So what's wrong with home security systems?

[Nine]

For all those people who believe a firearm is necessary for home defense, wouldn't some good locks and outdoor lighting and a home security system be a lot more effective? I know home security systems aren't cheap, but neither are firearms from what I understand. And no one was ever accidentally killed by one.

A gun isn't going to do you any good anyway if you're asleep when an intruder breaks in. It might not do much good if the intruder has a gun. It's unlikely to be of much help if it's locked safely away as it's supposed to be. It just seems like the conditions have to be so perfect for a firearm to do any good at all: you have to be awake and know an intruder is coming to "get you" and have time to get your gun and have enough time to ascertain that it is really is an intruder and not a family member, and then the intruder either has to be unarmed or you're going to have a firefight and hope that you are a better shot than this criminal.

[hollysmom]

1. I don't have either, just have a nice loud dog.

[Whisp]

40. you don't even need a dog

just put a large food bowl and a horkin big leash/chain by the back door

and learn how to bark

[hollysmom]

46. Ha Ha - Pfffft!

[MADem]

80. Or buy one of these beauties!!!!

http://www.casa.com/p/sti-ed-50-rex-plus-electronic-watchdog-barking-dog-alarm-232520?site=CA&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc_C&utm_term=HYV-403&utm_campaign=GoogleAW&CAWELAID=1309115935&utm_content=pla&adtype=pla&cagpspn=pla

Gift Wrap Not Available
Rex Plus is the electronic watchdog that never sleeps and the soothing sounds of the rainforest! Choose from four settings: continual tranquil sounds of the rainforest, alert sound of an angry and protective watchdog, soothing sounds to alert you of an unwanted guest's arrival, and alert sounds of both the angry watchdog and a warning siren. Rex Plus can see through thick doors, walls and glass.

I have no idea if the stupid thing works so this is not an endorsement! Seems a bit pricey to me, too!

The idea is certainly intriguing, though.

[Whisp]

84. yep. If you can't have a dog for whatever reason

the next best thing is to make someone think that you do.

I bet you can find some good sound files on the net of a frothing barking dog and hook that up to your speakers and cranker up when need be. Along with the dish and the leash/chain (and maybe some bones that look like human ones) an intruder is not going to consider whether this is real or not.

I still say practicing barking like a mad dog sounds funner. Made me think of a game we were playing years ago, it was a pantomine like game but you could make sounds - I forget. Anyway my husband got this 'mad dog' thing to sound out. Well, he did it so well it scared the living daylights out of everyone else around the table. It was awesome.

[Orrex]

48. I hope that your dog knows how to dial 911

Otherwise you and your dog are screwed if your house catches fire while you're at the grocery store.

[hollysmom]

53. Aww, thank you for worrying about the 15 year old puppy.

She is my little sweetie. But here's the thing. I live 2 doors ffrom the emergency squad, who all know and love the dog, a block from the police and fire department, who know and do not love my dog (they used to catch her when she ran away from home, Wily little creature, doesn't do that any more).

I have had all my wiring checked, don't leave the Christmas tree on or cooking when I am not home, only lights. the furnace has had it's annual inspection. Now in case a fire starts - this is an old house with petrified cedar beams and plaster walls and flame resistant rugs and furniture. I think she will be able to survive.

When lightning hit the house and flames shot out the sockets (which is why it has been fixed) nothing caught fire.
I think I am good.

[Orrex]

55. Well, everyone who lives two doors from the emergency squad is off the hook.

Everybody else? Not so much.

[hollysmom]

57. Hey, you choose where you live, I chose here.

It was nice when they agreed to not turn on their siren until they were a block away from here though.

[Orrex]

66. Check with your insurance company

You might get a break on your premiums if they can basically put out a fire at your house without even pulling their trucks out of the garage.

[hack89]

69. Dogs are easy to kill - it is not a foolproof solution. nt

[Dash87]

71. I doubt the average burglar is going to spend

time breaking your door down, killing your dog (making tons of noise in the process), and going after you. They want a quick entry and exit.

At the first bark they would be gone.

[hack89]

74. Depends how isolated your house is and how rational the criminal is

a professional burglar might act one way, that meth head another way completely. Why gamble. Layered defense is the answer with a gun as the tool of last resort.

And lets not forget that for many people dogs are not an option.

[Dash87]

77. True, but how often would those houses ever

get burglarized? If a house is in the middle of nowhere, I would imagine it would be much less likely to happen. That makes your house safer anyways.

They don't necessarily need a dog, I guess. Back to the point of the thread, a good burglar alarm would scare them off just the same.

As for irrational criminals, that's getting into more extreme, less likely examples. Every burglary on my street was just some heroin addict looking for quick cash, always when nobody was home. A burglar alarm would have worked in those situations.

[hack89]

79. There are enough stories of home owners using guns to defend themselves

to put lie to the notion that the threat of a violent confrontation is negligible. In some neighborhoods it can be pretty high.

[Orrex]

117. There are almost as many tales of successful home defense as accidental gun-related homicides

Well, not really. Accidental shootings are 4X more common.


But do carry on.

[hack89]

119. Do you have a cite for that?

as far as I know, defensive gun usages are not tracked by anyone - the big issue being most do not involved actually firing the gun. Perhaps you have some stats I was not aware of.

[Orrex]

120. Sorry--I seem to have conflated two different datapoints

I got this:

individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45

LINK

mixed up with this:

"Every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting."

LINK
That latter one is the subject of much discussion, but the ratio is generally considered to be numerically accurate.

[hack89]

121. The Kellerman study is somewhat controversial

The ratio was numerically accurate but, according to pro-gun groups, misleading because it compared harmful life-taking uses of guns not to life-saving defensive uses (the benefit corresponding to the harms of lives taken with firearms), but rather only to the tiny subset of defensive uses that involve killing a criminal assailant, i.e. justifiable homicides. The NRA and other pro-gun groups argued the ratio that seemed to imply a sort of cost-benefit ratio for gun ownership was actually nothing of the kind because, allegedly, it did not take account of any benefits that corresponded to its costs.

As I said, you don't have to shot someone to defend yourself with a gun

As for the Branas study, peer review shows some flaws in how the study was done:

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476

[RebelOne]

75. So do I.

Believe it or not, a Chihuahua that makes a ruckus if any stranger comes to the door. And if the intruder tries to shoot or kill her it would be a wild chase because she is so fast.

[hollysmom]

129. Sweet.

My baby is less than 50 pounds but sounds like a rottweiler. I have a mail slot in the front door, so when she hears noise near there, thinks it is the mail man coming to feed her again. After time The mailman learned she is just nuts not dangerous, but it also keeps workmen in line,. I never let them close enough to find out that she just wants to be petted, and they stay away from me. When you are an old woman alone, you can seem an easy target, but most people leave me alone after knocking on the door and hearing the dog and the workmen never want to come in. Except the furnace guy who I have had for years and the town water meter guy who is like 80 years old, probably the only job he has ever had, ha ha.

[markpkessinger]

139. Saw a PBS documentary on the evolution of dogs from wolves a while back...

...It pointed out that wolves do not have the sharp, loud bark of domestic dogs, but instead have a rather soft, muffled bark. It is believed wolves/dogs were specifically bred for their loud, sharp barks, because they were humankind's original home security system!

[Brickbat]

2. If it takes the cops 15 minutes to get to your house, a home security system isn't going to get them

there any quicker. A determined intruder who isn't scared of alarm noises and who knows how remote your house is might not be scared off by a home security system.

[99Forever]

6. Oh noes!

Wees must protect ourselves from the roving bands of determined intruders with our *the precious*.

[Mojorabbit]

127. That was not a mature helpful post. nt

[99Forever]

142. Ut oh...

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:39 AM - Edit history (1)

.. did I cause the ultimate solution to the gun violence issue to fall thru by not being "helpful and mature" on this internet forum?

I'm fucking crushed, I tell ya.

[Mojorabbit]

149. :) nt

[pscot]

11. And we all know the remote counryside

is besieged by roving bands of armed ruffians just looking for someplace to break into. How odd that the press refuses to cover the phenomenon.

[The Straight Story]

16. And we all know there are armed ruffians roaming about attacking schools

but obviously not homes.

My friend was robbed, tied up, shot in the head and his house burned down by 3 armed ruffians.

Maybe having nothing to defend yourself with makes you happy but please don't make choices for other people.

[Nine]

19. And a gun would have saved him but not a security system and good locks? (nt)

[pscot]

20. That must have made the news

I'd like to see a link.

[bongbong]

21. It's an "NRA Fact"

You know, made-up.

"It's not a lie if you believe your Precious is threatened" (to paraphrase George Costanza)

[hughee99]

34. Exactly, you'd think a story like that would be in the news...

Not sure about the posters friend,

but these 3 guys were picked up in October, and allegedly the homeowner got his hands on a gun to defend himself so you KNOW this one's fake.
http://www.abc27.com/story/19897899/3-charged-1-shot-in-home-invasion-robbery

but that guy wasn't shot in the head, maybe one of these

http://downeybeat.com/2012/01/downey-man-shot-in-head-during-home-invasion-robbery-41544/
http://peabody.patch.com/articles/peabody-man-pleads-not-guilty-in-home-invasion-murder
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/man-killed-during-home-invasion-robbery-on-clevelands-west-side-6-children-home-at-the-time
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-04/news/os-ocoee-home-invasion-911-call-20121004_1_home-invasion-incident-home-invasion-drugs-and-cash
http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/boston-north/2-arrested-in-fatal-Billerica-home-invasion/-/11984708/16759842/-/10u7p9sz/-/index.html?absolute=true

Ah, but no fire, so these can't be it...

Well these are just from the last year, so maybe this was something that happened a while ago. When I googled:

home invasion robbery "shot in the head" arson

I got 6,380,000 hits, so I guess it's possible that the person the poster is referring to wasn't on the first two or three pages of my search but it's surely more likely that it's made up.

[bongbong]

36. Wow!

Amazing he just didn't use one of your links to prove his point.

Maybe he was just calling the people named in the linx you provided "friends".

[The Straight Story]

78. Please see down below (nt)

[bongbong]

92. Oh yeah!

And post #86 "squared the circle" of your original post.

[Nine]

42. Let's analyze those.

The guy who defended his home with a gun pulled it out of his recliner. Is that an acceptable way to store a gun? How many children are killed every year from idiots keeping their guns in nonsecure locations like that?

Robbery seems to be the motive in every single one of these. And these are not upscale heists where they are targeting Mrs. Moneybags' emerald and ruby tiara. These robbers are trying to get money quickly and easily. No article mentions the home owner having a security system. The robbers generally had guns themselves and the element of surprise so even if the homeowners also had guns, could they really have "gotten the drop" on the robbers? And one of those stories is a duplicate, incidentally.

[hughee99]

64. Do you know how the gun got in his recliner?

Perhaps this guy was a little paranoid and put a gun in the side pocket of his recliner while he was watching TV? Maybe it's always stored there, maybe there's no kids in the house, the article doesn't really get into his normal weapon storage habits or who he allows access to his place. If the guy had instead pulled his gun out of a holster he was wearing, people would be calling him a nutcase for walking around his house with a gun in a holster.

As far as what the motivation for the crime goes, what does it matter if someone breaks into your home to rob you if they end up shooting you in the head? If you're alarm goes off and it takes the responders 15+ minutes to get there, it's little solace in knowing they arrived at the scene of the crime shortly after you got shot in the head.

In any case, a poster suggested that such a scenario occurred to a friend of theirs and other posters seemed to doubt the story asking for links to the story. I can't say that I found the right one, but I was able to easily find other incidents similar to the one described. I have no way of knowing who the posters friend was, when, where, or if it even happened to that persons friend, but I think I was able to sufficiently show that such incidents DO occur to people. Regardless of guns or alarms, it has been shown that people can break into your house and shoot you in the head.

Sorry for the duplicate link.

[Nine]

70. Because most robbers are going to go for "easy pickings"

They're going to go for the house that doesn't have good lighting, doesn't have strong locks, doesn't have a security system. I think the notion that home invaders are going to target a house and be determined to get inside no matter what deterrents are in place is a myth; this isn't Home Alone. And if any criminal is that determined to get inside one particular house and that skilled enough to bypass security systems and other measures, you're probably not going to thwart him with a gun.

In short, low-tech intruders might be stopped by a gun but could be better prevented from entering with simple security measures. High-tech intruders (which I think are pretty rare) are probably going to be well-armed and well-prepared themselves and are not going to be stopped by a mere homeowner with a gun.

[hughee99]

82. Houses in the middle of nowhere could be considered "easy pickings".

The lighting doesn't really matter all that much if no one is around.

Having a sticker in your window that suggests there's a security system might be more effective than the security system itself if it's going to take responders 20 minutes to get there.

I don't really disagree with your distinction between high and low tech criminals (I'd think high-tech criminals would tend to pick houses with more valuable items, perhaps try to find a place that's empty, and wear masks and gloves so shooting people in the head isn't necessary to cover their tracks). I would just say that for the most part, a security system's value is going to be in deterring criminals in the first place (a well placed sign) or alerting you to their presence (if they didn't see or don't care about the sign). If you are stuck in the same room as the criminals, or without a route of escape, the security system is essentially useless.

[spinbaby]

152. My father in-law keeps a gun in his recliner

My father in-law is in his high 80s, pretty feeble, and convinced that the "punks" in the neighborhood want to break in and steal his state quarters collection. Still, better to have the gun in the recliner than to keep a revolver stuck in his pants the way his father did--he shot the refrigerator once by mistake, convinced it was an intruder. Did I mention he drank heavily? Shot himself out on the farm eventually and we were never sure if it was suicide.

[friendly_iconoclast]

136. He provided links to prove it. Guess *he's* not the one that's full of shit...

[The Straight Story]

72. Gladly

Oh, and search the archives here for his name I posted about when I learned of it:

http://alt.obituaries.narkive.com/6vtFw0LP/james-rowles-radio-engineer-friend

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss//duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2395412

Link to news article here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2397159

[pscot]

86. Look, I don't deny it happens

But you have one incident, 8 years ago. I did some looking too and it's surprising how few of these there are. Nobody keeps track in rural areas, and cops generally don't see it as a special case. That tells you something right there. These guys did an 18 month study in three big towns. They looked at all gun deaths. Check it out.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

[The Straight Story]

102. Here the thing

Obviously a few people here thought I made it all up. I chose The Straight Story as my name for two reasons. One is I love the movie, one of the really interesting ones from David Lynch.

Other reason is I am open about myself, my life, and I don't need to make up things (I have lived a pretty crazy life).

Educating the public, especially in school, would be a plus. My dad used to have archery and gun club at school. They took their own guns, arrows, etc to school.

Everyone back in Byesville, Ohio (where my parents mostly grew up) had guns, kept rabbits, chickens, etc and so on. My grandfather was mayor and police chief of the town - in a quaint little police dept like you might see in twilight zone episodes - big desk with two round lights on it.

Gun crimes were not a problem. Domestic disputes, drinking, speeding, running stop signs (Grandpa gave mom, his own daughter, a ticket for running a stop sign once. That had to be an interesting dinner conversation that night).

Pretty much everyone had some form of gun or other at home and were educated about it's use and dangers because they were such a part of life.

As more people moved to cities less people needed them in daily life. Folks out in the sticks use and respect them.

People have changed, education has changed. Guns are not the problem, people are. And those issues are harder to correct. Trying to ban guns isn't going to fix it.

[pscot]

106. Well, that's where we fall out

You say we want to ban guns, and that is just not true. I don't see how anyone can sit there with a straight face and pretend we don't have a gun problem in this country and thet something needs to be done about it. And it's going to get done. This shit is just completely ou of hand. Three home invasions in 8 years doesn't justify turning the country into an armed camp.

[The Straight Story]

126. Um, SOME are calling for a ban on guns

You want intelligent discussion on this topic? I am all for it.

Sensible regulation? You have my attention.

But there are some here calling for an outright ban. If you are against such I hope you are letting them know as I am.

But when I do I get called a 'gun nut' or worse, in this case, a liar.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. All that is, is just an abstract of the study.

Unless I can see the study itself, I don't pay much attention to them. Some of them have been extremely biased. So far I have not found on that distinguishes between criminals and law-abiding gun owners. Most of them make the "amazing" discovery that living with a violent criminal is dangerous.

[pscot]

145. There are none so blind

as they that will not see. But you'll embrace without question any bogus statistics put out by the gun makers; any alarmist rumors or frightening anecdotes flogged by the pro-gun media. A law abiding gun owner transitions to criminal the minute he or she picks up a gun with intent to harm another law abiding citizen, whether it's a spouse, a cop, a motorist or some kids on a playground. The transition from law adiding gun owner to criminal is instantaneous and completely unpredictable, and that right there is the problem Acting out with a gun is just too damned easy because why? Because there are too many guns. Keep your shotguns. Keep your 30 06 or your .270 or your 30 30. Nobody wants your deer rifle. But the murder guns have to go.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. And you refuse to see.

Criminology is a long established and well studied field, yet the finding are relatively unknown outside that field. One of those is the myth of the law-abiding person suddenly snapping. It does happen, but with extreme rarity. Murder, as a first violent offense is almost, but not quite, unknown. In almost all murders, the killer has previous violent offenses.

Further, there are solid statistics that are kept on the matter. The State of Texas tracks their concealed handgun liscense holders and publishes, online, and annual report of convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

For the year of 2011 we had 525K+ CHL holders and only 6 of them were convicted of either manslaugher or murder. That gives a rate of about 1.2 per 100K, compared to the state rate of about 5 per 100,000.

Here is a chart of our CHL conviction versus the general population.
[IMG][/IMG]

Those are government statistics, not NRA stats. There is no reason to believe that people in other states are marked different.

The best predictor of future performance is past performance. People who have lived a law-abiding life very rarely flip to the dark side.

[pscot]

150. More gun deaths in the U.S last year than the total

number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sorry you can't see it, but 75% of the country understands what's going on. No amount of statistical obfuscation can obscure the fact that the country is awash in innocent blood because of the success of the gun lobby. Every attempt at reasonable controls has been thwarted by the gun makers and you all have finally precipitated a crises. People are sick of the slaughter and the transparent mendacity of the death merchants.

[GreenStormCloud]

153. You refuse to separate the criminals from the law-abiding.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2011 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2011 there were 512,625 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there were exactly three (3) murder convictions and three (3) manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 578 convictions for murder in its various forms.

So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:

Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2010, there were 98 justifiable homicides, of
which, 50 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 48 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 50 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely and legitimately feared for his life. Since most shootings are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus six innocents killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[juajen]

99. I almost posted to defend your honor.

Then, I supposed that you would take care of it. I was right. Regards, SS!

[onpatrol98]

137. What???

The guy says his friend died a horrible death...and you want him to prove it with a link.



Isn't that a bit crude?

[Brickbat]

17. Why would you say that?

"Roving bands"? I have had a couple of incidents in the years I've lived here in the woods that illustrate my potential vulnerability, but they were single men.

[GeorgeGist]

12. You're determined.

[Brickbat]

18. To do what?

The OP asked a question, I gave an answer that I have heard.

[Walk away]

3. Talking sense to "Gun Collectors" again?

Haven't you learned anything this month?

You are talking to a group of people who just want their guns. They are only going to parrot back a bunch of slanted, cherry picked and loaded "facts & polls" that are generously supplied by the NRA (who spent multi-millions of dollars) on thousands of pro-gun web sites and blogs.

The big news is that the Democratic party is probably going to finally take a stand for stricter gun laws. Where does that leave the Guneons???

[regjoe]

33. Voting for Republicans, again.

[AndyA]

39. If guns are the most important thing in the world to these people who will vote GOP

if the Democrats finally address the gun culture in this country, that doesn't say much for them.

There are many, many, many other issues of importance where their foolish decision will impact them and their families for many years to come. Being willing to sacrifice all else for a gun says quite a bit, and illustrates why America's policies on gun ownership must be changed.

[regjoe]

54. Alot of Dems understand their 2nd Amendment right and wish to keep it

Your personal opinion of what you think is more important, is irrelevant. They are going to vote based on what theyknow is important to them.
People do it every election with abortion, taxes, gay rights, social programs etc...

[Walk away]

58. Right. They are now republicans. (If they ever did vote for Democrats) nt

[regjoe]

62. But of course they are

Just tons of pro abortion, pro high taxes, pro gay rights, pro universal healthcare Republicans out there, isn't there.

Take a peek outside your box sometime. There's a huge world out here.

[Puzzledtraveller]

103. I think you will find yourself in the minority among democrats if you are against the 2nd.

[AndyA]

68. More NRA talking points.

The majority of Americans aren't as fixated on gun ownership as you and the NRA think they are. With every mass shooting, more and more want to see something done. The tide is changing.

[regjoe]

87. Of course

EVERYTHING that doesn't fall in line with your opinion has to be a "talking point."
Sigh.

Of course most people want something done to curb gun violence, finding support for that isn't tough at all. The tough part is defining what that 'something' is, and you are in for a big suprise is you think the unrealistic paranoid rhetoric is the 'something' people are wanting.

[AndyA]

94. You just keep on believing that.

That something you referred to is fewer guns in the hands of people. We've tried more guns, it doesn't work. It's unrealistic to just expect American citizens to trust those with guns. Even the NRA doesn't trust gun owners, that's why they swept the room before their press conference.

[regjoe]

98. As I am surrounded by fellow Dems who are armed, I will

But you go ahead and keep believing all Dems are for the paranoid solutions being spread around.

[AndyA]

100. And you go ahead and keep putting thoughts in my posts that aren't there.

There isn't anything irrational about the fear of guns, not after all the mass shootings we've had. What's irrational is for people to expect more of the same. More guns, go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background check, buy all the ammo you want...not going to happen.

Things change, and the views on gun ownership in this country are changing. Another shooting in a school today. How many more do you think people are going to tolerate?

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[regjoe]

144. The fear is very irrational

I understand how guns can be 'scary' to those who know nothing about them. And I respect that those people want nothing to do with guns. But what I don't understand or respect is all of this attempted dehumanizing of ALL gun owners in order to calm unfounded paranoia based on that fear, instead of the facts.
Getting strict legislation to try and prevent something that might happen in the future, is hard. Basing that legislation on the false premise that all gun owners are guilty until proven innocent, makes it harder. Justifying that legislation on something that statistically rarely happens, makes it even harder. Infringing on an individual right, whether you agree it's a right or not, makes it confrontational.

There are thousands of gun control laws already on the books and they have not prevented mass shootings. Adding thousands more will do nothing to prevent them, which is why there is only one solution that the anti 2nd Amendment people have left: amending or repealing the 2nd Amendment with the required 2/3 majority.
Doing this guarantees the support of the people and nullifies the Constitutional right argument.

[AndyA]

146. I know all I need to know about guns.

I know that guns were designed to serve one purpose: to kill. At the age of 17, my Mother was shot dead in our home, in the face, at close range by a man who had all the legal permits to have a gun. My life changed forever that night.

My fear is based on first hand experience and is not irrational.

There are too many guns in too many hands. The solution is not more guns, it's fewer guns, stricter laws and more severe punishment for those who have them illegally. Even the NRA doesn't allow guns in their building. Why is that? That goes against everything they have said. Apparently, it's not safe to have guns in their building, so why should the rest of society tolerate them in restaurants, movie theaters, grocery stores, bars, etc.?

The Second Amendment says "well regulated" and it's not well regulated when a person can buy a gun at a gun show or from a private citizen, with no background check. It's not well regulated when military style weapons are in the hands of private citizens, that's irrational and irresponsible. It's not well regulated when gun owners aren't required to go through training on the safe handling of guns, and that training should be continuing, a requirement to maintain legal ownership of a gun.

There is a problem in this country with guns. Doing nothing is not the solution, so the gun owners who truly are responsible will have to accept that there are going to be changes going forward. It's a public safety issue. Seat belts are required in cars today, and most states require them to be used. Not everyone uses them, but most do. That's an example of legislation to try to prevent something that might happen in the future. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but it is the law.

The Second Amendment allows for regulation, and that isn't happening. Given the choice of the right to life and the right to bear arms, life is the one that must be protected. Public opinion on gun ownership is changing, the NRA is being exposed for the organization they are, and that is one that serves the private for profit gun manufacturing industry, nothing else. Their goal is to sell more guns, and that is quite obviously not a solution.

The true irrationality here is the belief that one is not safe without a gun. In many instances, the belief that there's a need for multiple guns with the ability to shoot non-stop rounds until everyone within range is dead. The gun control laws on the books don't work, and have been compromised through efforts of the gun lobby for years.

Change is coming, like it or not. Support for the NRA is dropping. One person's rights cannot trample the rights of another. Attitudes are changing, and with every mass shooting they will continue to change. The faces on the Supreme Court will also change, and with them so will the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[regjoe]

151. I also have experienced deaths by gun

my father being one of them.

Despite all the rhetoric about the evil NRA boogeyman, most gun owners are not NRA members, nor do we keep track of them. Any questions about the NRA and its positions should be taken up with them.

Again, you have your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, I have mine, the Supreme Court has theirs and the founders had theirs. Yours and mine don't mean jack squat unless 2/3 of the country agrees and we change it. Therefore, we must go by the founders statements and the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Very few gun owners are saying that doing nothing is the solution, you just reject their ideas because they do not fit your idea of what needs to be done.
YES! Changes are coming and gun owners will have to decide whether to fall in line and take it, or VOTE to prevent the changes they do not agree with. This is why I believe we should be smart in how we handle this.

Not wearing seatbelts is not a right enshrined in the US Constitution, so the comparison fails. Even still though, despite wearing them being a law and is agressively enforced, people still disobey the law and not wear them.

There are thousands of gun control regulations already enacted, so your claim that it "isn't happening" also fails. And while every gun is dangerous, not every gun is a danger. You just preceive them to be despite the fact that the vast majority of gun owners have NEVER used them in a crime or even thought about using them in a crime.

Safe or not safe with a gun can only be determined by the individual themself. You don't have a clue if I would be safer without one and I have no clue if you are safer with one.

I am well aware that change is coming, no argument about that. The question is what that change will be, how it will effect the country and how it will effect our party.
Loss of support for the NRA and its 4 million members doesn't mean anything. What DOES mean alot though, is how the other 76 million gun owners decide to vote, and IMHO, if we get the draconian changes some are calling for, they will not vote how you want them to.

[bongbong]

90. ????

The 2nd Amendment is about state militias, not about laissez-faire gun ownership.

You'd think the Delicate Flowers would know more about their Precious than they actually do.

[regjoe]

96. Your opinion of what you think the 2nd Amendment means is pointless

as is your paranoid tough guy labeling of those who don't fear guns as you do.

In this back and forth going on, we are talking about our fellow Dems. Losing their votes is not a good thing.

[bongbong]

155. Let me know when you get your pizza

[Tikki]

4. We have one on both properties...and night sensor flood lights...

also strong screen doors...not barred doors, though. We, also, keep a light on near the front room of the house.

All of this system is inexpensive. We did this long ago and feel very safe.
Plus, if someone does enter the property..and even if they don't cause harm, we have their face
and, often, car description on film.

Of course, the flood lighting took a bit of tweaking so not to bother our uphill neighbor, but it works great
and most night-time visitors turn out to be opossums, raccoons or cats.





The Tikkis

[L0oniX]

5. We have an ADT security system and guns ...by request of my wife ...who keeps track ...

of all the many sex crime offenders in our neighbourhood. I am amazed at how many x offenders live close by as well as other types of convicts ...battery, assault, robbery ...even murderers on parole. What's really stupid is that there is an elementary school just a few blocks away. Good systems are expensive ...over $1k and up ...addons like wireless communication, glass breakage, CO detection, ect.

[billh58]

7. But, but

it's so much more satisfying and right-wing to kill an intruder than it is to actually catch him (or her) or scare them off. Plus, you get to put a notch on your gun.

[HereSince1628]

8. Nothing that isn't fixed by the addition of claymore mines to the lot's boundaries

[quinnox]

9. a dog is also a cheap way

To gain some security. I have always thought the bedroom should have a heavy security door with heavy duty locks, and any windows should have reinforced shatter proof glass. The bedroom door should always be locked upon going to bed. So with these precautions an intruder in the house would have another layer of security to get through before you were in danger. Meanwhile, presumably you will have woken up from hearing the intruder or intruders rummaging around in the house. You won't panic, because you know you are not in immediate danger due to the extra security precautions around your bedroom. You calmly pick up the cell phone that you always keep charged by your bedside and call 911 to tell them there are intruders in your house and the police are on their way. I would invest money into this rather than the false sense of security you get from having a gun.

Of course most people are lax in real life about stuff like this, and if they even remember to lock the front door they will leave a convenient window either open or unlocked for anyone to sneak in during the middle of the night, and leave their bedroom door wide open.

[jeff47]

49. Problem: Fires happen

All that extra security is a big problem if the house catches on fire while you're asleep.

A far better system is to realize just how much crime there isn't in your community, and stop panicing over the dream of roving bands of thieves descending on your property.

[ileus]

10. That's your first layer, the firearm is your last layer of defense.

[Walk away]

29. It must be tough living in Somalia! nt

[FarCenter]

13. More neighborhood defense is also needed.

Note that those who can afford it live in gated compounds and buildings with doormen to ensure that only persons with a legitimate purpose can gain entry.

Every neighborhood needs fences, card operated gated, surveillance cameras, etc. The technology is available to make security available at an affordable price for most people.

[1-Old-Man]

14. They are utterly worthless in rural areas

[rustydog]

15. Yappy barking dogs, home security system, lighting, video surveillance

panic alarm w/security system. Why not purchase kevlar for the whole family? can't accidentally kill a loved one at 2am with a kevlar vest.

[geomon666]

22. If we're going to allow self defense as an excuse to own weapons.

Then I demand the right to build sentry robots around the outside of my house. And if you enter my yard without the password, get ready to receive a new asshole.

[Berserker]

25. Your going

to ALLOW self defense to people? How wonderful of you. And here I was under the assumption it was a god given right to defend my life and the lives of my family.

[geomon666]

28. Thanks, I'm a wonderful guy.

You should never make assumptions either.

[sarisataka]

52. Not so far fetched

England, for example, outlaws self defense for all practical purposes. I read an article while waiting for the Dr that residents in a London neighborhood had to remove chicken wire from their shed windows. They put it up due to a series of robberies of sheds. Reason police made them take it down- it was a hazard to the thieves conducting the break ins. The owners would be held criminally and civilly liable for any injuries the thieves sustained.

[bongbong]

93. Link?

Got a link to that London story?

[sarisataka]

118. Sorry

it was either Time or Newsweek, several months ago. If I can locate the full story I'll post it.

[sarisataka]

124. Eureka

Not the same article I read but essentially the same

Don’t put wire on your windows – it might hurt burglars! Villagers outraged after police order them not to protect garden sheds

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html#ixzz2Hd1d45Wb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Gardener must remove barbed wire

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/7663622.stm

[bongbong]

154. LOL

The Mail is the equivalent of Fox "news". If you read the whole story, and not just the headline, you find the reasons the cops gave, and that it was nowhere as hair-raising as you made it out to be. In fact, the headline in the first link is about 95% a downright lie. Here is what the cop said:

"We are advising people to do whatever they can to protect their property, but wire mesh is not one of the suggestions we would make.'

Lo-information people get outraged easily.

What a laugh. Lies and mis-truths.

[hughee99]

35. I'm pretty sure you already have that right, but do you have the technology?

I don't know that there's any specific restrictions on building sentry robots.

[jeff47]

50. Actually, you don't have that right

Can't use autonomous systems to attack people.

[Walk away]

59. Some people would pay to visit your house!

You could attract some interesting new friends.

[Arkansas Granny]

23. Another point about home security systems.

They are there to protect your property even when you are away. I gun requires your presence in order to be effective.

[Berserker]

26. Wait...WHAT

Do you mean a person has to do the act of pulling the trigger? Well from what I read guns are at fault not the human.

[Arkansas Granny]

38. What a clever way you have of ignoring the obvious point that I was making.

[meaculpa2011]

31. When we're not home I don't care...

who comes in and carts things off.

Things can be replaced. I reserve the right to protect our lives.

Years ago we lived in a second floor apartment with a porch roof outside our living room window. While watching TV an intruder climbed the porch and tried to pry open the window. My wife and kids ran to back of the apartment. My neighbor, who was watching TV with us, told me to get out, drew his gun and identified himself as a police officer. By the time he said "I have a gun" the intruder broke the window and fell into my living room. He was armed with a small handgun and was very lucky that my neighbor subdued him without firing a shot. This was at the height of the crack epidemic. No amount of security lights or sirens was keeping this guy out.

[Nine]

32. That's an unbelievable anecdote. Really. (nt)

[Common Sense Party]

60. Are you calling the poster a liar? Then do so.

Don't obfuscate.

[Orrex]

65. He's not calling the poster a liar; he's saying that the anecdote is unbelievable

And FWIW he's right.

In the absence of corroboration, the tale as told exceeds credibility. That doesn't mean that the poster is a liar; he might truly believe that events unfolded as described, or he might remember them incorrectly.

[Common Sense Party]

67. What aspects of the tale--as told--exceed credibility?

Why are you so certain that it could not have happened as described?

[Nine]

73. let's see...

Break-in while the homeowners are present and awake, cop-neighbor conveniently in the room, a break-in that is not instantaneous but gives the cop-neighbor time to draw a weapon and issue a verbal warning to the intruder and gives the women and children time to leave the room, an intruder that does not retreat instantly at the brandishing of weapon but continues trying to break the window, the intruder falling into the room Inspector Clouseau-style after breaking the window, and then being subdued easily and nonviolently by the cop even though the intruder was probably out of his mind on crack because this was during the crack epidemic. Did I miss anything?

eta - I also find it hard to believe any homeowner wouldn't care about his home being broken into as long as he wasn't home at the time. If nothing else, an intruder could break in and lie in wait for the return of the homeowners.

[Common Sense Party]

91. So, do you think the poster is lying?

[Orrex]

105. Do you think that he thinks that the poster is lying?

Why obfuscate? Why not come out in full support of this incredible tale?

[Common Sense Party]

109. So you are calling the poster a liar, I guess.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Orrex]

112. No, I'm saying that the tale as told is unbelievable

If you think that means he's a liar, then feel free to say it outright.


Incidentally, why are you willing to give him the benefit of the doubt? What is it about his fantastical tale that strikes you as so readily believable?

[Orrex]

76. Just about all of it. Why?

Home invasions are uncommon in any case, and home invasions in which the criminal climbs onto a porch roof in order to pry open a window while people are visible inside are extraordinarily rare, to the point of being unbelievable, even during the height of the crack epidemic.

The claim that the neighbor impersonated a police officer strikes me as hard to believe. Perhaps he truly is a police officer, but that's not the story as told.

Also difficult to believe is the claim that the alleged intruder broke the window and fell through into the living room after the neighbor impersonated a police officer with gun drawn. Was the alleged intruder injured by the broken glass, by the way?

The claim that "no amount of security lights or sirens was keeping this guy out" is hard to believe, since the alleged intruder was so easily subdued after all.

In short, the story as told exceeds credibility. Put simply, it doesn't pass the smell test, and because its tone matches the tone of any number of other pro-gun anecotes, the teller of such a tale should understand that the tale is not likely to be believed in the absence of corroboration.

It may have happened subtantially as told, but I find it hard to believe as told.

[meaculpa2011]

81. He's so certain because he knows everything.

Even what happened to me, my family and my neighbor (NYPD, now retired) in Woodhaven, Queens more than 20 years ago. I would dig up the police report if I thought it would do any good, but I'm certain that a person of such clearly superior intellect would see right through it.

For the record, I do not own a handgun. Never have, never will. I do have several shotguns that I use for duck hunting. They're unloaded and locked away. I was simply responding to the comment about security systems protecting your home when it is unoccupied. And I genuinely DO NOT care about a break-in when no one is home.

[Orrex]

104. I never claimed to know everything, but I can spot a fishy-sounding story a mile away

Already the story is changing.

In the original telling, you didn't say he was a cop--you said that he identified himself as a cop. Not the same thing, and without that detail the story's credibility was diminished. Since you reveal that essential detail only now, after you're questioned about the truth of the tale, you're changing the story.

The rest of the tale seems hyperbolic and contrived, even after you changed that one detail.


Sorry if your life is so fantastical that it's hard for a mere mortal to believe at face value. Some of us have heard so much bullshit about guns that we're inclined to be skeptical when we hear larger-than-life stories like yours.

[Common Sense Party]

110. Why would the phrase "he identified himself as a cop" make you think he was

IMITATING a cop? Perhaps you're being willfully obtuse.

[Orrex]

115. Nope. You're failing to read what's written.

That, or the tale-teller, in spite of the flamboyance of his tale, is a poor narrator.

If he were trying to tell a believable tale, he should have mentioned outright that the neighbor was a cop, instead of either carelessly omitting that detail from the original telling or withholding it for the sake of a gotcha! moment when called on it.

And I didn't suggest that he was imitating a cop; I took issue with the claim that the neighbor impersonated a cop.


Perhaps you're being too credulous.

[meaculpa2011]

114. He identified himself as a cop means...

he identified himself as a cop. Sorry if you don't understand plain English.

No actually, not sorry. I've been dealing with know-it-all blowhards since Truman was president.

Perhaps in your sheltered enclave (or your mother's basement) you've never encountered anyone more dangerous than a pizza delivery man, but...

As I said, never owned a handgun, never will.

[Orrex]

116. For a guy who allegedly survived a home invasion, you're pretty fragile

He identified himself as a cop means he identified himself as a cop. Sorry if you don't understand plain English.

Very plain. I know what it means, but it appears that you don't. Identifying oneself as a cop, even while carrying a gun, doesn't make that person a cop.

No actually, not sorry. I've been dealing with know-it-all blowhards since Truman was president.

Well, I'm not as old and cranky as you are, but I've been spotting bullshit stories from miles away for decades. Sorry if your fantastical tale sends up all the warning flags.


No actually, not sorry.

[meaculpa2011]

122. Warning flags for a...

brain-damaged shut in.

Should I have included Dave's badge number in the posting.

Fantasical? It happened. I reminded my wife at and two kids at dinner this evening and they recalled the story exactly as described.

BTW: My son was five at the time and my daughter was three. Even then they had more sense than you.

Get out of the basement once in awhile.

Better yet, stay there. Better for the world if dim-witted keyboard jockeys remain underground.

[Orrex]

123. Well, I don't believe you or your wife or your either of your darling children

Tell you what--since you made the offer, go ahead and show us the police report, and I will happily recant all of my objections.

Short of that, your fantastical tale has much more in common with straight-up bullshit that with demonstrable fact. I'm not calling you a liar, of course, because that wouldn't be as civil as calling someone dim-witted.

And since you've made up an entire nonsensical narrative about me, it's clear that you'd have no trouble making up a fantastical tale about the clumsy burglar who immediately surrendered.

[meaculpa2011]

125. My darling children are now adults...

living on their own.

Thankfully, nether one has time to post to a message board two hundred times each day from a musty cellar.

And just for you, I'll rummage through my hurricane-soaked documents searching for a decades-old piece of paper to demonstrate my veracity to a vacuous windbag.

Put your hands in boiling water and wait.

[Orrex]

130. Do your adult darling children know that you're such a hot-head?

I look forward to recanting my disbelief of your fantastical tale as soon as you can track down that police report.

Until then, I certainly won't call you a liar, because that would be impolite, but I would love to know if you readily accept fantastical tales as truth simply on the basis of the narrator's say-so? Interesting.

[onpatrol98]

140. Mea...you got pulled into a wacky exchange...

There was something not quite "right" about that exchange. This reminds me of why I "lurk" on DU. It's much safer.

[meaculpa2011]

141. Agreed. NT

[Orrex]

143. I sensed it too! That story was unbelievable from the outset!

Glad I'm not the only one who found it wacky.

What puzzles me is that DUers call BS on hard-to-believe stories all the time. Why should this particular fantastical tale get a pass? Because the tale-teller says it's true? How is that different from every other teller of fantastical tales who swears they're true?

When reading a tale that seems unbelievable as told, it's entirely reasonable to demand more than the narrator's assurance.

If I told you a tale that struck you as inconsistent with reality, would you believe it simply some anonymous guy on a message board told you that it's true? If you're an adult, I hope that you would demand more.

[CBGLuthier]

83. That is one damned agile burglar, was it one of those portable televisions he was watching?

Now if I was gonna rob someone I would leave the TV at home.

[Orrex]

108. Maybe he wanted to see himself on tv

Heck, maybe if I saw it unfold on tv I'd find it easier to believe as told.


Nah.

[bongbong]

95. Nice story!

Another example of an "NRA Fact", AKA "It's not a lie if you believe you're about to lose your Precious" (paraphrasing George Costanza)

[onpatrol98]

138. I believe your story.

My aunt came home early for lunch and surprised a burglar. Luckily, he climbed back out of the window he had climbed into. She never felt safe there after that though. A friend of my coworkers daughter had a guy break in while the daughter was in the house. He didn't realize she was there. But, it startled him and he ran. (same town)

A cousin in Chicago had a burglar attempting to come in a window, but a neighbor saw him climbing in the window and called the police. Then the guy tried to pretend he was a friend. But, he couldn't convince the police that he had a good reason for climbing in through the window. My cousin was upstairs and didn't realize he was coming in a window on the first floor.

Only the guy in Chicago was caught. I understand crime happens. I would still like to see solutions that can prevent what happened at Sandy Hook and that theater. I think I like the idea of a security guard. They're everywhere else. High schools in my areas have Dare officers. In the morning and afternoons, officers direct traffic. Why not secure a school at least as well as the local mall? Sometimes, just the presence of an officer can be a deterrent. A man or woman who can identify questionable behavior, assist in coordinating safe zones, and policies. I can't think of any solution I've heard yet that would have made as much a difference as that would have made. And, better policies about who just waltzes into a school.

I'm not a gun person. But, it's ludicrous to pretend as if crime doesn't exist or that it isn't reasonable for a gun owner to feel a need to protect themselves. Just because I haven't been robbed or I don't feel the need to protect myself with a gun.

My solution is a security system and a dog... and try to keep the area well lit. But, I really don't have a problem with law abiding citizens having fire arms.

[bongbong]

24. There are actually other reasons to have a gun

Delicate Flowers want guns not just the false security that having a Precious in the house brings. Other reasons:

1) Being acclaimed as a Mighty Warrior after you bring down a "bad guy" (term trademarked by the NRA) with your weapon. You get a Rambo Pin from the NRA if you're successful, too.

2) Using your gun to bring down the gov't if it decides to abrogate the Constitution (so many levels of mega-fail with this one that I'll just leave the thought intact as it appears in the heads of our friends the Delicate Flowers)

[JustAnotherGen]

51. n/s

[Jennicut]

27. If the Petit family had one they might still be alive.

I grew up in Cheshire, CT where that terrible home invasion happened a few years ago. Mrs. Petit and her daughters were killed by two ex cons. Mr. Petit was beatenby a bat but managed to escape. He couldn't call the police until he escaped to a neighbor's house. A home security system can be a good thing to have. Of course, it depends if it I set off to begin with.

[Nine]

37. Did the Petits have a home security system and a good lock?

Mr. Petit was sleeping outside on the porch when he was attacked so I don't see how a gun could have helped him. Nor a security system for that matter.

It's funny. To hear the anecdotes on DU - or any message board, really - you'd think this sort of home invasion happens on a regular basis. And yet when people are drawing on actual documented incidents, there seem to be only a handful of those. This incident was from 6 years ago.

[Jennicut]

44. Home invasions are still very rare.

Thankfully. You are correct that a gun would have helped Mr. Petit because of his being asleep.
This incident hits home for me mostly because I know the neighborhood where it happened. I used to play in that area as a kid, having friends there from school.

[JI7]

97. didn't the killers follow the mother and daughters home

they saw them in some store or the parking lot or somewhere and they followed them there.

it's one of the saddest things i read ,especially when you see the video of the mother at the bank .

[Jennicut]

111. Yes. They saw them at the local Stop and Shop.

They thought Mrs. Petit might be wealthy judging from her car. It is terribly sad. My parents still live down the street. Mr. Petit has gotten be remarried and hopefully has found happiness again.

[randome]

30. The more home security systems there are, the more often they will malfunction.

In heavier populated areas, eventually the police will start to assume another malfunction and take their sweet time responding. Which in some areas they already do but still...

[Squinch]

89. But guns never malfunction, right?

[randome]

113. Guns malfunction all the time.

With stupid people at the controls. I am not in favor of more guns, though. I want more -and real- firearms regulations.

[Lurks Often]

41. I worked for an alarm company that handled both home & commercial security

and from the time we received an alarm, called the police dispatcher and they got an officer out there, would run 5-10 minutes. That's IF the PD responded promptly.

Course if a major storm came through, we could chart the path by which state the burglary alarms were coming in. Worked a major storm night one night, we were 10-12 HOURS behind on burglary alarms. You could hear the dispatchers almost laughing at us if we tried to call in a burglary alarm. Ended up clearing them out without calling and tried to get the panic/hold up alarms and fire alarms out in a timely manner, but even that was held up by in the inability to get through to the police.

[-..__...]

43. Nothing, per-say...

a home security system could be helpful for protecting my guns from theft when I'm not at home.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. They're expensive to buy, more expensive to keep, and they don't work. n/t

[Orrex]

47. You're exactly right except on three of those points

The cost of installation and equipment is typically waived as part of the service contract, and the cost of maintaining the service for the full term of the agreement is likely less than the cost of a few firearms.

And what do you mean "they don't work?" They certainly do.

[Egalitarian Thug]

128. What, do you sell them? Out here where I live, not one thing you said is true.

The equipment is expensive and only partially subsidized by locking the home owner into a multi-year contract or you can agree to perpetually lease the equipment from them. The monitoring fee is in the $30 - $50 per month range (unless you want the really good service, then that approaches $100). The calls from these services are at the bottom of the priority list for the local PD because of the constant deluge of false alarms. And finally, any of the people that actually make their living robbing homes can get by these mickey mouse pacifiers in a couple of minutes.

This is just another useless product/scam marketed to the sheeple that fear everything and everyone and will gladly pay any price for an illusion of safety.

[Orrex]

131. Do a little market research.

ADT will install a system for free in exchange for a service agreement, and they're just one of dozens of companies who offer the same. And no I don't sell them, but it's easy enough to obtain information about them.

At a rate of $40 per month for five years, you're looking at $2400, less than the cost of two Desert Eagles. Also, you'll get a break on your homeowner's insurance, and you don't have to buy ammunition. Heck, the chances of your kid accidentally shooting himself with your glass break sensor is a lot lower, too.

If it makes you feel better to spend your time oiling your long, hard, smooth barrel, then by all means tell yourself that a big bad gun is the best tool for home security.

[Egalitarian Thug]

132. In typical DU fashion, you've completely missed your mark.

I'm one of the crazy dreamers on the other side. I've had more that enough real life, first person experience with firearms, what they are for and the consequences of their intended function to know exactly what any sane person would wish for.

Of course, you're the sucker that believes you would have to pay that much for a pair of Desert Eagles and. if you were on the other side, would probably feel the need for them. Your replies clearly indicate that you have no idea about real life, about how infinitesimal the odds are of any individual being in any of these absurd scenarios created by the zealots on both sides of this issue, and are exactly the kind of person that would end up on the wrong side of the butcher's bill in the highly unlikely event that fate should visit you.

You can pretend to know what you're talking about all day long and make up any bullshit you like, but none of it alters reality one tiny whit. Home alarm systems are useless. If you're targeted by serious thieves, you will be robbed. And even if you had an arsenal at hand, you couldn't stop real villains from doing whatever they wanted to do to you or yours any time they wanted to.

[Orrex]

135. In similarly typical fashion, you've completely missed the point

The Desert Eagle was one example to show how two high-price firearms can indeed cost more than five years' worth of alarm service. No shit you can get them for less. You can also get perfectly serviceable alarm coverage for $9.99 per month. What's your point, if indeed you have one?

If you feel that you need to buy more and more and more guns, then perhaps to give you the sense of security that you really need, then I won't stop you. Unless you're mentally ill or a felon, but I'll reserve judgment on those two possibilities.

If you're targeted by serious thieves, you will be robbed.

Incidentally, if you're targeted by serious home invaders, then they'll kill you in spite of your beloved guns. And anyway, your beloved guns are more likely to shoot you or a beloved human than to shoot an intruder, and a hell of a lot more likely to shoot a loved one than your smoke detector is.

Speaking of which, can your beloved guns call for help when your house catches fire? I'm sure that it would never happen to you, of course, because it never happens to people who believe it can't happen to them, but what if?

[hunter]

56. I'm rather fond of poisonous gas myself, "kill'm like cockroaches!" I'd say, but that's illegal.

Same with k-ray blasters. You don't know what a k-ray blaster is? Lucky you. Trust me, you'd rather be hit by a bullet.

Keeping guns for home security purposes ought to be illegal too. I don't have anything against guns in general but I believe with very few exceptions guns ought to be locked up tight when they are not being used for hunting, recreational shooting, etc.

Do you keep a loaded gun in your nightstand or under your pillow? You are a fool and I strongly support any legislation that separates a fool from his guns.

For my personal home security I've got Spot. Sometimes I'll find a nasty home invader's half-digested gun in his poop. Spot does his job very quietly and efficiently, he doesn't wake me up when there's trouble. Spot can flame broil and scarf down a bad guy in less than a second. He's telepathic too, like Santa Claus he knows if an invader is naughty or nice. We hold the nice home invaders for the police, without any excessive force. Our dogs wake up whenever they hear or smell a bad guy broiled, and maybe they'll aim an ear and raise their noses, but mostly they don't fuss because they've learned our dear Spot never shares his meals.

[patrice]

61. Anything that becomes a substitute for economic & social justice puts you at MORE risk, not less. nt

[TheKentuckian]

63. Nothing...another layer of security. Very beneficial when one is away.

Nothing to do with a gun, which aren't like an IPAD. Mine is nearly a hundred years old, the expense is nearly nothing.

[Atman]

85. STOP THINKING!

You're messing up the who argument.

[Roselma]

88. They're good. I worked in a central station for 17 years.

We were monitoring mostly Baltimore City and surrounding counties. In 17 years, 40 hours/week, hundreds of signals a week, I was on the monitoring end of a single actual break in. 17 years - 30K customers' signals into our station, and only one break in. Also, no home invasions in 17 years. Multiple fires and CO2 leaks, but no home invasions and only one break in. Think about that. Burglary is not as prevalent as you think. An alarm system that makes digital tones or voice commands is just as scary to a criminal as one that has a loud siren and/or a strobe. Burglars do not want to make noise or have a signal go to a central station. Just having an alarm company's yard sign and/or window decals greatly reduces your chance of burglars targeting your home. Most important, most burglars don't want to break in to an occupied space. Burglars who break in to an occupied space generally are targeting specific people who they wish to harm. Those are dangerous people. None of our customers (in any of our 24-7 operation) was ever attacked in their home in 17 years. An alarm system and a noisy dog is a dual threat to a bad guy. Guns? I'm not so sure that guns aren't a greater risk to their owners lives/wellbeing than the extremely remote chance of a home invasion and/or targeted burglary.

[Turbineguy]

101. Sigh......

I hate reason.

[onecent]

107. But...you know it's soo FREAKIN' simple it TOO simple.... NO ONE NEEDS

a glock or a gun that shoots 300 bullets into a crowd of people in so many seconds.

What is it these people DON'T UNDERSTAND????????????????????????????????????

Home systems would work fine....i even have a friend who "JUST" has the ADT sign
and never seems to have a problem....but we dont' live in a high risk area...Northern missouri.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

133. If you are James Bond

with the gun at your side

[aikoaiko]

148. Yes, most of the people i know who have a firearm for defense also have locks, lights, alarms.

People who have a firearms for self-defense just want the chance to defend themselves adequately should all else fail.