to a high end training school, the effects will fade if you don't work with your dog and you aren't consistant.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    13. Re:Dog by hondo77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We got our German Shepherd from a rescue and she started barking at people walking in front of our house the same night. She is the sweetest thing but you wouldn't know it by walking in front of our house, where she sounds positively vicious. She and her best buddy, a Lab/Retriever mix we got a few months later, are pretty much all we need to keep any prowlers away (we had two on the property (while my wife was home with the kids) in the months before we got the dogs). There are now much easier targets in the neighborhood, should someone be checking things out.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    14. Re:Dog by Veridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
  4. Great by mkro · · Score: 3, Funny

    Summary of all the "Home Alone" movies in 3... 2... 1...

    --
    I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    1. Re:Great by nightsweat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Summary:

      Face slap

      Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

      Thwack! Ow! Thunk! Ow! Smash! Owowowowowowoow!

      Kevin! We're so glad you're safe.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    2. Re:Great by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot the flushing sound at the end of the third as his career went down the toilet.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  5. Ninja Style by ChopsMIDI · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wait on the roof dressed in all black with my ninja sword.

    That's worked pretty well for a few years.

    --

    How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
    1. Re:Ninja Style by ChopsMIDI · · Score: 4, Funny

      So I'm waiting there....yada yada yada....there's blood everywhere.

      --

      How could I say to men: "Speak louder, shout! For I am deaf!"? -Ludwig van Beethoven
    2. Re:Ninja Style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny


      His mom finally caught him ;-)

    3. Re:Ninja Style by Nahor · · Score: 4, Funny

      After all the pizzas he ate waiting on the roof, the belly started to show up between the pants and the shirt. Then he didn't look credible anymore.

    4. Re:Ninja Style by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fair enough, but can you swing the nunbchuks like this dude?

  6. Location, location, location.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I live on an air force base. No problems. :)

    1. Re:Location, location, location.... by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative
      umm, ok... military bases have crime rates that are just as high, if not higher, then the surrounding areas...

      a quick search shows some of the BEST navy bases, they are fairly high for your average town of that size population.

      Navy Times base report

  7. If you're American... by rokzy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guns. Lots of guns.

  8. Shotgun traps by w.p.richardson · · Score: 4, Funny
    and land mines in the front yard are effective deterrents, especially if advertised conspicuously.

    Geek it up some by controlling the shotgun trap with an old pentium running BSD.

    --

    Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!

  9. arm yourself, no more worries! by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shotguns - a good shotgun, all you need for close range theft deterrent!

    1. Re:arm yourself, no more worries! by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the UN, England has the highest crime rate in the world. England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.

      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).

      As to a fight against an oppressive government, look at the communist nations that prohibit their citizens from owning guns, versus oppressive nations where citizens can own guns. The USA won its war for independence because its people owned guns and turned them against the oppressors.

      Do you have any evidence to back up your side of the issue?

    2. Re:arm yourself, no more worries! by rw2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    3. Re:arm yourself, no more worries! by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The military would see a lot of mutinees if they were ordered to turn the Blackhawks on large number of US citizens on American soil.

      And you haven't read the second amendment or other documentation from the time it was written well enough if you think it has anything to do with the states forming militias. At least you're better off than John Kerry, who somehow found the word 'hunting' in the Constitution.
      "I've handled all different kinds of guns and I've gone out and I've shot - I've shot birds and deer and you name it," Kerry said Friday night during a rally in Allentown, Pa. "And I believe in the Second Amendment. But I'll tell you this - I have never thought about going hunting with an assault weapon, with a weapon of war."
  10. what i think by Coneasfast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i'm sorry to hear that :(

    first problem is that you think a motion sensor light will do something. it won't.

    secondly, i think a car alarm should do something, why didn't it work? was she not home? could she not hear it? if you tell us, we can find a solution for it.

    oh yeah, get one of those steering wheel 'clubs', they help deter criminals (at least from stealing the car)

    --
    Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    1. Re:what i think by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:what i think by almostmanda · · Score: 2, Informative

      The AC is correct. Any respectable car thief knows that the club may be near indestructable, but steering wheels are terribly easy to cut through. If you want to protect your car, get one of the club-type apparatuses that locks around your brakes instead; those are far more effective.

  11. Never fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    drive a yugo

    1. Re:Never fails by kerp11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      actually, here in serbia driving a yugo means its more likely that your neighbours will break into your car to steal spare parts that they desperately need for their car...

  12. Yes, we all noticed by Jeffv323 · · Score: 5, Funny

    the extra "got" in his first sentence. Now everybody move along now.

    --
    I'm a minister!
  13. Texas style home defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My cousin in Texas has outdoor motion sensors around his house, hooked up to a PA system than when activated, play a recording of a pump shotgun being cocked. It sounds real as hell, and you can't really tell where the sound is coming from.

    1. Re:Texas style home defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, so -that's- what it is. Thanks, until now I've been too afraid to bust in there and take his DVD player.

  14. Not a holo-yeti... by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 5, Funny


    How bout a full sized cardboard cut-out of goatse in the front hallway? I'd run....

    1. Re:Not a holo-yeti... by rampant+mac · · Score: 5, Funny
      "How bout a full sized cardboard cut-out of goatse in the front hallway? I'd run...."

      Depending on what was "cut-out", it could double as a mail drop too. Even oversized packages could easily fit. *shudder*

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
  15. Go for the obvious: dog, gun, gun safety course by greenmars · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Go for the obvious: dog, gun, gun safety course by BoneFlower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  16. Don't injure trespassers... by lothar97 · · Score: 4, Informative
    You'll get in a lot of trouble. I'm an IP attorney, but all of us have to learn about trespass & defense of property in law school. This blurb from the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Management Association sums up the law on this aspect pretty well.

    The duty of care owned by landowner or person in charge to a trespasser is to refrain from willfully, maliciously or recklessly injuring them. In other words, a landowner or person in charge cannot set traps for trespassers. A trap is a hazard that is known to the landowner or person in charge, but concealed to others. If a trespasser is injured by a trap, the landowner is open to liability for the injury, even though the trespasser violated he law by trespassing. The following have been held unlawful traps for which the landowner can be held responsible: (1) setting a spring gun, (2) creating obstacles on a public roadway, (3) installing a cable gate across a private road known to be used by he public. To reduce he liability risks for #3, the road should be posted as private access. If a cable or chain is used o close a road, it should be flagged with brightly colored flags or other materials.

    --

    1. Re:Don't injure trespassers... by ricotest · · Score: 3, Funny

      Looks like that kid from Home Alone is liable quite heavil. Is there a rule against a gigantic paint shelf trap?

    2. Re:Don't injure trespassers... by drawfour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not even close to legal. "Traps" are illegal because they are "non-discriminatory". In other words, they will trigger (and injure/kill) anyone without regard for who they are or why they're there. While unlikely, it's possible that a rescue worker of sorts needs to break into your house. For example, a fire breaks out and a firefighter must break in to see if anyone needs help. It's possible that a 5 year old kid could get in, and I really doubt he'll be able to read the sign or realize what can happen. There are likely many more scenarios (though unlikely) where someone legally enters your house and can set off the trap.

  17. Get a dog by rustin_ross · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  18. Go minimalist by smoyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  19. Don't overthink by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    IMO, this isn't an area where there's going to be some trick that's going to magically solve the problem. The best solutions are the time-honored solutions.

    It sounds like you're concerned primarily with property crime, yes? That's actually pretty darn easy to prevent if you think about it logically. Don't leave anything in your car if you park it outside. Keep your garage door closed even during the day so people can't see in. Plant thorney bushes under the windows. Put up a couple of flood lights to take out the shadows in your yard. Keep your yard neat so it's obvious somebody lives there.

    In terms of detection, nothing beats a well-trained dog. Train 'em to give a couple of barks whenever someone enters the yard (although just a couple so it doesn't get irritating).

    This isn't a complicated problem, but as with a lot of things the best solutions are the obvious solutions.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Don't overthink by geekschmoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't leave anything in your car if you park it outside.

      That's the best advice right there. This includes receipts or little papers. I was the victim of identity theft auto theft. They broke into my truck that was 100% spotless cleaned (i had just cleaned it). When I came out to my truck the seats and floor were COVERED with junk: receipts, papers, small items, old cd's, a smart media card, etc.

      I thought "these people are stupid, this media card's worth like $30", and didn't report it. I just thought they didn't find anything. Then I saw on the news that my part of town has had numerous break-ins like this. They pull out all the shit from underneat the seat, behind the seat, and in the glovebox looking for social security numbers, paycheck stubs, reciepts with credit cards, etc.

      By the way, receipts with masked credit card numbers aren't worth a crap. Some businesses mask the last 4 digits, some mask the first 12, some mask the last 3, some include the expiration date. When you piece them all together you get free money.

      Also, lock your doors. My brother tooks some courses on home security, and said that by far the number one method for breaking in is by walking right through an unlocked door.

  20. As always by yffe · · Score: 5, Funny

    netfilter.

  21. Indiscriminate by Butterwaffle+Biff · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, if you don't mind repelling everyone instead of the ill-willed, you might try buying a computer off this guy. I'm sure the dead pig odor would keep thieves out of you're mom's car -- it's a deterrent whose effectiveness was recently proven on Mythbusters...

  22. Not Really High Tech or Geeky by HawkPilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You have 5 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em! They will expire before any good stories are posted.
  23. She's alone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...you mean you don't live at home?

  24. ThinkGeek by Ikn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe ThinkGeek has an interesting motion-sensor device that can auto-dial a phone in the event it detects something...unique approach and potentially very useful.

    --
    I know nothing
  25. the classic... by EngMedic · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... 10 guage loaded with rock salt seems to do the trick for me.

    --
    filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
  26. Repulsion by caluml · · Score: 2, Funny
    repulsion.

    What better place to ask about repulsion than a website where sweaty geeks hang out?

  27. New Slashdot Topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously, first the story about a mushroom shaped cloud over North Korea and soon there was an article about bomb shelters and now this! Is there going to be a Homeland Security topic created soon? I'd suggest a chicken since the sky is falling.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Neighborhood Watch by usefool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    1. Re:Neighborhood Watch by arose · · Score: 4, Funny
      it's just that much more difficult to get around 2 or 3 pairs of watchful eyes at night
      And a sack full of doorknobs.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:Neighborhood Watch by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Neighborhood Watch by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  30. Electric Fence? by David+Horn · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you have metal window grills, consider hooking up an electric fencer to them. (the type to keep animals in fields). It's not harmful and will discourage anyone from trying to get in. DO NOT just connect them up to the mains.

    Secondly, always lock your windows and doors, even if you're only going out for a minute or two. Get a decent alarm for the house.

    The car - get a steering lock for it. They might be easily removed by a professional, but it takes time and if the theif has a choice between your car and one without, they'll go for the easy option.

    --
    PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
  31. Sentry gun by Chairboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just bought a new house. Because it's our first house-house, I can't wait to finally build something I've been thinking of for a while.

    A sentry gun.

    Ever since playing Half-Life (oh hell, ever since watching Aliens) I've been intrigued by the idea of the sentry gun. With recent advances in electronics, it's easier than ever to build something like this.

    Here's the plan, I'll use an electric actuator or pneumatic cylinder to pop it up out of the ground (when a motion sensor that covers the front sidewalk goes off) and unfold (using stepper motors or heavy duty servos controlled by an OOPIC programmable microprocessor) to aim a...

    well...

    I haven't figured out if it'll be a paintball gun (with human firing only, of course) or just something menacing that LOOKS like a machine gun) that'll use a CMUCam (which automatically tracks motion in one of its modes) to keep it pointed at anything moving in front of it.

    I've done other robotics projects before, I really like the idea of all the neighborhood kids staying away from crazy 'old man Hallert' and his scary robo-house.

    1. Re:Sentry gun by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Informative

      i think you might want to have a look at this paintball gun then...

    2. Re:Sentry gun by orangepeel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please. That's kids stuff!

      What you really need for an effective deterrent is a 110,000 volt, 30 barrel taser gattling gun. More details here. Choice quote:

      "Most spectators experience some degree of sinus discomfort after several firings, due to the high brissance of the plasma explosion."

      Hah. I'll bet they do. :-)

      --
      Whoever designed level 61 in Frozen Bubble is a sadistic bastard.
    3. Re:Sentry gun by random_static · · Score: 2, Insightful
      2-inch-thick steel front door?!?!!

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

    4. Re:Sentry gun by UberPfloyd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps a motion sensitive water sprinkler would be a non-lethal option. http://www.km01.com/gardeninghome.html/

  32. I vote by ssclift · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I vote by aelbric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    2. Re:I vote by ssclift · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll admit to a little intentionally provocative language... :-)

      Yes, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. No, my taxes aren't higher than yours (lower than a lot of U.S. states) when health care is reckoned in. I am also someone who has never been in debt, always worked hard and smart, kept out of trouble. It sounds like you are someone I would respect immediately. I've done a lot of volunteer work and seen how there are folks who are unlucky and folks who are leeches. The leeches are less dangerous, sometimes even productive, if you keep them (minimally, but adequately) fed and sheltered and get them professional help. Despair is a horrible motivator for ill deeds...

      I think you and I are actually nearly in perfect agreement. :-) Please, don't mistake my compassion for the unlucky and the leeches as entirely wide-eyed kindness. I just think it leads to an overall cheaper solution, one with a lower stress-cost on society.

      Maybe I've also just got the happy feeling that my taxes are, on the 99% whole, well spent. I try to keep an eye on that...

    3. Re:I vote by Steve+B · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Oh, yeah, that's why the Great Depression featured the highest crime rates ever seen... er, no it didn't.

      So much for that theory.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    4. Re:I vote by Whyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    5. Re:I vote by Whyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    6. Re:I vote by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:I vote by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

    8. Re:I vote by aelbric · · Score: 3, Informative

      For openers, I have paid more in taxes in the last two years than I ever recieved in benefits or pay serving my country. I would say that I have paid back Uncle Same probably 4 times over.

      As far as the budget is concerned, according to Budget Explorer, the US National Budget for 2005 is expected to pay out 41% of all funds to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Social Security Administration alone. Only 18% is earmarked for National Defense and military pensions.

      Tell me we aren't already a welfare state. Perhaps you should take a peak at the budget yourself sometime.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    9. Re:I vote by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do'h. You're the able bodied societal leech ass hole. Tax payers gave you K-12 education. Tax payers gave you a military to join. If you went to college it was probably a college to received state tax funds. Sounds like you were living off society for a long time. You can give a little back. Can you name a country that has both a high standard of living and no investment in social programs? No? Those social programs make your country a nice place to live and you don't even realize what you have, or who provides it. This pull yourself up by your boot straps crap is pure bullshit. You started out on top of a society provided infrastructure that made it possible to get where you are.

    10. Re:I vote by mdielmann · · Score: 2, Interesting

      not 4000-year old policies promulgated in middle-eastern nomadic herding societies

      If you're making reference to Judeo-Christian laws, I think you'd better do a little more research.

      The Hebrews were one of the first races to promote literacy and education. By 13, you had to be able to read, or memorize historical texts, and explain the deeper issues involved, in order to be considered an adult. They had one of the first written languages which didn't have a word-to symbol relation (I believe it's called a semantic language).

      The Hebrew law forbade bribery of it's officials, which may not have stopped it from happening, but was leaps and bounds beyond any contemporary society (and something our current society could learn from).

      The Hebrew law had a concept of personal responsibility, in everything from census (everyone paid the same amount during census-taking, regardless of social status) to property (owners were held responsible for the acts of their animals, if they had prior incidents to show their propensities - think of all the serial dog attacks, and how reasonable that seems).

      Now, the penalties may have been more harsh than we'd like to see in modern times, but we have better resources to both know what some of the sources for some of these crimes are, to better methods for rehabilitating them. But the Hebrew system was both more consistent and more balanced than most other ancient cultures, which tended to follow the Golden Rule - whoever has the gold rules.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    11. Re:I vote by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  33. Cameras by ozntz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a major crime problem can anyone give me some sugestions on cameras pref night vision if possable

  34. My preference by Venotar · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  35. Deter, Detect, Defend by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  36. been debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    dude that had been debunked time and time agien "This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2 Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3 The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide. 4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion." 5 Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, 6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found: 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed. 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot. 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens. 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed. 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims. 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police. Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone. Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surve

    1. Re:been debunked by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      As for criminals being afraid of armed citizens, I am too -- and I'm not a criminal. That statistic has no relevance.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:been debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:been debunked by Warshadow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      -------------
      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.

    4. Re:been debunked by sploxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And canada hasn't the death penalty. All EU members havn't also. I think this is even more important issue.

      Even if you take all the other (very important!) arguments aside and only consider the "detterence efficiency":
      Criminals get really nihilistic if they know their goverment is also.

    5. Re:been debunked by dustinbarbour · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:been debunked by mcmaddog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Read "The Failed Experiment" by Gary A. Mauser. Studies have shown that while "gun violence" per capita may be reduced "violent crime" in Canada, England, and Australia have significantly risen since enacting strict handgun laws. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to keep and bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, February 1960 issue GUNS magazine.

    7. Re:been debunked by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Like someone else said, there are far less people in Canada. So lets compare the statistics on an even playing field. 1. In 2001, there were 842 gun deaths in Canada ( source.)
      2. In 2002, there were 10857 gun deaths in the United State. ( source.)
      3. The population of Canada in 2001 was 30,007,094. ( source.)
      4. The (estimated) population of the United States in 2004 is 293,027,571. (source.)

      I've done all the hard math, and this is what I came up with:
      The United States has 9.765 times the population of that of Canada. So, we multipy Canada's murder rate by that number, and we come up with 8222 gun deaths. Again, the US gun death rate is 10857. 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. That is, to say, it's a lot easier to take 4 steps in the US and shoot someone than it is in Northern Alberta... your next door neighbor could be 4 miles away.

    8. Re:been debunked by fuzdout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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?
    9. Re:been debunked by NumbThumb · · Score: 2, Funny

      There are lots and lots of nice little letterses... it *must* be Informative!

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
    10. Re:been debunked by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The Failed Experiment" by Gary A. Mauser, is he related to those Mausers the famous gun manufacturers or is this just one of those weird coincidences ?

    11. Re:been debunked by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:been debunked by Agripa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:been debunked by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      , 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
    14. Re:been debunked by rlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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]
    15. Re:been debunked by number11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      who's going to defend us against the cops. I recently had a cop DRAW HIS PISTOL ON ME because I didn't want to listen to his lecture about why he was blocking the road, and instead decided to turn my car around

      And just how did your gun ownership protect you? Did you then draw your weapon on the cop? Were you successful in neutralizing his threat?

      Or are you saying you retreated and will deal with the situation from ambush next time? Because it's obvious that whoever draws first has the upper hand.

    16. Re:been debunked by 3arwax · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard a story about a guy in Idaho who called the police to report that someone was outside tryig to break into his house. The police said they would send someone over. 5 minutes later noone had arrived so he called again. 5 minutes later still noone had arrived and so he called and told the police that he had shot the intruder and several cars were there almost immediately and arrested the burglar.

    17. Re:been debunked by C10H14N2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      North Carolina's violent crime rate in 2002 was 470.2 incidents per 100k of population. The national average in 2002 was 494.6. That's not a whopping difference. Tennessee, a reasonably well-armed state, had a rate of 716.9, 44% higher than average. South Carolina 822, 66% higher.

      New York has fairly strict gun-control laws and had a violent crime rate of 496/100k--0.2% higher than the national average and only 5% higher than North Carolina. Crime tends to be higher in metropolitan areas, so if gun-totin' is a way to lower crime, you'd expect the non-gun-totin' New Yorkers to be much worse off. Hawaii also has strict gun control laws and had a rate of 262/100k--45% less than South Carolina.

      http://www.fbi.gov/ucr

      Just saying "more guns, less crime" doesn't look at the causes of the crime. DC and Maryland have quite strict laws and some of the highest rates of crime, but anyone who actually lives here knows that the violent crime is localized and highly related to poverty--and the statistics generally show that more violent crime victims know each other than not and most are perpetrated by 16-24yo males. It makes thus makes far more sense to say "less poor 16-24yo males, less crime," which should explain why Louisiana, with a lot of guns and a lot of poor 16-24yo males, has a violent crime rate of 662.3--33% higher than New York compared to North Dakota, which has a lot of guns but comparatively little economic inequality and an aging population, rings in at 78--84% LESS than the average. It's not that people are afraid to commit crime in places like North Dakota, it's that they see no reason to in the first place.

    18. Re:been debunked by slntnsnty · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      -Ben Franklin

    19. Re:been debunked by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Interesting
      More NRA FUD? The crime rate in Britain has been dropping off, or at least levelling out for the first time in years. It's likely to be coincidental with the toughening up of the gun laws, rather than bring caused by it. But it does show yet again how the gun lobby make "facts" up to try and show what a wonderful thing gun ownership is.

      Try searching the BBC for "crime rate". There's far more about crime reductions than increase in crime.
      http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results .pl?scope=newsukfs&q=crime+rate&go.x=&go=go&start= 2&go.y=&tab=news
      Here's at typical one
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3808323.stm

    20. Re:been debunked by Warshadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:been debunked by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most all semi-automatic assault weapons and even some non-assault weapons were banned in 1994.
      First we need to get some terms straight. "Assault weapon" basically means "ugly semiautomatic rifle"; it is not a meaningful term of art. "Assault rifle" means a rifle of medium power capable of automatic fire, usually can selected for semiautomatic or automatic operation; classic examples are the AK-47, M-16, and the M4 Carbine.

      (They are distinct from submachine guns such as the Uzi or MAC-10, which use much lower powered pistol ammunition.)

      Assault rifles have been, and still are, heavily regulated.

      Certain ugly guns were banned in 1994 - guns with certain cosmetic features like bayonett lugs or folding stocks. Other semiautomatic rifles with the exact same mechanism remained legal.

      A very small percentage of crimes were ever committed with semiautomatic rifles. But posing with ugly guns that were "taken off the streets" was an excellent political photo op.

      The "assault weapon" ban was a bad law, and deserves to be left to die.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    22. Re:been debunked by tchdab1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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.

    23. Re:been debunked by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too dangerous. Some day, we will create a board with a nail so big, it will destoy us all.

      And all you hippies thought it would be nuclear weapons...

    24. Re:been debunked by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gun's aren't the problem, people are the problem.
      So by eliminating people, guns are actualyl helping SOLVE the problem then!

    25. Re:been debunked by Blastrogath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    26. Re:been debunked by ZurichPrague · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're cherry picking. I live in Zurich, Switzerland, and when I mention that firearm proponents in the U.S. use Switzerland to promote gun usage, they always laugh. Those assault weapons are under lock and key, as well as the ammo. You might say they could still be used in defence, but since they're property of the army that would have serious consequences for the gun owner. The result is that the guns are NEVER used for defense. Further, the rest of continental Europe also has low crime rates and very strong gun-control laws. Why does Europe have such a low crime rate compared to America? It's an enormous question, but I think it has more to do with the distriution of wealth. Europe is much more socialistic than the states. There's almost no homelessness in Europe, and the poorest people here still have dignity and a chance to succeed. Universities are free, as is health care. Look deeper into the issues. You're smart enough, and the issues are complex enough to deserve it.

    27. Re:been debunked by gnalre · · Score: 2, Informative

      It has never been legal to carry firearms in the UK, so I fail to understand the correlation. The law was tightened up after the Dunblane massacre, but there has never been a culture of a gun in every home like the US, so the law affected very few people.

      I think the rise in gun incidents are more likely to be due to increased availability via eastern europe and an importation via the US of a gun culture to certain communities.

      Saying that gun crime is still very rare, and I would rather have my car stolen than risk being shot by a paranoid neighbour.

      --
      Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
    28. Re:been debunked by DrMaurer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      Dan
  37. Trolls! by fuzdout · · Score: 4, Funny

    I line my house with slashdot trolls and a few penguins! Keeps even the most dangerous perps at bay!

    --
    Fuzdout
    ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
  38. Car Alarms by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Car alarms are based on proximity? I thought they were just on a timer, set to go off at 3am.

  39. post one of these in your windows by lee+n.+field · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Kinda low tech, but post a target like this in your window.

  40. Combination approach... by rtilghman · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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

    1. Re:Combination approach... by clone22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ask me about my vow of silence!
    2. Re:Combination approach... by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under no circumstances get a gun. It is a stupid precaution that only serves to increase your risk substantially ... your more likely to get shot with your own weapon (or get sued by someone you shoot) than you are to successfully defend your home.

      Sorry, buddy, but the Kellerman study has been debunked and these days is only promoted by gun control organizations--not even Kellerman himself still stands behind it.

      Killing someone is a tough thing

      I do agree, however, that if you ever point a firearm at somebody you'd best be prepared to use it.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  41. Few tips by BoneFlower · · Score: 3, Informative

    If its legal where she is, and she can safely handle one, consider a gun. Its a last resort option(obviously) but when all else fails, even showing a gun can often deter someone. There are plenty of articles out there on home defense with a gun, so look it up to select a good weapon for her and to get her in the proper mindset to make the right call when she has to decide "shoot or don't shoot?". This is probably the most powerful option, but also the most dangerous if you screw it up(both to your health and legally), so do some serious research before going for it.

    Getting a large, or at least loud, dog can be very useful. Something that will bark loudly and incessantly if someone tries to break in, and will fight to defend the property. Be careful here too- the line between a dog that will fight to defend their master and a dog that will fight just because can be very thin, make sure you go to a reputable breeder and trainer if you want a dog that does more than make noise. But as with a gun, the mere presence can be a deterrent. Think about it, you start crowbarring a door and all of the sudden you hear loud, aggressive barking on the other side- all surprise is gone and you might have an animal on the other side ready to kill you. Most criminals will bail at that moment, to seek out an easier and safer(for them) victim.

    For alarms, don't use the default alarm tone. 9 times out of 10 if I hear it I ignore it, because its so damn common and most of the time its only going off because it was set too sensitive. Choose something out of the ordinary. Machine guns, explosions, screams, something that does not sound like a typical car alarm. It will startle the perp a bit more(being unexpected) and it will be more likely that a passerby will notice and glance over to see whats going on. Also, don't have it too sensitive, if the neighbors know your alarm will go off in a mild wind they won't do anything when it happens. Going to the previous selection, if you can get an alarm that will trigger a realistic recording of a dog barking and growling like its ready to kill, you can get the detterrent(though not the defensive) effect of a guard dog without the cost.

    Cameras placed in spots a perp will see when casing the place or running an impulse attack can also be a deterrent. They don't have to be hooked up to have deterrent value, or even be real cameras- a decent looking mockup will still be a deterrent. Of course a real camera that is hooked up can gather evidence in case they fail to deter the perp.

    Locks are an obvious one- while they won't stop a determined criminal, they will slow him down and require he make more noise on coming in. Any lock that is not working properly should be replaced immediately, and you might want to consider upgrading really old locks even if they are working right, they might not be as secure as newer models.

  42. Re:Alarm (to notify) Gun (to defend) by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  43. Some suggestions by skrysakj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    -Put a mannequin in the passenger seat (dressed, of course).
    -Wire up a camera to the motion sensor in the driveway. You'll
    catch the person(s) breaking in. Also, set the camera, if
    possible, to put time & date stamp on the photo.
    -Wire a barking dog to the motion sensor in the driveway.
    -Put up a fence around the house, with a gate to get in and out
    of the driveway.

    Think deterrence, and capture, instead of bulletproof system.

  44. If you go this route... by cjsnell · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.

    1. Re:If you go this route... by fuzdout · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Fuzdout
      ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
    2. Re:If you go this route... by ross.w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Australia, at least, a "Beware of the Dog" sign is a major legal liability, unless your dog really warrants it.

      You are effectively saying "My dog is dangerous and I know it" and the first person it bites for whatever reason is going to have that much more chance of suing you.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    3. Re:If you go this route... by router · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, see, in the US robberies occur almost without exception when the owners are not home. This is because (and the anti gun folks will immediately claim its not true) a large minority of folks own guns. So in the US, the dog sign is enough to deter crime. In countries where gun ownership is severely restricted, a higher proportion of robberies are home invasion style (ie. the owners are home). So the beware of dog sign is the second best thing you can do to deter crime, along with having liberal gun ownership laws (Note: This doesn't mean that you personally have to own a gun. Simply the fact that you could easily own one is enough to deter criminals). I would include links, but google if you are interested since it makes for interesting reading separating fiction from fact.

      andy

    4. Re:If you go this route... by M-G · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As you totally gloss over all the extra medical problems that purebreeds are prone to.

      Not to mention the fact that there are tons of people out there breeding dogs who don't have a clue, and are only doing it for the money. It's very easy to get AKC paperwork for dogs, and therefore sell AKC registered puppies. Too many people think this is some kind of guarantee that the puppy will be healthy and free from problems.

      A good breeder screens their animals for breed-specific problems. A good breeder also won't be selling their dogs in a parking lot or sending them to a pet store.

    5. Re:If you go this route... by M-G · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, at least if you find a good breeder you have a snow-ball's chance in Hell that the puppy will be healthy and good tempered where as a mix breed it's a complete gamble (what makes the mix breed's quality any better than the poorly bred purebred in the newspaper? It isn't. It's one and the same)

      Sure, a random mixed-breed may have problems, but remember that the 'breed-specific' problems are frequently the result of inbreeding and recessive genes. If breed A frequently has a recessive genetic trait, and breed B does not, mixing the two can't result in the problem.

  45. two things by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:two things by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where the heck did you get those stats?

      From the FBI's own website back in, I believe, 1996. They referenced a report which at the time was available for download; it made a splash in the popular press, especially in the outrage expressed by the anti-gun fanatics.

      However, if you can't find the particular report in question (it's no longer on the FBI website, but last time I looked for it it wasn't too difficult to track down), similar surveys (some more scientific than others) have confirmed these figures - and in fact cite defensive gun use as high as 2.5 million cases a year (well beyond the FBI's "200,000-800,000"). These studies have been conducted by the Field Institute in California; the State of Ohio, in Ohio; Peter Hart Research Associates for the entire Unites States; and the Cambridge Reports for the entire United States. IIRC there are around 15 confirming studies but I don't have them all at hand. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one or two of these mentioned on the internet, and perhaps even be able to find an electronic copy of the paper study. I won't waste my time trying to find links; you should be able to do so yourself with the information I've provided to you (assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself).

      And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot?

      Now your turn. I've done a google search and can find no credible study backing up your claim. The only thing I found close to this was that certain inner-city black gang members were more likely to be shot if they were armed than when they were not, most likely because *they were more likely to engage in an armed conflict*. This had nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity and victim defense.

      Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.

      According to a collection of studies done in various large cities (New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to name just three) and released despite the strenuous objects of various police departments, you are much more likely to suffer minor injuries if you resist victimization by a criminal. However, you are also much more likey to SURVIVE victimization by a criminal, *especially if you are a woman*. So the passive acquiescence taught by many police departments is MORE likely to get you killed than active resistance.

      This phenomenon is well-known among psychologists. Criminals look for prey to victimize; if the victim fights back and refuses to accept the role as prey, this changes the criminal's perspective of his intended victim from 'prey' to 'potentially dangerous predator'. If the criminal cannot subdue the victim in a short period of time he's likely to disengage and look for easier targets, where personal risk (real or perceived) is lower. Most criminals are cowards, remember.

      A willing victim fits right into the role and invites abuse. So while it's indeed more likely that you won't be injured, it's also more likely that your acquiescene will encourage the criminal to become so violent that he'll end up killing you. Hence the statistic that if you fight back you're more likely to sustain minor injuries (cuts, bruises) but are also more likely to SURVIVE the encounter.

      In any event, it's better to be armed than not. There's a reason why the majority of handgun owners in the United States now carry their firearms concealed *even though they don't have a license to do so*. There's a reason the largest and fast-growing gun purchasing demographic is women under the age of 35. It isn't baseless fear or, as the antigun lobby would have us believe, because we all crave to do murder in our hearts. It's because guns are an effective deterrant to victimization by criminals.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:two things by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where the heck did you get those stats?

      In 1997, the National Institude of Justice released a study entitled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms." You can read this study at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf. There is a section in it about defensive gun uses. According to a study done in 1994 by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz, there are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Personally, I find that number a bit hard to believe--their sample size is quite small. OTOH, the National Crime Victimization Survey data extrapolates to 108,000 defensive gun uses. I suspect the truth is somewhere between these numbers. In any case, the study is worth reading no matter what side of the fence you're on.

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

      Calling 911 doesn't work when you live out in the sticks and the mean police response time to your residence is more than half an hour. Remember, for the most part the police don't stop crimes in progress--they pick up the pieces afterward. Self defense is YOUR responsibility.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  46. Simpsons Professor Frink's invention by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Frink: Well as you can see when the burgler trips the alarm, the house raises from its foundation and runs down the street around the corner to safety
    *house model crashes, goes in flames with the human figurines as well*
    Frink: Hah.. well the real humans won't .... won't burn quite so fast.. mohoy!

  47. Re:assuming the thief is also a geek by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about we mix it up a little:
    What about:
    A vicious camera(robots these days)
    A visible fake dye capsue
    And my personal favorite: An exploding dog.
    And of course that a sign that says, "Exploding dog tracking system installed"
    I wouldn't want to fuck with that house.

  48. True Story by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While living in downtown Miami, my passenger-side window was bashed out one night at a time when I lacked the funds to replace it.

    Nearly every night thereafter for several months, there were intruders into my vehicle. Bums slept in it, random shady passersby stuck their heads in for a look just in case anything good might have been forgotten there; the crappy broken CD player was ripped out of it (I should have thought to stick a little post-it on the thing that said 'only the radio works on this one, please ignore') which sucked because it left me to drive in silence (aside, of course, for the blaring wind and driving rain which couldn't be helped.)

    I was living, at this time, in an apartment directly above the busy street (Biscayne & 24th, for those familiar) on which I left the car parked, and became obsessed with running to the window to see if anyone was rooting through my poor little car, and dialing 911 and giving them descriptions of the people in the car right then.

    Anyway, I finally solved the problem (until I was able to replace the window, anyway) with a home-made, zero-cost, silly-as-fucking-shit system of my own device: I ran a piece of twine down from my window and around the opposite side of the car, such that it was tied to the inside door-handle of the passenger side. That way, if the passenger door were to be opened, the bag of loud things I tied the other end of the string to would jingle! Ingenious, I know! I did this every single night.

    Sure, the system could have been circumvented easily enough, but it wasn't! My car was never entered by another single foreign body. Which leads me to the MORAL OF THE STORY:

    Don't shy away from doing silly shit like this, because it doesn't even matter whether it would work or not: it's the psychology of the thing that's important. If you make people feel like they're being watched--especially if you're able to make them feel like they're being watched by a crazy, potentially violent person (as I no doubt did and possibly was)--then they will leave your shit alone.

    Insightful as all get-out, I know.

  49. Now that the Assault Weapons Ban Has Expired... by GabrielF · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't your mom lucky? She can participate in an opportunity she didn't have just a few days ago. Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants. Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster and put a sign on the lawn saying "Tresspassers beware - I can shoot you in the ass 80 times in a minute and then bayonet your corpse from here to Denver"

    1. Re:Now that the Assault Weapons Ban Has Expired... by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now she can buy a AK-47 (the weapon of choice for home-defense professionals in some of the worst places in the world, like Iraq and Afghanistan) with as many combat-style accessories as she wants

      Fully automatic weapons are stiff covered by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. Unless you have serious money and can afford one of the relatively few legal machine guns out there, they're basically illegal. So what Sarah Brady calls an "AK-47" and what our arab friends like to use are not in the least bit comparable.

      Secondly--and I think you already know this, based on your bayonet remark--the ban was largely cosmetic. Rifles functionally identical, but cosmetically different than those banned in 1994 have been manufactured since the ban went into effect--which, to me, proves the law was entirely useless. What's even more absurd is that because of the ban, demand for these guns has gone through the roof--more "assault weapons" were bought from 1994-2004 then were bought from 1974-1994. I don't know what the Bradys were trying to achieve, but I doubt that was it.

      Just tell her to buy a Bushmaster

      Bushmaster doesn't manufacture AK-47s, not even the semi-automatic version.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  50. Cop told me that dogs are the best by WeirdKid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We had an attempted break-in this summer, and man did it freak me out. They didn't get in, but I could see the handprints on the windows they had tried to open. I called the police.

    When the cop arrived, he pointed out a few things that he said could make the house more inaccessible, but he said that in all his years of investigating break-ins that he's never seen anything taken from a house with a dog. Not a fuzzy laprat -- a dog of 40 pounds or more. In fact, he mentioned that the people across the street from me were broken into that night and had some cash and jewelry stolen. They don't have a dog.

    Then, a week later, I received a packet from the local police department, about 50 pages or so on how to protect your home. It included some very useful information. It showed the differences between cheap and useful locks on doors and windows. It showed how thieves try to circumvent most common types of doors, windows, and locks. It covered security lighting, alarms, realistic opinions of subscription security services (i.e. waste of money), landscaping considerations and patio furniture considerations.

    So, rather than ask a bunch of tech nuts, just call your local police department and see if they have such a packet. As much as we hate cops when we get speeding tickets or raided for warez ops, when it comes to protecting your family they're generally willing to help.

    1. Re:Cop told me that dogs are the best by DrVxD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dogs are good, but I have a friend lives in Maine has an even better deterrant - a pair of bobcats. Given the choice of facing down an angry doberman, or an angry bobcat - I'd take the dog every time...

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    2. Re:Cop told me that dogs are the best by scupper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't be a Victim / Personal and Home Safety - Sacramento Sheriff's Department
      http://sacsheriff.com/crime_prevention/index.cfm#h ome_safety

  51. NRA women's programs by Medger · · Score: 2, Informative
  52. Even better: geese by Draconix · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not kidding. Watch geese make a whole lot of noise when they spot an intruder, and they're aggressive, too. They also have the effect of confusing the hell out of some would-be criminals.

    --
    By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
  53. uh huh... by jpellino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  54. Best Tech - Social Engineering by kerskine · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    ****

    "I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
    1. Re:Best Tech - Social Engineering by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I tend to agree,

      When living in Ohio this is the tactic I would employ. I'm living in Georgia now. An associate has been complaining about a car with it's windows smashed in, that was left in his neighborhood. He called the police. They didn't do anything. I suggested that he phone them up again. This time report that someone is urinating on the vehicle in question. I figure that when the cop comes around to check for the pisser/child mollester that they'll notice the car and get the wheeles turning, so to speak.

      Cheers,
      --The Dude

  55. Re:Only one defense needed. by TheCaptain · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah...that'll bring back your family after a botched home invasion.

    I live in an area where ALOT of people own firearms. That kind of thing doesn't happen here much...you'd have to be farking crazy.

    Check out a reputable, local gun shop and invest in some training on how to handle it responsibly. The NRA is pretty big on that kind of thing.

  56. Re:The Club by flossie · · Score: 3, Funny
    I would also reccomend installing a pedal lock and taking the battery inside at night (or the alternator cable). A hidden cutout switch could also work. Install a switch for the fuel pump below the shift boot or something.

    The low tension wires to the started motor are an excellent place to break the circuit. When they try stealing the car, it seems like it has a dead battery. Some bozos in Manchester tried to steal my girlfriend's car which I had installed such a switch into. A quick walk around the block and we found the car perfectly safe in the middle of the road - they had tried push-starting it.

  57. home defense by wwcohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    When you're home is invaded, I recommend coming down the stairs with a hockey mask on, wielding a small gas-powered chain saw.

  58. Re:X10.com Has some interesting toys for this by YetAnotherGeekGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    In addition to an outdoor camera, you can get a motion detector and camera kit that turns on a VCR when triggered and also has a German Shepherd voice synthesizer, virtual Robo Dog. All kinds of gagets for a geek, and pretty simple to install even if you aren't. If you want to go for broke you can get the whole security system and program it to turn the lights on after the second time the robo dog barks. Or whatever -- be creative. Smart Home also has stuff (although some of its the same) if you want a 2nd source.

    Finally, if you're in Bush Country, just go door-to-door with your good buddies Smith & Wesson (grin).

    --

    to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
  59. Re:that is never legal by Glonoinha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your statement about property is state specific.

    Massachusetts residents are not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.

    Texas residents are allowed to use deadly force to protect property. It is perfectly legal to kill someone for spraypainting graffiti on the side of your building, assuming you catch them in the act and use deadly force to make them stop (as opposed to after they stop, which is retribution, which is not legal.) If someone is running away with your garden gnome and all the way down the block, and you have to decide between letting them go or shooting them in the back with a high powered rifle so you can get your garden gnome back - you can legally do either (your choice.)

    Spring guns (booby traps) are still a no-no.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  60. Cheap motion detectors w/plug-socket switches by scupper · · Score: 2

    Cheap stealth security:

    Install motion detectors under your eves outside, and run a lamp, light fixture inside your house off a sensor switch to alert you when activity is going on. Motion is detected, light inside goes off. Silent alarm. Then call 911 and "embelish" about the eminent threat. Be convincing, sound scared. Police can use deadly force. Better to let them beat/shoot suspect than risk your life or health, or risk being sued.

    Very Cheap. Goto http://www.homedepot.com

    type : home automation

    into their search field.

    Look for these items in search result (cannot link directly to catalog, otherwise I would post a link):
    (can also goto:http://www.desatech.com/heath/remotehome.html

    Heath Zenith
    Wireless Command Remote Motion Sensor
    Home Depot Model SL6030WH5
    Internet/Catalog # 161731
    $24.99 EA
    mfg link: http://12.153.20.72/cgi-bin/remotehome.cgi?product =3

    Heath Zenith
    Wireless Command Plug In Lamp Converter w/ alert
    Home Depot Model SL6012WH5
    Internet/Catalog # 161730
    $19.99 EA
    mfg link: http://12.153.20.72/cgi-bin/remotehome.cgi?product =6

    Heath Zenith
    Wireless Command Screw In Socket Converter
    Home Depot Model SL6010WH5
    Internet/Catalog # 161729
    $17.99 EA
    mfg link: http://12.153.20.72/cgi-bin/remotehome.cgi?product =5

    mfg also offers kits:

    Product: Motion Activated Indoor Alert
    Model: 6019
    http://12.153.20.72/cgi-bin/remotehome.cgi?product =15
    Features:
    # Alerts you inside to activity outside.
    # Includes remote motion sensor and indoor plug-in converter with alert.
    # No wiring required.
    # Plug-in controls up to 300 Watts of incandescent lighting.
    # Plug-in includes audible alert with volume control.
    # Sensor turns lights ON and OFF and activates alert up to 100' away.
    # Sensor detects motion up to 70' away and 180 arc.

    Product: Motion Activated Lamp Socket Control
    Model: 6024
    http://12.153.20.72/cgi-bin/remotehome.cgi?product =16
    Features:
    # Adds motion security to non-motion lights.
    # Includes remote motion sensor and lamp socket converter.
    # No wiring required.
    # Socket controls up to 150 Watts of incandescent lighting.
    # Sensor turns ON and OFF up to 100' away.
    # Sensor detects motion up to 70' away and 180 arc.

  61. My Advice: Bring The Pain by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
    1. Re:My Advice: Bring The Pain by querencia · · Score: 2, Funny

      No matter where you live, it helps if (a) the recipient of your shotgun blast is on your property when shot, and (b) the shot is to the front of said recipient (and not in his back as he tries to flee), thus bolstering a claim of self-defense.

      So, order the jackass to turn around before you shoot him. Then drag his bloody carcass back onto your lawn.

      IANYL (I Am Not Your Lawyer)

    2. Re:My Advice: Bring The Pain by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
  62. Circle of violence by sokk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Circle of violence by PaulBu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Circle of violence by winwar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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....

    3. Re:Circle of violence by winwar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    4. Re:Circle of violence by winwar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:Circle of violence by PaulBu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Circle of violence by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    7. Re:Circle of violence by photon317 · · Score: 4, Informative


      The problem is mostly a legal one, as anyone who's taken a concealed handgun course will tell you. The laws vary by state, but many are like Texas, where I'm at and can reasoanbly describe.

      One factor is threat escalation. When one party initiates the use force, then the other party is justified in using force as a defense. When the first party escalates to deadly force, then the other party is justified in using deadly force in defense. Whoever initiates each escalation is the agressor who will likely be criminally convicted, whoever defends without escalating further up the chain of "nothing->force->deadly force" than the other party has already done is in the clear on defensive grounds. Where this all ties back in to the point is that while drawing a weapon and pointing it at someone only constitutes "force" (and is therefore legally no different than shouting, pushing, or grabbing their arm), firing the weapon, even into the ground or air as a warning shot, constitutes deadly force.

      In Texas in particular, property rights are strong, and you can initiate deadly force in response to certain property crimes under certain condititions justifiably, even though the person committing the property crimes isn't neccesarily using deadly force against you. It's complicated, but a good rule of thumb for this stuff is that if it's dark, the guy is either inside your house and not clearly visible (lights are out), or it's dark and the guy is in your lawn showing signs of attempted arson (gas can in hand), you can shoot.

      But just as one should never fire a warning shot (as it is a meaningless threat escalation and puts you on the wrong side of certain legal issues), one should also never "shoot to kill", or at least never phrase it that way to the cops who show up afterwards or the grand jury you'll be facing even in a defensive case. The important thing is that you were "shooting to stop" (either stop the property crime under the right circumstances, shooting to stop the threat on your life or that of others, shooting to stop "deadly force" actions against you or others, or any combination of the above). That also means that once the person does "stop" (dead, severely disabled and immobilized, running away, whatever), you are obligated to stop shooting, or once again you're on the wrong side of the law. Therefore a practical consideration to keep in your head (But enver say out loud) is that when you do make that shot to "stop", it better be deadly - because chances are after the initial hit the guy *will* stop one way or the other, and if he stays alive, he's likely to sue in civil court for his enduring medical problems if you winged him.

      So, in summary, make sure you know your state's laws about when the use deadly force is authorized (A concealed handgun course in states that offer it is a great source of information and training) - and shoot to kill, but don't ever admit to shooting to kill, only shooting to stop - and do stop shooting when they stop aggressing. I would personally recommend a double-tap to the chest for your opening and closing volley.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    8. Re:Circle of violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I live in Houston. 3 years ago, I had gotten up at around 3am to pee. I heard something in the garage, thought it was raccoons from the bayou that would come in through the cat door now and then. I looked through the porch window, and saw someone working the hinges off of the back door into the garage. My wife and young son were inside. I grabbed a pump shotgun, loaded with 00 shells, stepped out of the kitchen door to the backyard, aimed the weapon at this guy, told him to step away from the door and get down on the ground. He stopped with the crowbar in his hand, turned towards me and started walking. I -told- him if he didnt' stop, "I swear to God I'll kill you". He didn't, and I did. Later, one of the cops looked me in the eye and asked me slowly and pointedly "were you in fear for your life". I said that I was, he kept writing. Later I was no-billed by a grand jury. I found out that this guy had been in prison, (Huntsville) and was out on probation for felony assault...and had a record of all sorts of charming behavior. On one hand, I wish the entire thing had never happened. On the other, I'd shoot him in the chest again without a second thought. If someone had leveled a shotgun at -me- as I was tearing off the door that leads into the garage of his house (the interior door then leading into the house from the garage is a flimsy panel door secured by a hook) -I- sure as hell would stop. I will never, never rid myself of weapons that kill at a distance as long as there exist destructive, dangerous people like the guy whose life I ended.

      I'll go out of my way to help people when I can, I try to avoid confict when I can. I'm not a member of the NRA. All someone has to do to avoid my shooting them is not break into my home when my family is inside...and -then- refuse to back off when confronted with a weapon. It's that simple; It doesn't have to be over-analyzed or debated endlessly.

    9. Re:Circle of violence by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I applaud you.

      It always amazes me that people can promote victim disarmament laws in the face of stories like this. Unfortunately, these rarely make mainstream news, and then usually only when a prosecutor has his panties in a twist and wants to fry someone for defending their life with deadly force.

      Unfortunately, there will probably always be rabid victim disarmers out there. All of those people out there who say "think of the children" are the same people who are so irresponsible that they would rather leave their children ignorant of something to be hurt by later (like not teaching them about sexual matters) than to educate.

      Last I checked, firearms have been a part of American life from the get-go, almost exclusively as a TOOL. There was no such thing as a higher incidence of children shooting themselves or others than for any other age category. Children, up until not too long ago in the scheme of things, were taught how to handle a firearm safely and effectively. Almost all of the new problems we have today stem from a lack of BASIC education. Ignorance of a firearm is no excuse, unless you happen to be of an age where you can't make that decision yourself. Then the fault lies ENTIRELY with your parent/guardian.

      The media, those who would like to increase the power of law enforcement, or bolster their political career with empty promises (New York City/Washington D.C./Detroit/Chicago will be much safer after this ban takes effect!) like to paint a different story, but the truth of the matter as that the vast majority of firearm owners act responsibly and the vast majority of firearm uses are defensive. The number of private uses of firearms to prevent crime, without a shot ever being fired, dwarfs the law enforcement and criminal uses.

      Fortunately, once the victim disarmers disarm themselves by law, they won't be able to force their views on others anymore. They'll be the ones without firearms. :)

    10. Re:Circle of violence by 10Ghz · · Score: 3, Informative
      Hitler had disarmed the Jews long before they were being carted off for slaughter.


      It seems to me that YOU have not studied history. Here are the facts:

      "A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably the other targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi tyranny. This tract seeks to counter these misassumptions about Nazi gun control.

      Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the Left and Right) were actively attacking the young, and very fragile, democratic state. A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order cannot sustain its legitimacy. Nor was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional, republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the lawful government. In the strictest sense, the law succeeded - the Nazis did not stage an armed coup. "

      Lots more there, go read it.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    11. Re:Circle of violence by Alioth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a friend in Houston who also confronted a man breaking into his house. He also had a pump-action shotgun. However, in his case, the sound of the pump-action terrified the would-be intruder who took off and ran before he even had to fire a shot.

    12. Re:Circle of violence by jea6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's my Google-corroboration:

      A Harris County grand jury will review this morning's fatal shooting of a man who allegedly tried to break into a town house in west Houston.

      Joseph Derek Joseph West, 21, was shot in the chest about 2:50 a.m. by a home owner in the 14600 block of Perthshire, police said. West, who lived in the 19300 block of Park Row, later died at Ben Taub General Hospital.

      The 51-year-old homeowner, who has not been identified because no charges have been filed, stepped outside to investigate after hearing suspicious noises. Investigators later said the noises were of West trying to enter other town homes.

      West allegedly approached the man with his fists raised. Fearing for his safety, the home owner fired once, striking West in the chest, police said.

      http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bKsNa5tmZygJ: www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.a sp%3FID%3D2110+%22Joseph+Derek+Joseph+West%22&hl=e n

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  63. Re:Get a rottweiler by fuzdout · · Score: 4, Informative

    >A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.

    That's not true about Labradors at all. I live in the middle of nowhere 20 miles from town. I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do. I once was lost at night somewhere and had the same black Lab with me and locked him in the car while I ate dinner at the Denneys. When I came back and opened the door I couldn't see him anywhere. Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car. I also have never had anyone dare enter the yard when he is around and when I lived in town in a little duplex even my landlady didn't dare come through till I locked him up. Also, he has the meanest bark I have ever heard, along with flashing white teeth. My yellow Lab may look less scarey but he A: Has a big bark and B: He has has a higher intelligence about people than most Rottweilers. Most Rotts think everyone is the Bad Guy. Not This dog. When I had a new washer delivered to my house and was home he never even barked, just watched. Everytime somebody comes around with no business being here he acts like he is going to eat them.
    The Goldens bark but then try and "love" you :)
    BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
    Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean. A friend who had one let his loose in his yard when some car pulled up in his driveway at 1 AM and the two people started necking. His dog Eric, quietly approached the car, slipped into the open window and then roared like a bear, scaring the crap out of the couple who drove off in a hurry.

    --
    Fuzdout
    ..My sig ran away. Has anyone seen my sig?
  64. Re:Just Video by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

    A couple of months ago I had a neighbor break into my house and thought I wouldn't notice. As soon as I got home I did, and on consulting a camera in my living room I found pictures of her where she shouldn't have been.

    Video cameras are great, but require lots of tape and can wear out, even digital ones require large amounts of disk space.

    I was very happy that I was using a MemoCam that I had picked up in a thrift store back in December. I was very eager to use it as I had a pair of DVD's disappear the month before, and after many months of sitting idle it found my burglar (at least in this one case).

    As for the camera, it's a small B&W cam that uses IR to detect motion, when detected it starts snapping pictures to a MMC card. It even supports scheduling so I have it automatically enable motion detection soon after I leave for work and disable it again just before I get home.

    With such a device, there is always the risk that it could be stolen, along with the pictures it contains. To help prevent such an occurrence I have since improved my camera arrangement in my home... all I will say is that I now have more than one camera and not even a burglar setting fire to the place could prevent me from having good, usable pictures of the event.

    For those who didn't go to the link above, my burglar initially denied everything until she was confronted with the pictures by the police. She's now facing charges of 2nd degree burglary and petty theft, charges that carry maximum jail terms of 10 years in the state pen and 30 days in the county jail respectively.

    We are now at 3 months to the day since the break in and still the wheels of justice are turning slow... but at least they are turning, all because I am paranoid enough to have a camera in my home.

  65. Re:Microwave car by clifyt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, and if the thief got nuked, your friend would have been liable.

    I say this after being interrogated for 5 hours because I booby trapped my lil' Triumph Spitfire several years back when I was in college.

    I had gotten a removable cd player from a friend that owed me money -- he pulled it out of his car and said it was collateral. Turns out, he took off the week after that and never came back. So I had to figure out how to put the thing in my car and with the help of a friend that was an EE major...I don't think they were intended to work without the cage, but we got it working and build a new nonremovable enclosure for it and popped it in where the radio should have gone.

    Spitfires are convertibles and the locks never worked, so with the help of the same friend, we worked on a trap. Got two frames and embedded razor blades at a 45 degree angle inward on both sides. Very easy to put your hand in, but pulling it out is a little difficult. For added effect, we tinsnipped the blades to be a bit more jagged.

    For the final portion, Mike hooked in a charged capacitor to a bar in the middle...slap your hand up against it without discharging it and you are going to have a nasty shock. Most likely try to yank your hand out...hmmm...see where I'm going with this?

    Not less than two weeks later I come out to my Triumph to see the leather pulled off the front of the radio (I did try to conceal it by pimping out the console in leather -- looked really nice). and my radio was half pulled out...and a pool of congealing blood on the passenger side seat and floor.

    Turns out some neighborhood kid tried stealing it and ended up at the hospital (which was only 2 blocks from my dorm). There was still some skin on the blades...when I removed them (I started freaking out because I knew the possibility that this would come into use, but didn't think about what would happen if it was used).

    A few minutes after trashing the razor'd frames I get a knock on my dormroom door from the police asking me some questions.

    For the next 5 hours I was interrogated about trapping my vehicle and if I knew it was illegal. I claimed ignorance. One cop tried being the good guy while the other was the asshole. The good guy confided to me that in his day he too set some 'nigger traps'. His words not mine. I found it pretty appalling as most of my friends at the dorm were black including the EE that helped me set the trap. C'mon, he said, I'm a good ol' boy -- you can tell what you did. I simply told him I was going to file a complaint about his use of racial bigotry and that he shouldn't be a cop and that the fact that the video camera in the back of the room with the taped over record light was visible recording as you could still see the light and I thought his captain should know about this. A thief is a thief and I've had far more white people fuck with me than blacks ever have...so he really pissed me off with this line.

    His mood changed and the asshole cop came back with the boys mother. The 'boy' was 17 and it was said he almost lost his hand (doubtful) and that he had to get his arm required 60+ stitches and some vascular surgery on his vein. Poor baby...fucker tries stealing from me, and he is being coddled while I am being interrogated. Fuck him and fuck his mother...I told her point blank I hoped he did loose his fucking hand and maybe he could see what it really is like to go without for a while.

    5 hours of this alternating between police officers. it was bullshit. And it was 8 years ago, so I'm well past the statutes of limitations on this as charges were never files and I never made a statement :P Told them I'd make any statement they wanted once I was allowed to talk with my lawyer -- why do you need an attorney, they asked, unless you are guilty...well if I'm not being charged, let me go...if I'm being charged, I think I need to talk with someone. And thats how the entire conversation went...for 5 fucking hours.

    The fuck

  66. Re:10 in the pen by Veridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Think for yourself, destroy your television.
  67. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  68. An excellent resource for general self-defence... by Lazyhound · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...can be found at nononsenseselfdefense.com.

  69. woof woof! by n3k5 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Dogs are the best. They know when some one is there, even outside the property.
    Cats are even better at this. They don't just know if someone is there, they also know who it is, even if the person is still half a mile away. Just from the faint sound of footsteps or a car engine. Cats really know these things ... they just fucking don't care a bit.
    --
    but what do i know, i'm just a model.
  70. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by renehollan · · Score: 3, Informative

    In addition, he was facing armed robbers.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  71. webcam motion detection by Astroturtle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can put together a home video security system on the cheap if you can hang a webcam somewhere usefull. I'm running Suse 9.1 on a Celeron 433 with a measley 128MB of ram and a software called motion that does motion detection and can save video or individual images to disk (or off-site) when it does.

    When I travel I have the webcam pointed at the enterance and setup to ftp any captured frames to another server. When I'm home I put the software in streaming mode, point the webcam out the window and broadcast my view:

    http://astroturtle.dyndns.org/

    This won't prevent your mom's car getting broken into but I'll give you some ammo to hand over to the cops!

    More linux video resorces here: http://www.exploits.org/v4l/

    Good luck,
    --
    Luis Esteves
    http://www.astroturtle.com

    --
    --- http://www.astroturtle.com
  72. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by Nutria · · Score: 3, Informative

    Doesn't *matter* if he'd been robbed, he still killed somebody. He set out intending to shoot and kill a person, which in pretty much *any* country is murder.

    No.

    In some US states, anyone who breaks into your domicile (that includes house or vehicle) can be shot, even if no other crime has been committed.

    IOW, just the mere fact that a stranger is in the house w/o permission from the owner is justification for shoot-to-kill.

    Anti-gun activists in Louisiana brayed that the streets would run red with blood if such a law were passed, and the law was passed, and, of course, blood hasn't run down the streets...

    Brady types tried to spread the same fear about a concealed-carry weapon law, and the same lack of blood in the street occured.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  73. Follow the joke: by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was watching from my window when I saw a guy breaking into my shed. I called the police.

    "I'm sorry, sir, but we don't have any cars available to check it out."

    I couldn't believe it. I was calling to tell them that I was witnessing a crime in progress, and they couldn't be bothered to come arrest the guy.

    I waited for one minute and called again.

    "Hi, I called to tell you that someone was breaking into my shed. Don't worry, I shot him."

    Two minutes later, four police cars and an ambulance pulled up to my house, catching the guy red-handed. The lieutenant in charge was pretty upset.

    "I thought you said you shot him!"

    "I thought you said there weren't any cars available!"

    There's not really anything you can do, except park in the garage. There's one thing the cops tell you to do - keep your car showroom clean. That means nothing inside. Someone will smash your window to get an empty pop can. They'll steal quarters from the tool booth bin, or anything else.

    If you're tired of paying for repairs, keep it clean and keep it unlocked. They can't break in if it's already open.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  74. Report it! by ayeco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  75. Re:How about inside a CAR? by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

    you forgot to douse the pins with antifreeze.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  76. Let's get geeky.... by keithdowsett · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now for the really geeky solution...

    1) Motion sensor switches on PC and video cam.

    2) PC checks for changes to video image, and if changes exceed predetermined threshold, plays sound of bolt action hunting rifle being loaded.

    3) PC switches on laser and uses servo to guide red dot onto largest area of change in video image....

    4) PC waits a few seconds and if changes persist, plays loud sound of heavy caliber rifle firing and triggers flashgun, followed by muttering about damn laser sight...

    5) Police follow trail of brown (and rather smelly)footprints to determine where perp came from.

  77. Buying A Gun Won't Deter Criminals by reallocate · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  78. Cat by scruffyMark · · Score: 5, Funny
    Cats are meaner. Of course, the same thing goes - 50 lbs minimum.

    I mean, who's going to mess with your pet cougar, or puma?

    --

    What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht

    1. Re:Cat by Trikenstein · · Score: 2, Informative

      A cat will run from a stranger, dogs will usually try and protect their people. No matter how small the dog.

  79. Re:Circle of jerk by teasea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  80. Defend the neighbourhood by danharan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, not what you might expect, but it seems to me being a geek is also questionning the conventional way people solve problems.

    You alluded to the context- your neighbourhood's crime rates are rising. I haven't looked at criminology data in an organized way, and not recently, but I encourage you to do so. There are a few things I have heard about that seemed quite promising- e.g. community gardens encourage people to be out and about where they would be more likely to notice suspect activity (not sure if that's necessarily accurate, but it seems like a good deterrent, especially as most small B&Es are made by people within a short distance of their residence). Traffic calming also sounds intriguing, as they also make for more active neighbourhoods and slower getaways. Leaving only 1 or 2 exits out of a suburban area also increases the psychological pressure on intruders.

    You might also have immediate causes to the crime wave that aren't being dealt with by the police- gangs and/or increased drug use. These can be sometimes addressed by neighbourhoods and congregations in a more tactful way than police can- although requesting more visible presence can do wonders.

    All this of course doesn't negate the need for a good alarm system and/or a dog. I would however steer clear of guns- if it's a young gang member trying to get quick money for his next hit, they're more likely to escalate if they see their victim has a gun. No amount of stuff is worth risking life and limb.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  81. Re:that is never legal by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative
    Have you read the Penal Code? Slightly truncated version below, from Chapter 9, section 9.42

    A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and he reasonably believes that: the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    So, if you're commiting a crime at night, you're fair game. I feel sorry for thieves and murderers in Texas, whenever they go to work, they're taking their lives in their hands.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  82. A `geek` deterrent would have helped this guy... by stimpleton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its the Japanese student incident. Pity this home owner didnt have a hologram wookie...

    "A Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was searching for a party he had been invited to. Thinking he had found the house in which the social would take place, Yoshihiro knocked on the door. Not knowing that they had the wrong house Yoshihiro and his companion startled the proprietor. After having the front door shut in their face the two boys began walking back to Yoshihiro's car. Yoshihiro Hattori and his friend, Webb Haymaker, then turned back towards the house upon hearing the carport door open behind them. Instead of seeing the party's host, these two boys were greeted by a " 'Freeze' " and a .44 Magnum-carrying Rodney Peairs. Yoshihiro, thinking he had found the party after all, stepped towards Mr. Peairs and said, " 'We're here for the party' ". Webb Haymaker then found himself standing over his dying friend, Yoshihiro Hattore, a victim of unintentional homicide." Baton Rouge, Lousiana--October 17, 1992--8:30 P.M

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  83. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for home defense. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  84. I already used my allowance of 'wrong' today by Glonoinha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry, I was wrong earlier today, used up my allowance of 'wrong' so I'm just gonna have to be right on this one. I'm sure you understand.

    Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 Subchapter D Subsection 9.42 says (and I'm quoting) : Aww hell, read it yourself. Scroll about 3/4 the way down, look for '9.42. Deadly force to protect property.'

    Long story short, it's not a myth. Fun fact - it doesn't even have to be your property. Watch a purse snatcher take a random woman's purse, if she screams for your help you are legally authorized to shoot him to death and recover her purse. Check out PC 9.43, sub 2A (also in that link.)

    You would be awed by the different circumstances under which you are legally allowed to kill a man in Texas. Your life is going to suck for a while if you do, and you may need to retain a lawyer - but when push comes to shove if you were acting in good faith, have a clean record, and were protecting yourself, your family, or your personal property you will get away with it.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    1. Re:I already used my allowance of 'wrong' today by MoriarGryphon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  85. Re:its obvious by gibbsjoh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  86. as usual, one step left out by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  87. Re:its obvious by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Canadians are also better educated than Yanks. Go figure."

    You calling me stupid? I'll bust a cap in yo ass!

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  88. In the house vs. outside by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Informative

    The classic example is the robber that enters, gets shot by the homeowner, and drags himself outside to die. If the guy dies in the house (or maybe just on the property) then it's clearly a case of defense. If he dies outside, it can be construed that he was fleeing. Big fat gray/grey area.

    No, that is not the classic example. Where the intruder dies is irrelevant, where he was shot is relevant. The classic example contrasts the robber being shot in the house vs. being **shot outside**. The difference is not legal vs. illegal, it is the presumption of imminent threat. In many states in the US, an intruder who is a stranger and who has forced his way into a home is presumed, by legal statute, to be a theat unless there is evidence to the contrary. Outside no such legal presumption exists and there will be more explaining to do by the homeowner.

    1. Re:In the house vs. outside by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if I break in with a Barney suit on, it's okay?

      You have no idea how dangerous that would be. I'm sure you've seen the human silhouette target used for law enforcement training. One day officers busted up laughing, amazingly there were no accidental discharges, when one guy hung up a purple Barney silhouette target. Those targets were pretty popular for a while, especially with the officers who had young kids.

  89. One of many differences: War on drugs by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, accidentally posted anonymously.

    Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US.

    One of many social factors: The US war on drugs. Many homicides are drug related, directly or indirectly.

    1. Re:One of many differences: War on drugs by thrash242 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:One of many differences: War on drugs by BreadMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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"

    3. Re:One of many differences: War on drugs by thrash242 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:One of many differences: War on drugs by Havokmon · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Asnwer this then: 1/5th the gun deaths in Canada compared to the US.
      One of many social factors: The US war on drugs. Many homicides are drug related, directly or indirectly.

      Another factor: Canadian cops don't screw around. My wife's cousin is a cop, and during some training met a group of Canadian cops. The Canadians don't worry about the 'rights' of criminals as much as the U.S. does.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  90. Re:Alarm (to notify) Gun (to defend) by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  91. Gun deaths lower, but other rates higher.. by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Informative

    The assault rate per 100,000 is higher in Canada.

    Sexual Assault, 32.8 per 100k US to 77.5 Canada

    Robbery higher in US, 144.9 to 88.0 but there is no mention if this includes use of a gun

    Aggravated assault, Canada is higher with 761 to 323.

    These are numbers for 2000...

    Only problem aligning the two is definitions... I found that Aggravated Assualt in Canada is 3 categories but usually all clumped together.

    What the numbers usually imply that if the criminal knows your not supposed to be armed you are an easier mark. This was proven a few times in Washington DC by comparing the times of day when certain crimes occured and how ofter. DC has very strict gun control laws...

    Laws don't mean anything to most criminals. Access to guns is very easy and the better deterrent is to make yourself unattractive to would be assailants.

    This can include..
    1. Stay in very visible areas.
    2. Living in a well lit area
    3. House on the main street of a neighborhood
    4. Front side apartments
    5. Living where gun ownership is permitted (esp carry/concealed)
    6. Having nosy neighbors
    7. Keeping doors and windows locked and closed on ground levels.
    8. Having a well lit backyard. (fences can work against you)
    9. Dogs are nice.
    10. Home security systems and signs to help "advertise it" - (will deter some)

    There are many things to deter crime, don't for a minute think laws have much to do with it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  92. In car cameras/ Short Circuits / Insurance by beavmetal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mini cameras are cheap and easy to hook up to an old computer. for under 500 bucks you can have a 360 degree in car camera system that delivers the video wirelessly to your home or apartment from the parking lot/street. Use a computer hooked up to a power converter all concealed in the spare tire compartment of your trunk.

    If you have significant dough rolled into your car audio system, consider creating a massive short circuit to the components when your equipment is removed without authorization. This could simply be a battery hooked up in reverse triggered by a pressure switch on your speaker box or head unit. before the unit gets completely removed, the hidden battery sends a charge to the components rendering them uslessless. Trust me, thieves will completely destroy your car to get out the electronics. Its cheaper for you to allow them to easily removed completely useless stuff, than to make it so they have to pry your dash apart. AND THEY WILL PRY YOUR DASH APART IF THEY HAVE TOO.

    I have seen thieves tear through the back seat when people have thier trunks bolted shut. I have also seen thieves completely destroy components they can remove in anger.

    Regardless of what you do, the most import step you can do to safegaurd your investment is to INSURE it. You can get an extra rider on your home/auto insurance to protect expensive items. Insure thoroughly, it is just stuff, you can replace it.

    The best insurance for your valuable data is daily off site back ups. If all else fails keep your data in a different safe than your finances. How many thieves expect 2 safes in a non-mansion?

    --
    Looks like it is time to replace your Personality Module. You are a bit to clingy, guess I better replace your fuser to
  93. You don't "kill someone because of tresspassing" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    "Because of tresspassing". Not even "because he tresspassed". Already your bending the language to avoid putting the responsibility where it belongs - on the person who chose to "tresspass", almost certainly as the first step of committing a more serious crime - like car theft, vandalism, rape, burglary, etc.

    But you DON'T shoot somebody who's just tresspassing. You warn them off (or in some jusisdictions, if you have evidence of a lot more than tresspass, demand they stay put with their hands where you can see them until the police arrive to sort it all out.)

    If you'd actually TAKEN the course recommended by the original poster, you'd know that.

    As for "unarmed":

    If you point a gun at somebody and demand that he leave, and he comes at you instead, either he's armed or plumb crazy and thinks he's strong enough to take you DESPITE the gun. Either way a "reasonable and prudent person" would believe that he's about to take "serious bodily harm" unless he does something.

    THAT's the legal standard for firing.

    But not for KILLING. You fire to STOP THE ATTACK. Maybe one in four he dies. His tough luck.

    If you're a 120-pound skinny (or 250-pound fat) nerd and he's a 280-pound muscle-bound felon who spent two years pumping iron in stir until they let him out last week, he doesn't NEED a weapon to take you. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Him coming at you after you point a gun at him and tell him to leave is a VERY strong hint.

    Fortunately, most crooks are smart enough to realize that if you've got the gun pointed at them it's time to leave now. So you almost NEVER have to shoot.

    But (like seatbelts, fire extinguishers, and armies) you have to be READY and WILLING to use them when they're needed or there's no point in having them in the first place. And some human predators are good enough at reading your resolve that they'll know if you're NOT willing to shoot - so you have to be willing.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  94. the only truly geeky answer by jon_oner · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why don't you build yourself a vomit-inducing microwave gun? Or play a diarrhea-inducing infrasound mp3 using a motion-controlled mp3 server? There are loads of useful non-lethal options to explore, some of them may be illegal though.

  95. Let's cause some harm... by enigmathegreat · · Score: 2, Funny
  96. Goldie Looking Chain by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Guns don't kill you - rappers do."

  97. A few ideas.... by PotatoHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do get the dog. Others posted that, I am just saying do it.

    Get home security stickers. You know, the protected by ADT kind. Buying the system is optional however. Monitoring will let you know you have been hit, but the big deterrent is simply the idea that the system is there. Place them and the yard signs in obvious places.

    Use outside lights that are on all the time. Lighting your home up costs a bit, but nothing says go away like a nice clean home that is well lit.

    Make sure the place is clean and sharp.

    Start or participate in a local neighborhood watch program. These things are pretty cool. You get to know the local folks. Everyone takes turns just keeping an eye out. We have regular people who will walk around the block every so often just to see what has changed.

    Meet your neighbors. After you get to know one another you can better watch for changes or people that are not supposed to be there. Also it's nice to have somebody to tell when you are not going to be home for a while.

    Along the clean and sharp line, step away from the house and look at the neighborhood. Whose house would you hit? Do those simple things that keep your house at the bottom of the list. Make sure there are no easy temptations. Sometimes it's a slippery slope with minor property crime. A couple of successful hits on a particular home will make the perp more comfortable. Do not encourage that.

    Use house timers to vary the interior lighting in the evening. Again, this costs a bit, but does a lot to keep you at the bottom of the list. Change is bad for planning crime.

    Put a little radio or television somewhere and leave it on where it can just be heard outside in the evening, but not annoying to your neighbors.

    There is no real security. If somebody really wants to hit your place they are going to be able to do it. The key is making them consider another option.

  98. Re:that is never legal by trawg · · Score: 2, Funny

    There was a post above asking why gun deaths in Canada are so much lower than that of the US, and now finally I understand why - rampant garden gnome theft in Texas.

  99. I have a better one.. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Funny

    " When you're sleeping, those aren't particularly effective. ;-)"

    I had a crazy idea while listening to a tutor talk about what he is researching on.

    He was talking about 'computer vision'. So basically a computer can look at something using 2 cameras and gauge its distance/etc relative to itself.

    So I was thinking.. "Hey, how about if I mount that array onto a gun, and then mount the whole shebang onto a turret?"

    That's be so cool!

    And better yet, I'll have a small hole in the ground and put the whole turret inside, so that it is protected and only shows up when needed.

    Of course, now that it is dormant, we need to wake it up. What then? And I imagined that if we use pressure sensors embedded around the house and in the garden, the coordinating targetting computers can immediately aim the turrets in the right direction so that when it comes out, it is ready to fire.

    For added effect, add a million laser pointers. And put like 6 of these on every side of your house.

    And there you go, a winner geek's home defense system =)

    **If you are really paranoid, you might want to mount SAM/bazooka launchers onto those turrets too! Good for stopping an oppressive govt cold! What can they do? Nuke the whole nation?

    1. Re:I have a better one.. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's usually illegal to have a static firearm with a trap mechanism.

      They used to have things like this all the time in Europe and North America for both setting traps for deer, boar, bears and to keep poachers away, they became illegal a while back I think.

      So what you are talking about is always pretty much illegal, with the guns at least.

    2. Re:I have a better one.. by Glonoinha · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm - his UID is 1029 (that's frigging ancient), his name is Wyatt Earp, and his web site is bloodshed.org.

      I would take gun advice from him, ayup!

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    3. Re:I have a better one.. by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Coyote traps of this sort are still legal at least in Washington state.

  100. no help here. by gwhynott · · Score: 2, Interesting

    About 95% of the posts are about guns, and people wanting others to know they have a clue or two about them. intresting..

    The camera idea is good only to ID the perp, and is the solution I would suggest if using a gun is not an option for your mother.

    I have an old SGI Indy which runs capture upon movement software (securitylite, its free at freeware.sgi.com). When it detects movement it will start to capture and page me via text msg. When I get the page, I can load a page hosted on my G5 which will allow me to view a real time qt stream from its camera. As this is happening, the Indy is sending frames to a remote ftp server (just in case it is stolen). The set up is simular to what I have been using since 1995, I'm sure there are several windows apps which will do the same and more.

    it won't prevent anything from happening, but we'll have a better idea who to look for.

  101. Doom series by CanadianCrackPot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just took the sounds of the weapons from Doom (the original) and set them up to motion and pressure sensors. Playback begins on a trip. Scars the crap outta crooks, and drunks.

    --
    Good programmers drink beer to relieve job stress.
    Great programmers drink hard liquor and work best hungover.
  102. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  103. But the bumper sticker is... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Funny

    When you're sleeping, those aren't particularly effective. ;-)

    But the NRA and CRPA bumper stickers (and the "I'd rather be hunting" license plate frame) on the car in the driveway IS. B-)

    In particular, the burglars that were working their way down our street a few years back skipped two houses - the retired cop two doors up (whose son had similar stickers) and ours.

    Current neighborhood has a couple gangs trying to move in. They've intimidated witnesses - with both minor and major vandalism - elsewhere on our block. They have NOT done that to OUR place. B-)

    Closest they came is when their spokesthug came buy and asked the wife (an NRA-certified fireams / personal-protection instructor B-) who smokes on the front porch and watches neighborhood goings-on) whether she was worried about attacks or breakins. She said, no, she'd just shoot anybody who tried to attack her. But wasn't she worried about her guns being stolen while she was gone? No, because the firesafe weighs too much to steal without special equipment.

    Been here over 5 years, no problems so far. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:But the bumper sticker is... by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny
      If you don't want to put NRA stickers on your car, just put "Kerry-Edwards" and "Million-mom March" stickers on your neighbor's and a sign saying "Gun-free zone" on his lawn.

      They'll go for the easy pickins.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:But the bumper sticker is... by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Funny
      This vehicle is protected by the gun that just shot you.

      Keep honking; I'm reloading.

      Gun control means hitting your target.

      :-)

  104. Just to add.. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Funny

    The turret is only responsible for rotational aiming, and a servo/pivot thing will flip the weapons towards the ENEMY. Rifle/chaingun/whatever is such that it points skywards when it is parked in the firehole.

    Maybe if you make the turret pop up very fast, it can actually look even MORE COOL!

    The only thing I'm pondering about is if it rains wouldn't all that gunk get into the barrels of your weapons?

    Even better, why not make it a cooperative system. So suppose the ENEMY runs away, wouldn't your system lose him? Not if your computers alert your neighbours and wake theirs up too. You will see the turd run down the walkway with a trail of rockets exploding behind him, just like in Duke Nukem Forever! **Except here the ENEMY is fragged before he knows it =)

    You'd obviously want to turn this thing off if your kids come home late though.. otherwise they'd innocently step onto the driveway and *boom*... the neighbourhood turns into a warzone.

    1. Re:Just to add.. by QuickFox · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'd obviously want to turn this thing off if your kids come home late though.. otherwise they'd innocently step onto the driveway and *boom*... the neighbourhood turns into a warzone.

      What is it with parents today? Why can't you be firm about the time when they should come home?

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  105. Laser Defense Sheild by awtbfb · · Score: 5, Informative

    My high school physics teacher had problems every Halloween with kids blowing up his mailbox with fireworks. He finally took a laser home from school, set up some mirrors and ringed his mailbox with laser tripwires. This was hooked up to a freakin' loud alarm. You get the picture.

    If you wanted to take it a step further, you could set up strobe lamps and a camera like the intersection ticket boxes. Multiple view angles would help in case the person has their back to the camera. That way, when the police came by you could hand them glossies and a DV tape of the guy.

  106. Just the sight of a burglar alarm by professorfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  107. Re:Set a trap... literally by Jack+Schitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    wire the ignition coil to the ignition key. make sure mom uses gloves before starting said car.

    --
    This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
  108. Obligatory link.. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/CopyrightProo f.cfm

    This prediction was made in late 2000, when bush just got elected probably.. so either that guy is a genius, or he is telling the truth

    "...Civil war in the United States will begin in 2004 or 2005, as the result of increasingly oppressive police state tactics like warrantless searches and other violations of American civil liberties. It will become common for people to have their doors kicked in and homes violently invaded by police looking for evildoers. The Gestapo-style oppression of innocents by an increasingly oppressive and murderous government will be worst in the cities, so many people will seek refuge in the countryside, but police will soon enough seek them out there too. Civil war will emerge as a more or less continuous series of military sieges and confrontations resembling the Ruby Ridge and Waco police massacres of 1992 and 1993, and it will begin by 2004 or perhaps 2005 (it might not be obvious in the beginning what's actually happening). As time goes on the civil war will become more and more a continuous conflict between paranoid government forces headquartered in the cities, against perceived or imagined threats in the rural civilian population. The American government will wage war against its own citizens, winning most of the battles, but the battling will drag on for years. In the nuclear war of 2015 our cities will be primary targets, so the civil war will end then in favor of the rurals when the government and its domestic armies are destroyed. In this way the nuclear war will be regarded by the survivors as a good thing..."

    You will need my home defense system detailed above =)

  109. Re:Circle of jerk by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You're missing the point of escalation. In Norway, most people don't have eeasy access to firearms in their homes. The burglars know this, and it is very, very seldom they carry a piece. Why? Since they want to be as little incarcerated as possible. Rob a house, 3 years. Rob a hous, get caught with a gun, 5 years while the possible benefit of having a gun is slim to fuck all.

    now, be do have our fair share of murders and stuff (Approx. 60 murders in a population of 4,5 million) but remarably few of them are done with guns. On the other hand, we hav A LOT of MP3s (sub machine gun, full auto), AG3s (Assault rifle, full auto) and Glocks in private homes due to the national guard. But I have never, ever heard of a case where someone has picked up thir rifle to scare the thief away. There are several reasons: If the thief is armed, there's a chance he'll assult you and not run awa since he thinks attack is the best defense. You might end up killing an unarmed person, that is murder unless you were defending yourseld. (note to texans: shooting a garden gnome thief in the back is not self defence). If you detect the thief, the odds of hum bolting away is a lot greater than him attacking you, since it will make him face potentially more problems.

  110. Try a garage... by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    In most US states if someone breaks into your home and you kill them, you can't really be held liable. By getting a garage, if someone should break into your car (assuming it's in said garage), you can safely kill them!

    Now, how you get your garage home, is an exercise left for the reader.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  111. Missing the point by craftyimp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay okay okay, too many comments about guns.

    Guns are not a reasonable solution for Yo Maing's problem. He/she specifically says "not looking for something that would get someone injured." Guns injure people. Besides, buying a gun and getting proper training just is not an interesting solution to the problem.

    If you really want to do a security system on the cheap look into fish alarms like http://www.outdoorsweekly.com/ultrashackfishalarm. html

    If you have one of those, you can set up a tripwire fence of barely visible fishing line around a piece of property so that when somebody or something trips it, a loud alarm goes off with flashing lights. You'll want to go with a non-nylon fishing line though because nylon stretches too much. My dad has used this system while camping in Alaska to ward off grizzlys and he's still alive too!

    If $20 is still too much, you can make your own trip-wire circuit: http://www.aaroncake.net/circuits/alarm1.htm

    ++ Eschew Obfuscation ++

  112. Being 100% serious here....... by GuyFawkes · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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
  113. One word: Geese by rmdir+-r+* · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not those little Canadian geese, the ones with the three foot long necks (I can't remember what they're called. Damnit. Someone help me out here). I have a friend who lives in a... bad area, and trust me, NOONE messes with their three geese. Those suckers will A) Wake up the entire neighborhood B) Rip off a finger C) Crap on your shoe and D) Go for the gonads, all within ten seconds. They're kind of messy, but trust me, nobody is messing with them.

  114. Re:You've got guns, don't forget lawyers and money by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as I hate to admit it, booby traps are illegal, and for good reasons. As the article stated, firefighters or other emergency personnel who may have had a legitimate reason to enter the premises would have been at risk too. I do think that the judge's conduct was outrageous and I hope some sort of sanctions can be brought against him. People who go out of their way to stand up for the rights of criminals against their victims in cases like this are scum.

  115. Cost-effectiveness. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  116. sure we cant add coaxial autocannon... by riprjak · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...to the motion sensors??

    It would be effective and have serious "Aliens Special Edition" cool factor.

    I recommend a LED counter for rounds that gets to zero when there are still a few thousand rounds left... so they only *think* its safe :)

  117. LBM (Appearances can work too) by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What the parent poster is implying is that owning a gun is less important than it is for the criminal to think you do.

    Therefore, I would suggest doing as follows:
    Get a nice NRA bumpersticker and a Beware of Dog sign. Note you don't actually need to have a gun or a dog to make this effective... If you put the bumper stickers on your cars and the sign on your window, it might help a bit.

    As a bit of a joke, she could get a toy poodle ;-)

    I have used similar techniques when required to protect my environments. For example, once I had to go away for two weeks and was unable to lock my door in an area where breakins occur sometimes (though relatively infrequently).

    I moved the computers to the back room and covered them, and placed a desk right across from the door. On the desk I placed such books as "The Satanic Witch" by Anton LeVey and an open printout of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" in the original Middle English open to a random page (assuming that a burgler wasn;t likely to recognize it, and to add to the air of scary ritual, etc). I also placed a clay chalace with a bit of dried dark liquid in the bottom and some other sinister-looking stuff.

    It was a lot of fun. For better or worse, nothing came of it.... The idea was to make anyone who entered the apartment feel uneasy and encourage them to leave as fast as possible without taking anything. It should be noted that breakins in that area were usually drug-related (as in involving drug use just prior to the breakin) and such people might steal stuff, but did not generally steal valuables. For example, I knew of someone whose toothbrush was stolen....

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:LBM (Appearances can work too) by Craig+Davison · · Score: 2, Informative
      That stuff doesn't look sinister, and it isn't going to scare anyone. It just makes you look like a nerd. Same goes for trenchcoats, army boots and skull jewellery.

      Unless you're just joking and I didn't pick that up.

      If you wanted to scare someone out of your house maybe you could keep pet snakes in plain view, or leave bear traps and broken glass on the floor. Appear crazy.

    2. Re:LBM (Appearances can work too) by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stinking of cheap cologne, hairspray and marijuana smoke probably goes a long way towards keeping people off of you as well. Add to that your primered 1984 Iroc Camaro with non-matching wheels leaking oil in the driveway, and you have a perfect front. Nothing to steal here, keep moving. As a matter of fact, if anyone breaks in, they'll probably get robbed instead, or at the very least get a contact high.

      Old school stoners are still the scariest kind.

    3. Re:LBM (Appearances can work too) by phearlez · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know I can't be the only person moved to almost hysterical laughter when reading I'm generally a badass on Slashdot....

      --
      Bad management trumps ideology - Show the world you want better leadership. http://www.timefornewmanagement.com
  118. Where do you people live? by supertomcom · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, IT really has fallen in the shitter. We got the smartest people on earth talking about gangs in their neighborhoods....

  119. Good Security practices. by Chucklz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here are some suggestions that don't involve firearms.

    1.) Locks. If you are like most of the US there is a Kwikset key in knob lock, and maby a deadbolt on your doors. These locks are equivalent to the old style Windows log on screens. You know, the ones that you could bypass with just the Esc key. Look into a Grade 2 or 1 knob or lever lock, and definately a grade 1 deadbolt for all of your exterior doors. Here is where you can actually let your inner geek play in the lock shop. You can get a wide variety of locks with really impressive mechanisms, mostly for pick resistance (this should not concern you as much as lock manufacturers claim, picking requires an incredible amount of skill and time, your average burglar will not possess this, or be willing to spend that much time crouched infront of your door.) and for security against key duplication. Abloy uses rotating discs, Medeco uses pins that need to be placed at the correct hight (like a standard pin tumbler lock) and a correct rotation and tilt. Mul-t-lock incorporates pin in pin construction, MIWA uses magnets.... there are a great many interesting options.

    Besides just installing the locks, you should look into a Door wrap, a reinforced strike, and of course make sure your door frame is quite sound. Hollow core doors? Get rid of them.

    Ground floor windows? There are many films that can be applied to the window, to make smashing a window a much more difficult task. Single pane windows, for example ones that open say into your basement, can be replaced with lexan.

    Trim shrubs and trees so as to make your house visible from the road. Don't allow valuable, easily portable objects to be easily visible through windows. Ask the neighbors to form a simple Neighborhood watch program. If one house in the neighborhood was robbed, expect more to be... Another good, and often free service, is to ask your local police to perform a quick security survey of the property. You may also want to ask a locksmith what he/she thinks.

  120. Re:mod -1 by Bloodmoon1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wrong, moron. Don't be so quick to open your damn fool mouth, it makes you look mentally retarded when people show exactly why you should have just stayed quiet.

    Try ex-armed guard. We had to learn when we could and couldn't shoot people. Someone steals a bag of money from a armored transport but doesn't give you any reason to believe they are going to attempt to harm you, you can't shoot them in Colorado. They pull a gun on you, but turn and run before you fire on them, you cannot shoot them. Well, you can, but you'll get a murder charge. I was mearly trying to get across the point that it is highly advisable that anyone looking into self-defense means learn their local laws. Before I knew mine, I assumed it was cool to blow away some fucker stealing lawn gnomes. Turns out it's not... except in Texas.

    And then there was my time in the military, but that's a whole different society. There, you shoot anyone coming anywhere near that airstrip that doesn't go by you first. Those 15 ft. high razor wire topped fences are there for a reason, and it's to encourage people to make sure those guard towers don't come in handy.

    And speaking of Mods, what happened to my +1, Insightful? I don't really care, but it's kind of odd it just disappeared without a -1, Overrated or anything else in sight. I'll just chaulk it up to some sort of pussy censorship.

    --

    Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
  121. Switzerland by ZeLonewolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Switzerland: Every citizen between 18 and 40 is required to have a gun in their house. Gun deaths are near nil.

    --
    "If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
  122. Re:Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for home defens by zbuffered · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  123. Ninjas! by emilng · · Score: 4, Funny

    Better yet, you can mount some ninjas in those turrets.

    THAT would be cool.

  124. I find that offensive by argoff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  125. Some simple things: all "low-tech" by helix_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  126. A little clarification by kajoob · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are close, but I must again say that you are incorrect on this point. Trust me, if someone stole your ipod while you were down in the great state of Texas and to exact your revenge you hunted the thief down and killed him, you would indeed be rung up on 1st degree murder charges.

    I think this may be my fault for not being entirely specific about the Texas statute, and for that I apologize. Let me try to be more explicit.....

    The statute we're both talking about is sec. 9.42 of Title 2 of the Texas Code. It does in fact say that you can kill a person to defend property alone, however, if you read to the end of the statute [specifically 9.42(3)(b)], reprinted here:

    (b)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    You will find that the use of deadly force to protected property is only allowed in those instances in which the protection of said property with deadly force is the only means available to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. This is an extremely steep burden and although Texas does have that old wild west reputation, people are most certainly not allowed to kill simply for the fact that their property has been damaged or stolen.

    Again I apologize for not being specific about this earlier, and it's possible that we were both right. I hope I cleared this up somewhat.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  127. Geek style? by bytor4232 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know about Geek style home defense, but I have my own system.

    1. Own a gun of some sort. If someone is in your house at 3 AM and you don't know them, they are up to no good. Sorry, but they are dead. I respect all life, but the most precious ones are protected first, that is my wife and daughter.

    2. Own a big dog of some sort. My dog of choice is a Labrador Retriever. You don't need a mean dog with a bad rep. From a distance and in a crisis situation nobody is going to know a Black Labrador from a Rotwieler. A Labrador is a great family pet, and Lab will be as mean in that sort of a situation, even meaner. I've had repairmen backed into a corner before because they made the wrong gesture to me, and it wasn't even threatening. However I would trust a Labrador with my family's life, she doesn't have a mean bone in her body twords us, but cross our family however, and watch it.

    3. For home deterrent, use a automatic on/off light switch (or leave a light on) and a TV with an alarm. My TV comes on every day at 4pm and goes off at 2am. Most burglars are going to break into a house with no lights on, or a house that looks like nobody is home. Burglars are essentially lazy and just want the goods.

    4. Move to a safer neighborhood or MAKE it safer. I know, probably not an option, however I won't live in a dangerous neighborhood. I'd rather drive 45min to a half hour. If the 'hood goes to crap, I pack and move. The 'hood I live in hasn't had a burglary in about 7 years. If you have to live in a risky neighborhood, organize a neighborhood watch.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
  128. Move somewhere safer if possible by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  129. No Problem: Empty the car and leave it unlocked by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I learned this living in San Francisco for 5 years. I had a Jeep - over that period of time they broke into my vehicle over 100 times. That's no exaggeration, its actually a conservative estimate.

    They would steal anything greater than or equal to the value of a matchbook.

    They cut the windows, stole the battery, keyed the sides, pissed on it, cut a tire, broke the interior locks, and broke an egg onto it -- it was a brand new jeep. The city itself helped me out by writing $3000 in tickets.

    The ultimate defense was to leave it with the doors unlocked, with all essentials locked into the trunk.

    It would be nice to claim the high ground and say it was a turn the other cheek method, but actually it was just the path of least resistance, and incidentally the most effective.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  130. ... yet another motion sensing software by catch23 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can't believe it has not been mentioned. Use ZoneMinder. It's an open souce product available exclusively for Linux. I've been using it for the last 4 months running 8 webcams (not really webcams, cctv cameras actually) simultaneously for the last 4 months and it's pretty stable. Most of the webcam software that I deal with previously would crash every month or so, or wouldn't capture the right scenes of motion. This piece of software supports some of the multi-input cards on the market.

  131. Kleck's numbers don't add up - numerical analysis by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    > Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans
    > use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually.

    If you look at Kleck's numbers, they don't add up.

    Kleck's survey reported that 8% of defensive gun uses involved the target being wounded or killed. With Kleck's estimate of 2,500,000 DGUs per year, that gives us 200,000 DGU-caused firearm deaths or injuries per year.

    Studies have shown that approximately 23% of firearm injuries are fatal. Accordingly, Kleck's survey numbers imply that DGUs account for 46,000 killings by firearm per year.

    However, the total number of non-suicide firearm deaths per year is only 20,000.

    We're left with only a few possibilities:
    1) DGU gunshot wounds are vastly less lethal than any other gunshot wound. Unlikely - bullets are bullets.
    2) DGU-performing people are very good at hiding bodies. Unlikely.
    3) Kleck's survey numbers are unreliable.

    Occam's Razor points very strongly at that latter choice. Kleck's survey produces numbers that do not match reality; ergo, Kleck's survey is not reliable.

    By contrast, the government's National Crime Victimization Survey suggests that about 100,000 DGUs occur each year. At an 8% hit rate and a 23% fatality rate, that would give 2,000 defensive firearm killings per year. That's still 10 times what the FBI cites the number as, but is quite close to Kleck's own estimates.



    Why is Kleck's survey result so unreliable? Consider what is meant by "defensive gun usage": any time the presence of a gun - even if not shown - makes the owner believe a crime or attack was prevented, that's a defensive gun use.

    The last time she had a bear nosing around her yard, my mother threw a rubber boot at it to scare it away. According to the methodology used to define defensive gun usages, this would count as a "defensive boot usage" against the bear.

    Virtually anything would have worked to scare the bear off; had the boot not been available, there still would have been no bear attack. Self-reported "defensive gun usages" suffer from exactly the same bias and flaw - people report protecting themselves with a gun when either:
    (a) there was in reality no protection needed, or
    (b) any of a number of alternative techniques would have defended the person just as well.

    For example, consider this "defensive gun usage" story from a similar survey:

    `The police called. The alarm in my building went off so I went there to shut it off. Two men were outside my building, so from my car I shot at the ground near them.'

    That's self-defense? Who's to say those two men hadn't just stopped for a smoke? Similarly,

    A 58-year-old male is watching TV with a holster strapped on him. He tells us, `I was watching a movie, and he (an acquaintance) interrupted me. I yelled that I was going to shoot him, and he ran to his car.'

    This is a defensive gun usage? This is the kind of "self-defense" story that gets multiplied by 10,000 by Kleck to estimate the number of DGUs per year? No wonder his numbers are off.
    (source)

    The logical flaw is similar to the famous anti-tiger stone ("this stone repels tigers from my lawn; I know it works because I haven't seen any tigers here in downtown Springfield in the last 10 years") - whether or not a gun has made them safer, participants in this

  132. Scary... by nukeade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know what would scare me away if I were breaking into a place?

    Mirrors on the doors.

    We used to have a huge mirror on a door in the hall. One night I got up to go get a drink, and for some reason someone had shut the door. I saw my reflection coming towards me in the dark after rounding the corner and nearly passed out from the shock!

    ~Ben

  133. True, but the likelyhood is next to zero. by tentimestwenty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  134. Sounding off. by pi_rules · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, I didn't see this mentioned by anybody: Rubber balls out of a shotgun. Somebody said rock salt earlier and got modded 5: Funny. WTF is that?

    Here's a webpage that sells a number of 12 gauge rounds: http://www.ammoman.com/webstore_12GA.htm

    Shipping with him is great, and the prices (at least on the other stuff -- I don't buy enough 12 gauge loads to know) is very well priced.

    You've got plenty of suggestions on how to DETER people away from the residence. Motion sensor lights, dogs, stickers, etc.

    Once they're in your house it's a whole nother matter. It's nice and quaint that you don't want them to be injured. Bust into the area where I'M sleeping for the night (this goes for when I'm on the road) and odds are injury will be the least of your worries.

    I'm sure every gun hating hoplophobe on Slashdot is going to call me friggen Rambo for this setup, but here's what I run:

    Remington 870 (cheap, and with the synthetic stocks and rubber recoil pad very managable) -- if you can find one get a smooth bore barrel in 18-20". Odds are the off-the-shelf stuff is going to be 20". Stick with that. I load with 4 rounds (pretty limited mag) of 000 Buck. I do NOT keep one in the chamber myself BUT if that was my primary HD (Home Defense gun) I sure as heck would.

    On top of that I keep a good pistol at the bedside. I actually tend to change this out now and again with various models as it depends on what I'm practicing with most at the time. However, that's kept "Condition 1" -- one round in the chamber and safety on.

    Explanation:

    Shotgun is there in the event that I get some kind of advanced warning of an intruder. My door is solid steel and the deadbolt is pretty danged solid. Odds are I'll hear you banging on it a bit. In that event, shotgun comes off the floor and a round goes into the chamber. Time provided the spare round goes into the tube and I hunker down behind my bed for cover and line 'er up on the door. Oh, yes, I live alone. Whole situation changes when you've got kids, but since you're writing and your mother lives alone I presume you're all moved out.

    If you get in instantly (window crashes, or door takes one solid whack) I'm just rolling off the bed and grabbing my pistol.

    Now, if I wanted to take a "feel good and don't hurt anybody" approach I'd do the following:

    870 stocked with 2 shells of the rubber shot stuff. One IN THE FRIGGEN CHAMBER! Here's why: Presuming you have a house of reasonable size it will NOT be immediately apparent which room is your mother's bedroom. Racking that shotgun, while it MAY scare them off, will only cause them to draw their pistols and proceed accordingly. No need to give them a head's up. Behind those two rounds of rubber balls keep some 000 buck shot. If they're still advancing after 2 rounds of rubber balls (presuming they DIDN't shoot you mother while she wasted valuable time with a less-than-lethal-hope-this-works method) then hopefully the 000 buck'll do the job and make them STOP!

    You don't shoot to kill. I don't train for that. You shoot to STOP. Maybe the rubber balls will work. We KNOW the 000 Buck works (or 00 Buck, suit to your tastes)

    Ammoman offers a variety of them. When you see "Tactical Law Enforcement" next to the names dont' be afraid. That that really means is "docile, won't rip your shoulder off loads only good for maybe 25 yards against human targets" -- which is EXACTLY what you want when arming a woman.

    20 gauge is suitable also -- but I'd stick with a pump for reliability.

    I'm a geek, but there's no way in HELL I'd be able to sleep at night if I told my mom that I thought her best bet was to sit there with a media player hooked up to a computer and motion sensor that'd play the sound of a shotgun racking if she died. No thank you.

    A lot in life boils down to what you would REGRET MORE later on the down the road. I wouldn't want to be the guy at my mom's funeral thinking "Man, I thought that

  135. Re:Plus warnings shots are too slow by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HA! It'll be a short trial, and a short sentence, and even less time served.

    I want to live in a place where people who enter other people's homes to steal their shit don't make it out alive.

    If we're going to imprison so many people, we may as well make them work for us too, prison should be more than waiting to get out, it should be either school, work, addiction treatment, or labor.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  136. A mate of mine... by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...(hi, Bruce!) rigged his car up with a pair of sirens under the dashboard rated at 105dB at 3m. One night while he was at work, he heard the sirens from downstairs and went haring down to see. He found:
    • His car, a Holden HZ sedan, with the door open; and
    • His steering column partially disassembled; and
    • Traces of blood and hair on assorted knobs and corners under the dash and on the door; and
    • No car thief.
    You see, 105dB at 3m in free space equals 117dB at about 40cm, which was the approximate distance between the screamers and the thief's ears as he lay in the footwell jiggering the ignition switch on the steering column.

    This is in a mostly-enclosed hard-walled space, which has to be worth at least another 12dB. And there were two of them, so add another 3dB as icing on the cake, draw a line, 132dB.

    The threshold of pain, for reference, is 120dB.

    If you're going to bother building a car alarm, get it right. (-:
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:A mate of mine... by Fallen_Knight · · Score: 2, Funny

      now thats a car alarm!

    2. Re:A mate of mine... by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like a piece of advice taken from my grandfather...

      "They can't steal anything with both hands over their ears"

    3. Re:A mate of mine... by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd be very interested to hear about the details of this installation, if they are available. What triggers are there for the alarm? What safeties are there to prevent it from going off with the owner in the car, especially while driving? Are there any safeties to prevent it from going off in the event of a crash?

    4. Re:A mate of mine... by underCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The physical punishment should be proportion to the physical destruction caused. Seeing as IP theft is ephemeral I propose that victim should think really hard about whipping the thief. Or maybe make a plaster caste of their back and whip that. That should make it even.

      under under and away...

      --
      Sig? No, thanks. I don't smoke.
    5. Re:A mate of mine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      your mate is a smart one.

      every car alarm I installed was this way, install the siren INSIDE the car.

      Nobody pay's attentino to car alarms, so you need to annoy the hell out of the bugger that is trying to steal from you.

      I personally liked what a friend of mine did, he set up a flashpot in the car.

      alarm went off, you had 10 seconds to shut it off before the flashpot was ignited and filled the car with sulfer smoke.

      we found his car thief lying on the ground gasping for air, and the police and fire were called by someone that ignored the car alarm but thought a car was on fire.

      People will call for a fire right away, but they dont care if your stuff is getting stolen.

    6. Re:A mate of mine... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2

      Considering the thief would be *in* your car, that would be a very stupid thing to do.

  137. No, dumbass. by devphil · · Score: 3, Informative


    You apparently missed

    Take a firearm safety course.
    which was the first item on the list. Any such course will cover safe and appropriate methods of storage, if they're even halfway decent.
    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  138. Chessies by cjsnell · · Score: 4, Informative

    BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
    Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean.


    Couldn't agree with you more (see my .sig). They can be crazy
    and they can be high energy but they can also be chill and sweet.

    The only problem with Chessies is that they are not suited to everybody. As I'm sure you know, they can also be food-protective and their wariness of strangers can lead to problems. A dog that attacks burglars is good but I've also had mine charge at neighbors who are walking down the sidewalk. You have to assert your dominance if you're going to own a chessie.

  139. Camera System? by therealsludge · · Score: 2, Informative

    I took the not lethal approach. I live in a decent neighborhood, but unfortunatley the f*ck next door got divorced and started up his own meth-lab. I won't get into the specifics, but there were several nights I stayed awake every night at the dinner table with a 10mm S&W, just ready for the f*ck to walk through my door. I digress.

    What I did was went out an purchased a cheap computer and bought a Geovision G600 card, and purchased three IR cameras. The total cost was around $1500 - $2000, but was completely worth it.

    Here are some links to the system and cameras I purchased:

    http://www.geovision.com.tw/002/en/product-gv600 .a sp
    http://www.supercircuits.com/STORE/prodinfo.as p?nu mber=PC170IR&variation=&aitem=4&mitem= 11

    I don't think the camera link is exactly what I purchased, but it is very close. I'd love to post a link to my system to let everyone view it, but there is no way I would survive a slashdotting. :)

    Believe me when I say that this has been very successful, not only in getting this person arrested, but also in providing me with some very hilarious footage.

  140. Giant Cock by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Funny

    No no no. A gun would work in the 80s. Now criminals have stinger missiles and humvee mounted machine guns. You'll never outgun them.

    Just get a giant wobbling sculptured cock at your front step. Any criminal walking by will be reminded of Clockwork Orange, and they'll say "Cool" and walk away.

  141. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by berzerke · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...You know, the police can't be everywhere, and they're not going to take responsibility for every crime that they could not prevent...

    Most people (esp. many anti-gun people) don't realize that the police have no legal requirement to come to your aid (at least in the US; probably elsewhere too).

    Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived.

    When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).]

  142. How to teach your kids about guns by Facekhan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Take the gun out with the kid and explain that it is not a toy its a dangerous weapon. Then shoot his stuffed bunny into a thousand pieces. He will never want to touch the gun.

  143. Re:Well he *killed* someone! by DLR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If someone breaks into my home I have no idea what their intentions are. Are they trying to steal my personal belongings, or are they threatening my family? Just the fact that they have broken in already shows a complete disregard for the law or any vestage of respct for anyone other than themselves. Am I supposed to ask them "Pardon me Mr. Thug, are you just going to take some stuff or are you hear to hurt someone?" Oh wait, they'd probably lie, if they answer me verbally at all. And yet >I am the sociopath because I don't want to see someone in my family hurt or killed.

    As the saying goes, if you "Don't start no trouble, there won't BE no trouble". I didn't ask for the clown who snatched my wife's purse (with her asthma inhaler in it) to come take from us. We were too broke at the time to replace that inhaler. Had I been carrying a gun I would have shot him. Had my children not been between me and him I would have killed him with my bare hands, I don't need no stinking gun.

    Yet all you "gun grabbers" can do is whine about guns when I can kill someone wiht a pencil. I notice that gun control didn't prevent the 9/11 hijackers from taking over multiple air craft and murduring thousands of people who had done nothing to them. I also notice they didn't use guns. Do you get the picture yet or are you still determined to try to force the facts to fit your world view rather than adjusting your world view to fit the facts?

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
  144. Re:Americans and their guns... by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  145. Call 911 and die by gmcraff · · Score: 2, Informative
    If your preferred solution to home intrusion is to call 911, I offer a superior calling order:

    1. Call for a pizza. Give your address in a loud voice, and ask that they get there as soon as possible. Say everything else quietly.
    2. If the intruder isn't spooked off by you talking into the telephone, giving your address and requesting someone to arrive in a hurry, you're SOL. Now is time to call 911 and request, in this order, an ambulance and the police.

    If the intruder left, calm down by enjoying your pizza.

    If he didn't leave when you called for the pizza, he wouldn't have left when you called the cops, either. He probably understands better than you do that if Cop Number One shows up while the intruder is still in the house, Cop Number One is going to call for backup and sit tight until it gets there. Meanwhile, you get to enjoy whatever the intruder thinks is the appropriate way to handle a witness.

    Chances are, the pizza arrived first. If you're exceptionally lucky, the intruder has finished with you, grabbed the DVD player and the PS2 and left. If you're not lucky, the intruder intended to injure you in the first place, and he's grabbed the PS2 just for spite. Now you've got someone who may perform first aid on you, or may break down and blubber. You've also a pizza, but you are lacking teeth. Or blood.

    The ambulance will probably arrive next. The paramedics will enjoy the pizza while they work on you.

    When the cops arrive, they'll either take a statement from you, or draw a chalk outline around you. They'll enjoy the pizza, too.

    Now, all of the previous was fairly facetious, but here's the stunning fact for all of you: the police don't have to do anything about a crime in progress. They might or might not, their call. They do have to take a statement afterwards from any surviving witnesses, collect evidence, and all the other after-the-fact tasks. You, or your inheritors, have absolutely no recourse if the police are busy elsewhere, take their time in arriving, or just sit tight waiting for various amounts of back-up to arrive.

    This is assuming that your 911 call got through in the first place. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, in normal circumstances, it can take 15 minutes for an operator to answer. (As I have read; I don't live in LA.) Then the request to passed to the dispatcher, who may have just sent all the cops in the area to the bank robbery on the other side of town. There are a number of reputable and scholarly (and some that are less so) publications about the folly of depending on 911 when you life is at stake. I refer you to this page from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for only one example. Searching Google for "call 911 die" will bring up many more.

    Your 911 call is a request for aid, not a demand that must be satisfied. You still have to defend yourself; nobody else is going to. If you can't handle the responsiblity of gun ownership, or you haven't the physical ability and training to defend yourself unarmed, get some chemical defense foam with the strongest ju-ju available. If you haven't that, use some wasp-and-hornet insect killer right in his face... the nerve agent in the bug killer will slow him down a bit.

    To sum up: you must be willing, able and properly equipped to defend yourself when trouble has come looking for you. YOU are your own responsibility.

  146. Re:My advice by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Informative


    Salt shot for a thief? Did you just finish watching "Kill Bill 2" or something?

    Believe it or not, some intruders are very intent (and/or drugged to boot). I've seen a security camera video of a bank robber shot cleanly *through the heart* who ran around, shot the Sheriff dead, then ran out the door - and died in the parking lot. But the Sheriff was still just as dead.

    If you're going to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are escalating the situation to the point of lethal force, and should be ready for them to do likewise. Assuming that you don't believe in using deadly force unless someone's life or body is in real danger, then it's nothing short of rediculous to believe that merely pissing the guy off is a good move. If your life (or someone else's) was in danger to begin with, how much more likely is he to shoot you in the head once you've put some rock salt in him, or shot him in the crotch with an air rifle?

    Even though getting kicked in the crotch works all the time in the movies, in a real-life fight, it mostly just gets their adrenaline going and pisses them off. Sure, their nuts will be sore after the fight, but during the fight - watch out. I've personally witnessed it all too many times.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  147. Re:Well for those who favor Guns, and those who do by NerveGas · · Score: 2, Informative


    So.... let's say that someone breaks into your home and sees you pull out said imitation firearm. Let's say that they're packing heat as well, and so decide to return fire. Who's going to win?

    If the situation truly calls for lethal force, then playing with toys is a stupid idea. And if the situation *doesn't* call for lethal force, whipping out an imitation gun is very likely to land *you* in jail.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  148. Re:Get a rottweiler by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
    I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do.

    Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.

    Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.

    The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors. They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them. Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.

    BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.

    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are a bit more wild and energetic than Labradors but they are also wonderful. Chessies are just as friendly as Labs but they are even WORSE when it comes to taking a break. From what I've experienced most Chessies will work or play until they literally pass out from exhaustion. They are a little dopey but not dumb, it's just that their energy is a bit too much for them to stop to think about what they are doing! They are EXTREMELY trainable and are very protective of children.

    You can hardly go wrong with either a Labrador or a Chesapeake Bay Retriever but be prepared to take a lot of walks and swims if you get one!
  149. My name is..... by Mondoz · · Score: 2, Funny

    My voice is my password.
    Verify me.

    --
    /sig
  150. Just put a couple of these in your yard by Mike+McCune · · Score: 2, Funny
    After the first burgler gets pulverized, you will never have problems again.

    Phalanx Close-In Weapons System

    --

    In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?

  151. Robert Heinlein's Security Advice by deathcow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Robert Heinlein's Security Advice by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Informative

      There has been a huge debate for decades over whether instinct shooting is superior to aimed fire using the Weaver stance.

      The consensus appears to be that instinct shooting is valuable in those cases where you don't have time to get your gun OUT AND aim before firing. But when your gun is already out, you aim.

      William Burroughs used to quote Wyatt Earp as saying, "Take your time". Meaning "make your first shot count as you might not get the time to fire a second one." If your "instinct" shot does NOT hit the opponent, you've just given him his chance to shoot you. As a famous pistol expert once titled his book, "No Second Chance."

      Heinlein's advice is valid to some extent, but it is still preferable to be able to hit the enemy in a manner more likely to stop him than merely to "clip" him, using aimed fire. It does take more practice than instinct shooting - the SEALS under Marcinko used to burn through thousands of rounds of ammo until aimed fire BECAME instinctual. That's what you really want to achieve. For the average homeowner, of course, who doesn't have armorers to tune weapons that are so heavily used,that might not be practical.

      They did a study in New York some years ago. They discovered that police officers hit what they're shooting at only 25% of the time. The reason there are still cops living in New York is that the bad guys hit what they're aiming at only 11% of the time.

      The difference is practice. The minimal amount of practice cops get is enough to give them a two-to-one edge on the perps. Which is why when I was considering my terrorist campaign, I intended to practice until I was twice as good as that AND have the initiator's advantage.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  152. Re:More non-gun US murders than total Canada murde by GimmeFuel · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

  153. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by HalfFlat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  154. But they bark at cops by BrianMarshall · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yeah, German Shepards are wonderful.

    My brother and I both had one, and they would not stop barking if a cop or park ranger tried to talk to us.

    They can sense the "copness" - the implied threat.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
  155. WebCams ;-) by mseeger · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hi,

    i live in a house where we had six cases of arson in two years. This stopped after i installed webcams in the central lobby and at the backdoor.

    I have a 50 line Perl-Script to archive those images for 24 hours and delete them afterwards. In cases something happened, i convert one hour of images (~7.000) to a short movie using OpenSource-tools.

    I informed and got an endorsement from every appartment owner in the house and posted a note to the doors.

    Since then: nothing ever again happened.

    Downside: Some neighbours asking me for images to proof another neighbours did this or that (usually putting a bike in front of a door).

    Regards, Martin

  156. Re:Americans and their guns... by Silas+is+back · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    That is what YOU say. Now consider the following statistics, which I have taken from this report and which are for the year 1991: (I cut the list by some countries in the midfield)

    Murders committed with handguns annually:

    United States 8,915
    Switzerland 53
    Sweden 19
    Canada 8
    United Kingdom 7

    Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

    United States 8.40
    Canada 5.45
    Germany 4.20
    United Kingdom 1.97
    Japan 1.20
    Finland 0.70

    Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

    United States 24.4
    Canada 2.6
    Norway 2.3
    United Kingdom 2.0
    Germany 0.9
    Japan 0.5

    Rape (per 100,000 people):

    United States 37.20
    Sweden 15.70
    Germany 8.60
    United Kingdom 7.26
    Japan 1.40

    Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

    United States 221
    Canada 94
    United Kingdom 63
    Germany 47
    Norway 22
    Japan 1

    And now tell me again that having a gun in your flat is a good prevention. I guess I need to say that I am from Switzerland and have an automatic gun (SIG Stgw 90) at home (from the army), as every male citizen has, but you can`t get bullets for it (the ones you have are in a sealed package).

    As for the question for security: I lock the door, that`s it, but I guess in the US that is unfortunately not enough.
    --
    this sig is useless
  157. How Ugly Is Your Mom? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Anyone have a holographic Yeti generator to scare away intruders? :)"'

    Okay, relax, it was just a joke!

    Jeez, no sense of humor!

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  158. Re:What doesn't work, what might. by teddlesruss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

    --
    -- ted russ http://www.arach.net.au/~ted/mydynes/ http://www.arach.net.au/~ted/myblogs/
  159. Not illegal... by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  160. Occam's Razor by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  161. Re:Americans and their guns... by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  162. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Only if they're trying to repo a stereo or television from the rental place by breaking in your front door.

    Trespassing is defined by entering into the domicile in question by forceable means or without prior consent of the owner or occupant. Even if you leave all of your doors unlocked, if someone steps through that door and you weren't expecting them, you have the right to shoot. This was all made possible by what's also known as the "Make My Day" law, a nod to Dirty Harry. Many southern states with dense cities and high transient populations enacted this law awhile back.

    Personally I see nothing wrong with it. If someone breaks down my front door at any time, and doesn't shout POLICE WE'RE COMING IN, then they're catching a slug somewhere in their person. Anyone who is willing to commit such an entry surely knows the risks they face, particularly in states like Texas where gun ownership is high.

    Is killing another person for breaking into your home extreme? Well, that depends on how much you value your own and your family's life. I'm no gun nut, and don't like guns persay, but I feel that the law gives me the right to defend myself and my wife, and if a criminal will most likely be armed, I have no choice but to arm myself in kind. Not arming myself would be a failure of duty, a total lack of self preserving responsibility. I couldn't bear to think of myself or my wife getting shot in our home without having a chance to fight back or win.

  163. get to know your neighbors by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  164. Re:Be sure it can't trigger while you're driving by mlush · · Score: 2, Funny
    Also I assume this is cool but apocryphal - how would the builder test it without getting lynched by his neighbors?

    <Slowly as if to a small Anonymous Coward>
    Its a car, cars can be driven to an area with no neighbors.
    </Slowly as if to a small Anonymous Coward>

  165. Low Tech is the best way! by bhima · · Score: 5, Informative
    A few years ago I lived in the US and the previous owner seeing the decline in the neighborhood took a couple of simple steps that in hindsight made a lot of sense.

    Out of sight out of mind: He closed in his carport so you couldn't see his car

    Inconvenience potential burglars: a pet fence around the back yard (with the gate locked), storm windows and storm doors extra locks on widows and doors.

    A thorny defense: All the windows had holly bushes growing under and around them.

    looking like you have nothing to steal: The house wasn't the best in the neighborhood or the worst and all the improvements were either invisible to the casual observer or common place.

    In summary the house was the least attractive target on the whole block with many inconveniences visible from the street, where presumably the potential burglars case the property.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  166. Some tricks for security by eve_power · · Score: 2, Informative

    My family's home was broken into three times when I was young, so we learnt the following the hard way: - Gravel, gravel and more gravel. Cover the entire front garden down to the pavement/sidewalk right up to the sidegate/house windows with gravel. It can be dusty and gets into everything, but it's also noisy. If it's impossible to get to your front door without stepping on gravel, most theives will just walk away. - Personalise. I had a friend who bought a really REALLY old VW Beetle and she really went to town on it. She painted the words "Hi there" up on the roof, had each door a slightly different colour and left the inches of rust around the lights and handels. Years later when it was time for her to upgrade to a decent car, she left the beetle in the WORST area of town to see if her customising really was a deterrant. Three months later, it's still there untouched. Same goes for bikes and motorcycles. If you make them your own, theives will have a much harder time concealing/hawking them. - Automatic lights/motion sensors. 'nuff said. - LOCK ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS - get decent double glazing in. - Fake alarm/cameras on both front/side and rear of house. - Never be afraid to annoy the local police, it's their job to provide security if you've taken all other reasonable procautions. Get used to the phrase: "Ok so you're not going to investigate the prowler outside? Ok, I'm off to make a video diary of his movements / me shooting him / your inability to help. I'm sure the newspapers will be REAL interested. How do you spell your name again?" - Get a big dog. Call it Tison, Zeus, Thor, Mars, etc. - Have automatic timers for tvs and washing machines and lamps. Make sure to use them. - Cut up all your cardboard boxes into tiny pieces. Dont advertise that you have a new PC/TV/DVD player/ monitor etc. - Nothing looks quite so mean as a host of venus flytraps as your border plants. No kidding here, those things would deter King Kong.

  167. Parent's math is WRONG by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 2, Informative
    You're comparing total gun deaths in Canada to gun homicides in the US, without mentioning that the large majority of those Canadian "gun deaths" are suicides!

    That is, at best, woefully delinquent reading of the links you cite.

    For a truthful comparison of firearm killings between Canada and the US, look here. In particular, check out this summary:

    Firearm homicide rates in the United States are 8.1 times higher than in Canada.


    > I've done all the hard math...

    Maybe, but Garbage In, Garbage Out.

  168. Re:been debunked BULLSHIT ALERT by perly-king-69 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --

    --
    This sig is inoffensive.

  169. Beware the "Beware of dog" variety by babybird · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It should be noted that "Beware of dog" signs on your property are a serious legal liability in the United States should you happen to own a dog and it ever attack someone. Lawyers say you're actually better off without having the signs if you actually do have a dog, because having such a sign implies that you are aware of the possibility that the dog may pose a danger and you can be charged with criminal negligence in many states because of it.

    What I used to have were a few window stickers on my car that I got from police friends. Things that suggest an affiliation or friendliness with the local police departments or other law enforcement agencies. Mine were for supporters of Colorado State Troopers and the NRA.

    Personally I think the law enforcement ones are a little more effective, because I've had a few friends with just the NRA stickers on their cars have their cars broken into on several occassions. I suspect maybe the criminals are hoping to find firearms to steal.

    Best of that type, if you could get any, might be to try and find some kind of federal law enforcement stickers. FBI or U.S. Martial Service would probably be the best deterent of that type.

    --
    Keith D.
  170. Psychotronic Weaponry ! by Rollgunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about a bunch of halogen lights hooked up to a motion sensor?

    If that's not enough, set them to strobe at about 10-30 Hz. Causes the human nervous system to wildly malfunction, inducing what is essentially an epileptic seizure in anyone.

    Blind them with *science* !

    P.S. For those who feel they must use a firearm to defend their homes: Sellier and Bellot make a variety of "less-lethal" shotshells. Now you can use the same rubber bullets the riot cops do!

  171. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by xSauronx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  172. Re:Get a rottweiler by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've learned the HARD way my black lab would take care of business in the event of a break-in.

    My dog is the biggest, suckiest, little wuss in the world. Loves everything that moves, greets everyone with licks, kisses, jumping up (despite my training for him not to) and everything. But if you come in the home when I'm in bed and I don't know about it, he will eat you.

    2 years ago, at my old place, my dog had his own couch. He slept on this couch nightly. The couch was in the path between my bed and my computers (on another floor).

    One morning, my pager went off, a network had stopped responding, and I have to investigate. It was about 3am, and my eyes hadn't adjusted to the light yet, so I didn't bother turning on any lights in my path between my room and the basement.

    I got down there, where the dog was, and it was PITCH black. No matter how good your night vision, you weren't seeing ANYTHING. As I rounded the corner from the stairs into the basement, all I heard was a low-pitched growl and the quiet sound of a dog walking towards me very slowly (he desperately needed his nails cut)... it didn't even sound like my dog. I turned around, and said, "PUPPY ITS ME!" Upon hearing that, he came over, expected a quick petting, and then went back to sleep. I was so proud of him that day.

    Aswell, if I'm not home and my girlfriend is, if any other male comes over to visit, the dog will instinctively ensure that he is ALWAYS between my girlfriend and the visitor. He will not allow the male to get between her and him.

    My girlfriend's father came over to visit, and told me all about it. He couldn't understand why the dog wasn't as genial as he normally was when he visited, and why he wouldn't leave her side. I explained.

    And to top it all off, I have grown up with labs all my life. I don't think I'll ever own any other breed of dog, they're SO intelligent when they need to be, but they're such lovable morons when they don't. They're great, and they never let me down.

    One night, when I was about 17, I had come home late one night, and sat down at my computer to read my e-mail. At this point in time, I'd already dumped my wallet, keys, etc onto my desk, and had nothing on me. My lab started whining that he wanted to go for a walk. Whilst walking him -- this was about 1 or 2am, a guy in a trenchcoat approached me. He got about 4 feet away from me, and pulled a knife. He said, "give me your wallet." I told him I didn't have it on me. I honestly didn't. He started threatening me, saying he was going to "cut me up". My dog, who I /never/ put on a leash, was about 20ft behind me peeing. He saw what was going on, and within about 2 seconds was right in front of me facing the guy, SITTING DOWN, looking up at him. He did nothing more than let out a bit of a growl and show his teeth. The guy backed away slowly, and then bolted. My dog watched him run and did nothing. Once the guy was > 100ft away, my dog went back, and continued to pee.

    Needless to say, that night, when we got home, I fed him almost an entire ham out of the fridge. :P

  173. Re:its obvious by funkydom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  174. Homemade Immobiliser by Xerxes2695 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out This page
    for instructions on how to build your own vehicle immobiliser. It features a warning LED, kill switch, and magnetic pickup to deactivate the system.

  175. Re:Well he *killed* someone! by DLR · · Score: 2

    Anyone who talks about deliberately shooting someone in the leg in a combat situation obviously hasn't been trained with firearms at all. When using a firearm you shoot for the center of mass. Again, the headshot is a bad idea for someone attempting to defend themselves. Unless of course that is the only thing you can see. That is the caviat about center of mass, you aim for the center of what you can see. If all you can see is the head, go for it. But mind your backdrop.

    Point #2, I have little or no sympathy for someone who is trying to violate someone else. And just incase you've never been on the receiving end of a crime, I assure you it is a serious violation of one's personhood.

    Point #3, survey's have been done in prisons to try and determine what the best deterant to crime is. And guess what the thing the criminal fears above all else is? You got it, an armed "victim". The point here is simple, attempting to violate someone else's personhood (be it rape, B&E, simple purse snatching or worse) should be risky. Is the criminal concerned that they might cause physical harm to someone when they (the criminal) forcabley takes whatever it is they're after? No, not in the slightest. When someone behaves in that fashion they have removed themselves from the rules of civilized society, why should they be permitted to hide behind the selfsame rules they have scorned (including your pity/revulsion at their richly deserved fate) when they run afoul of someone who can and will defend themselves?

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
  176. Assuming they know it by empaler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have an idea that most career criminals don't have the faintest clue as to who Kubrick is...

  177. What pain? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Funny

    He must have been hung over or doing drugs y'r honour, it's just a car alarm (this after replacing the screamers with 80dB jobbies).

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  178. Re:Americans and their guns... by Sinterklaas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  179. The problem is vicious owners by Jammer@CMH · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some breeds may be more agressive than others, but the big problem is vicious owners. I think you're right when you describe the problem by stereotyping the owners of these dogs as "your average English football hooligan ... a skinhead, tattooed & scared psychopath with a demon dog at the end of a leash.". If you abuse and torment a dog, you will have a fearful, vicious animal.

    Dogs that bite often do it from a fear reflex. A dog that is sufficiently abused will bite at strangers, and will look impressive snarling on your chain, and will make you feel like a big man walking your beast around. But a sibling of that dog, raised in a caring environment by good owners, will be a sweet and hefty lapdog.

    Some breeds are made for fighting. Changes are made to the breed to make the dog harder to damage (more muscular necks, etc), but the personality needed to fight is usually brought about by abusing the puppies. A pit bull raised as a family dog usually behaves as a loving member of the family.

    For more information on the innate nature of Pit Bulls, see http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.cfm. (In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATT), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%.)

    For information on links between animal abuse and spousal/family abuse, see here.

  180. try a game scouting camera. by crypticus+behn · · Score: 2, Informative

    While a bit pricey, they generally are rugged, can be left outdoors for long periods of time and are intended for just this sort of thing.

  181. Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! by MrBlackBand · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...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 is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  182. It's cultural. by jayerandom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.