Home Defense, Geek Style? 2514
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? :)"
Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Funny)
Laser Defense Sheild (Score:5, Informative)
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.
A mate of mine... (Score:5, Interesting)
- 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. (-:
Re:A mate of mine... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Funny)
I'm as geeky as the next slashdotter, so I'm down with spending $1000 on a color laser printer [xerox.com]. But I don't really see how that's gonna help you defend your home.
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Funny)
Giant Cock (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Occam's Razor (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
been debunked (Score:5, Informative)
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Interesting)
As for criminals being afraid of armed citizens, I am too -- and I'm not a criminal. That statistic has no relevance.
One of many differences: War on drugs (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Gun deaths lower, but other rates higher.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:been debunked BULLSHIT ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is yours. The US glamourises violence and gun use. Every other film coming out of the states features guy shooting each other. Your head of state poses aboard warships. You're OBSESSED with guns, with violence, with killing.
I think it was Shaw who said the US is the only country to have gone from Barbarism to Decadence without experiencing Civilisation.
Re:its obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:its obvious (Score:5, Funny)
You calling me stupid? I'll bust a cap in yo ass!
Goldie Looking Chain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr, this is nonsensical. Per capita I'd wager that more Canadians live in urban areas than in the US.
I wish the origin of this thread didn't start another bullshit Canada versus the US thread - As a Canadian I'm sick of hearing people beating their chest and bleating about how great Canada is, just as I'm sick of all the ridiculous FUD slams at Canada that follow. Anyone mentioning Canada in a thread about the US needs to be brutalized.
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:been debunked (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Circle of violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Flame me all you want, but deep down you know it's wrong. Guess Michael Moore was into something in the movie Bowling For Columbine.
Re:Circle of violence (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple, call the police and have them sited for trespassing. See, there are laws for this sort of thing.
I have trespassed numerous times-it is virtually impossible to do geology field work and not trespass and some time. Most of the time, you won't know it (think rural areas, not reliably posted). In other cases, it is perfectly legal to enter an area that has been posted "no trespassing" - many times people who post those signs have no right to post them.... Maybe they are entering your property to ask permission, ever consider that?
"Where's personal responsibility?"
If they call the police and cite me for trespassing, I will accept the consequences of my actions. I have been confronted before but never cited - so, was I actually trespassing?
You don't go shooting someone because they trespass. You shoot someone because you fear your life is in imminent danger (or someone you are protecting). If they are in your house you MAY have a case. On your property, not likely. Sure, you may not be prosecuted but only a fool would take that chance....
Re:Circle of violence (Score:5, Insightful)
AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!?!?! Where the hell do people get the idea that a warning shot is EVER a good idea. Too much TV or movies perhaps?
Repeat after me. NEVER, EVER, fire a warning shot. Either you are justified in using deadly force or you are not. Period. The only time you discharge a weapon in a self-defense situation is with the intent of hitting the person/thing causing the deadly threat.
If you fire a warning shot, you become the aggressor. The attacker is now justified in killing you because they are (rightfully) in fear for their life.
Re:Circle of violence (Score:5, 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.
Re:Circle of violence (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Circle of jerk (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
as usual, one step left out (Score:5, 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.
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Funny)
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?"
Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! (Score:5, Insightful)
I will never understand people like you, who are bothered by the average person having the right to defend themself when their life is clearly being threatened. Does it make you feel better if only the police can have means to protect anyone? You know, the police can't be everywhere, and they're not going to take responsibility for every crime that they could not prevent. Morally, I don't know how you could say that a person robbing someone else has more rights than the one being robbed. I'm not advocating vigilante justice, far from it. I'm saying that somebody should not be legally required to submit to the whims of armed thugs.
Re:Well he fucking *killed* someone! (Score:5, Informative)
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).]
Rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for home defense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to a shotgun? It's the difference between one small hole and a saucer-sized circle of nine big ones (or one saucer-sized hole, depending on the shotgun load).
But it is hard to generalize, since rifles and their ammunition come in a wide variety of calibers, energies, and bullet expansion characteriesics. Just remember that the shotgun shoots more bullets at once, propelling them with more total powder, to get the general idea. One shotgun blast is like emptying the magazine of a rifle.
Downside to both rifles and shotguns: They're long (even the "short" ones). If the bad guy gets within arms-reach (which he can do from across the room in under a second) he can get behind the muzzle and you're toast. A pistol MIGHT be usable even while he's wrestling with you or knifing you.
That time issue, though, is why, as part of your training, you learn a two-sided coin:
Heads: You NEVER point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
Tails: If you are pointing a gun at the bad guy, you ALREADY DECIDED that you're justified if you use it and you're going to pull the trigger if he makes ONE MORE MOVE toward you.
Once the gun is pointed you don't have time to wrestle with your conscience if it turns out you have to use it. So get that over with (and the safety off) BEFORE you point it.
Don't try to wing him, either. Not only is it a bad idea self-defense wise (it's hard enough hitting him near the center of the torso in a stressful situation), it's also evidence that you didn't think deadly force was necessary (so why did you use it?) This can turn a justifiable homicide into assault with a deadly weapon once it gets to court.
Either you fear for life-and-limb (of yourself or someone properly under your protection, like a family member or guest) or you don't. If you do, you are justified in using deadly force - and the bad guy gets to take his chances (about one in four) of dying as a result of his criminal decisions. If you don't, you're not justified in shooting, or pointing, at all. (At least in most jurisdictions. Some, like Texas, let you defend your home, car, etc. Others still have a "fleeing felon" rule - or a judicial interpretation (Oregon) that you might fear the crook is running out to his car to get some firepower or reenforcements. Still others (like MA) require you to flee if you physically can, even at home, abandoning the baby and risking a shot in the back.)
For myself:
Home defense at the townhouse: 12 guage shotgun with #40 birdshot. Quite as effective as 00 buck at in-house distances, but passing through a copule layers of drywall will slow it down enough that it won't kill the neighbors.
Ditto at the country house: 12 guage w/00 buck. (Closest houses are over 1/10th mile away and the siding is wood over wood, shots where a good guy is behind the bad guy and an interior wall virtually impossible.)
Personal carry: 38 special airweight for cities, 45 ACP backup for country hikes (where I might have to deal with a coyote, mountain lion, bobcat, or bear). Will probably switch to 357 magnum now that NV alows more than two on the license, since slide-actions are more often problematic in a pinch. Both only where it's legal, of course. (I.e. in NV but not CA.)
And of course the personal carry pistol can be used for home defense if you happen to have it handy - like when you've just arrived, are unloading the luggage, and haven't pulled the shotgun out of the safe yet. A likely time for a bad guy to come at you, when things are open and you're distracted.
Re:Don't be a metrosexual (Score:5, Informative)
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.
But the bumper sticker is... (Score:5, Funny)
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-)
Re:LBM (Appearances can work too) (Score:5, Funny)
Old school stoners are still the scariest kind.
Re:I have a better one.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I have a better one.. (Score:5, Funny)
I would take gun advice from him, ayup!
Ninjas! (Score:5, Funny)
THAT would be cool.
Good question.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good question.. (Score:5, Funny)
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
Dog (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dog (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Dog (Score:5, 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.
If you go this route... (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.
Even better: geese (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dog (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dog (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dog (Score:5, Funny)
Cat (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, who's going to mess with your pet cougar, or puma?
Chessies (Score:5, Informative)
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean.
Couldn't agree with you more (see my
and they can be high energy [chrissnell.com] but they can also be chill [chrissnell.com] and sweet [chrissnell.com].
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.
Re:Get a rottweiler (Score:5, Informative)
Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.
Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.
The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors. They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them. Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.
Chesapeake Bay Retrievers are a bit more wild and energetic than Labradors but they are also wonderful. Chessies are just as friendly as Labs but they are even WORSE when it comes to taking a break. From what I've experienced most Chessies will work or play until they literally pass out from exhaustion. They are a little dopey but not dumb, it's just that their energy is a bit too much for them to stop to think about what they are doing! They are EXTREMELY trainable and are very protective of children.
You can hardly go wrong with either a Labrador or a Chesapeake Bay Retriever but be prepared to take a lot of walks and swims if you get one!
Great (Score:4, Funny)
Ninja Style (Score:5, Funny)
That's worked pretty well for a few years.
Re:Ninja Style (Score:5, Funny)
Location, location, location.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Location, location, location.... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [navytimes.com]
If you're American... (Score:4, Funny)
Shotgun traps (Score:5, Funny)
Geek it up some by controlling the shotgun trap with an old pentium running BSD.
Never fails (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, we all noticed (Score:5, Funny)
Texas style home defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a holo-yeti... (Score:5, Funny)
How bout a full sized cardboard cut-out of goatse in the front hallway? I'd run....
Re:Not a holo-yeti... (Score:5, Funny)
Depending on what was "cut-out", it could double as a mail drop too. Even oversized packages could easily fit. *shudder*
Don't injure trespassers... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:that is never legal (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Get a dog (Score:5, Insightful)
Go minimalist (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't overthink (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
As always (Score:5, Funny)
the classic... (Score:5, Funny)
I vote (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:
At first, it may seem that, economically, you are better off keeping more of your dollars in your pocket (especially if you need them to pay the fees for your gated compound or personal home defense equipment). There is another equilibrium, which does mean higher taxes but on the other hand, makes the streets safe and crime less common, which is to reduce the societal risk factors that promote crime. Most wealthy Americans, for whom gated life and home defense is a minor cost, call this "rampant tax and spend looney pinko socialism". Many Europeans call it "responsible government".
Admittedly, shooting the "perp" and/or throwing him in jail does lead to a satisfied feeling that you have avenged, say, your Mum's honour. As many non-white citizens of your country can tell you, and good research has shown, your current system does actually promote, rather than prevent, the crime you wish to stop (cf. recent Cringly article as a starting point).
Want a safer society? Make sure it's one where everyone has a genuine chance, which doesn't oppress you if you're poor/black/unlucky, which is based on sound research and reasoning about policy (not 4000-year old policies promulgated in middle-eastern nomadic herding societies). Keep the police around to keep the hard-core cases under control.
It takes a little longer, and you guys nearly had it in the 60's, but it's worth it.
Re:I vote (Score:5, 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 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.
Cost-effectiveness. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
I find that offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Combination approach... (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
True Story (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Cop told me that dogs are the best (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Best Tech - Social Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Buying A Gun Won't Deter Criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A `geek` deterrent would have helped this guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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
Just the sight of a burglar alarm (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.
Being 100% serious here....... (Score:5, 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
Some simple things: all "low-tech" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Low Tech is the best way! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Sentry gun (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sentry gun (Score:5, Funny)
What you really need for an effective deterrent is a 110,000 volt, 30 barrel taser gattling gun [lod.org]. More details here [lod.org]. 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.
Car Alarms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alarm (to notify) Gun (to defend) (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are problematic. First, there's the obvious safety issue of having a gun in the house. Second, there's the fact that if you miss (or even if you don't), you could toss a bullet through a wall and kill your kid sleeping in the next room or the neighbor down the block.
Pepper spray is good stuff. It's effective over any range you'll encounter in your house. It's nonlethal, so you can use it without being 100% sure of your target (is that shadow an intruder or my 16 year old sneaking back into the house?). It's even effective if you don't have a clear shot -- spray it into the hall and you'll deny access to a section of the house while you dial 911. And if your kids find it, the worse that can happen is they'll spray themselves and need an eye wash. Painful, but beats a bullet in the head.
Given the real risks of even keeping a handgun, in most realistic scenarios (aka, 35 gang members probably aren't going to rush your house), pepper spray is a far better solution given the overall risk/rewards.
Re:Only one defense needed. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Neighborhood Watch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just Video (Score:5, Informative)
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 [brendangrant.com] 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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:two things (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:arm yourself, no more worries! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, according to my buddy in England who I just IMed he says that's not true. He says to my question "how hard is it to get a gun license", "not so hard as long as you are clean, paperwork mostly"
Further, I notice on the page you link that England has a high rate of muggings and such. The US is still spanks them at homicide.
And in Australia, where guns are also almost impossible to legally own, criminals that can't get guns have been resorting to swords (which some Aussies want banned now) or crossbows (as per the story about a man's life being saved by his cell phone).
I'll take my chances against someone with a sword versus someone surprising me with a pistol. In any case, it is also false that it is anything like virtually impossible to get a gun in
The rules there are that the prospective owner be over 18, complete a safety course and demonstrate himself to be "fit and proper". Fit an proper is defined as not mentally ill, not a recently released (i.e. ten years) felon and that he's able to properly secure his weapons.
As to a fight against an oppressive government
This is a red herring and I wish gun rights folks (as I myself am) would stop using it. There is no way a pistol is going to take back the country from armored humvees, balckhawk helicopters and laser guided munitions. It simply will not happen.
The second ammendment is designed to allow the states to form militias and that is still the only way that people would ever be able to beat the federal government. And if they do, it won't be with the junk they have laying in their basements (hopefully in a safe bolted to the floor).
Re:Now that the Assault Weapons Ban Has Expired... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Americans and their guns... (Score:5, 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
Re:Americans and their guns... (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 [huppi.com] and which are for the year 1991: (I cut the list by some countries in the midfield)
And now tell me again that having a gun in your flat is a good prevention. I guess I need to say that I am from Switzerland and have an automatic gun (SIG Stgw 90) at home (from the army), as every male citizen has, but you can`t get bullets for it (the ones you have are in a sealed package).
As for the question for security: I lock the door, that`s it, but I guess in the US that is unfortunately not enough.