T Nation

Alarm System and No Gun

#23

There are about 4 of them from Newswipe.
They are all wonderful and pretty accurate.
Check them out.

#24

There is the “rare” case of somebody breaking into the wrong house to find out that the home owner is bat shit crazy, then I’d fear it’s Saw part 6 (or how ever many they made) for the intruder. Maybe sometimes to stop evil, you have to get just a little more evil than the other is willing to go.

#25

You only need to have a less accessible house than other houses in your area. An alarm can be a factor, although I tend to think dogs are a better deterrent if you can give them a good life.

If I lived in a place that necessitated a gun as a reasonable measure of home security, I would not choose a 12-gauge. Unless I was being invaded by rabbits.

#26

[quote]Simon Adebisi wrote:
There are about 4 of them from Newswipe.
They are all wonderful and pretty accurate.
Check them out.[/quote]

OMG the Abortion is Green one is hilarious. LOL

#27

Yeah, that’s my favorite one.
It’s useful when my friends post pregnancy announcements on Facebook.

#28

We have an alarm system. These only work if you arm them when you’re gone, of course.

Anyway, semi-related thread:

#29

For anyone really interested in their home safety, in no particular order:

  1. Good lighting. Flood lights, lights pointed at house or areas of potential entry, etc.

  2. Keep bushes and shrubbery trimmed to eliminate any blinds or hiding spots.

  3. A good fence. Yes, you can climb a fence, but doing so attracts attention, slows down ingress/egress (entering and escape).

  4. A dog. Does not have to be a “guard” dog breed. Any dog that will bark (alarm) is suitable. Houses with dogs that bark are generally avoided. Barking attracts attention, alerts the homeowner and sometimes neighbors.

  5. A good alarm system. Like a barking dog, a tripped alarm will alert the homeowner and neighbors.

  6. Cameras. Would you break-in to a property with obvious video surveillance? It’s actually not that expensive these days. Plaster the signs visibly around the property.

  7. Guns are a personal choice, but not ideal. First, you have to be absolutely sure you’ll use it. Second, if found, it can be used against you. If you do not take any of the previous precautions, you can literally be awoken by the burglar or sleep thru a break-in. If your gun is stored somewhere (especially if you have children in the home), it may not be available for you to use.

In my opinions, numbers 1, 2 and 5 are critical. 4 is my first preferred “optional” (including 1,2,5). 6 is next, followed by 7 and 3, with 7 being the last needed “option”. If you have 1-7 you are pretty damn safe.

One way to consider this is as follows; the actuaries at insurance companies set insurance rates based on risk. If you have an alarm, your rate is discounted. ALARMS therefore do work. If you had 1-6 (with the exception sometimes of certain dogs under number 4) your risk (and rates) would be very much lower.

Gun ownership on the other hand does not get you a discount, you often need a rider to insure the value of the guns themselves and I know of at least one carrier that was rumored to be dropping coverage for homeowners with guns.

Edited:

I had my numbers mixed up in my follow up comments.

#30

^^ Good post BG

#31

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
For anyone really interested in their home safety, in no particular order:

  1. Good lighting. Flood lights, lights pointed at house or areas of potential entry, etc.

  2. Keep bushes and shrubbery trimmed to eliminate any blinds or hiding spots.

  3. A good fence. Yes, you can climb a fence, but doing so attracts attention, slows down ingress/egress (entering and escape).

  4. A dog. Does not have to be a “guard” dog breed. Any dog that will bark (alarm) is suitable. Houses with dogs that bark are generally avoided. Barking attracts attention, alerts the homeowner and sometimes neighbors.

  5. A good alarm system. Like a barking dog, a tripped alarm will alert the homeowner and neighbors.

  6. Cameras. Would you break-in to a property with obvious video surveillance? It’s actually not that expensive these days. Plaster the signs visibly around the property.

  7. Guns are a personal choice, but not ideal. First, you have to be absolutely sure you’ll use it. Second, if found, it can be used against you. If you do not take any of the previous precautions, you can literally be awoken by the burglar or sleep thru a break-in. If your gun is stored somewhere (especially if you have children in the home), it may not be available for you to use.

In my opinions, numbers 1, 2 and 5 are critical. 4 is my preferred “optional” (including 1,2,5). 5 is next, followed by 6 and 3, with 7 being the last needed “option”. If you have 1-9 you are pretty damn safe.

One way to consider this is as follows; the actuaries at insurance companies set insurance rates based on risk. If you have an alarm, your rate is discounted. ALARMS therefore do work. If you had 1-6 (with the exception sometimes of certain dogs under number 4) your risk (and rates) would be very much lower.

Gun ownership on the other hand does not get you a discount, you often need a rider to insure the value of the guns themselves and I know of at least one carrier that was rumored to be dropping coverage for homeowners with guns. [/quote]

I agree with everything but the camera portion of your post. Being in the security industry, I do know that cameras are nothing more than a deterrent when it comes to break-ins (great during business hours in a commercial setting.)

Rarely does camera footage result in charges. The only way cameras benefit a system in a break-in situation is when they are integrated for interfaced with the intrusion system. I could get into the whole integration thing but I’m already starting to annoy myself with this long post.

All other advice is great. In all fairness I know nothing about bouncing or bodyguarding (is that right term?)

#32

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
For anyone really interested in their home safety, in no particular order:

  1. Good lighting. Flood lights, lights pointed at house or areas of potential entry, etc.

  2. Keep bushes and shrubbery trimmed to eliminate any blinds or hiding spots.

  3. A good fence. Yes, you can climb a fence, but doing so attracts attention, slows down ingress/egress (entering and escape).

  4. A dog. Does not have to be a “guard” dog breed. Any dog that will bark (alarm) is suitable. Houses with dogs that bark are generally avoided. Barking attracts attention, alerts the homeowner and sometimes neighbors.

  5. A good alarm system. Like a barking dog, a tripped alarm will alert the homeowner and neighbors.

  6. Cameras. Would you break-in to a property with obvious video surveillance? It’s actually not that expensive these days. Plaster the signs visibly around the property.

  7. Guns are a personal choice, but not ideal. First, you have to be absolutely sure you’ll use it. Second, if found, it can be used against you. If you do not take any of the previous precautions, you can literally be awoken by the burglar or sleep thru a break-in. If your gun is stored somewhere (especially if you have children in the home), it may not be available for you to use.

In my opinions, numbers 1, 2 and 5 are critical. 4 is my preferred “optional” (including 1,2,5). 5 is next, followed by 6 and 3, with 7 being the last needed “option”. If you have 1-9 you are pretty damn safe.

One way to consider this is as follows; the actuaries at insurance companies set insurance rates based on risk. If you have an alarm, your rate is discounted. ALARMS therefore do work. If you had 1-6 (with the exception sometimes of certain dogs under number 4) your risk (and rates) would be very much lower.

Gun ownership on the other hand does not get you a discount, you often need a rider to insure the value of the guns themselves and I know of at least one carrier that was rumored to be dropping coverage for homeowners with guns. [/quote]

I agree with everything but the camera portion of your post. Being in the security industry, I do know that cameras are nothing more than a deterrent when it comes to break-ins (great during business hours in a commercial setting.)

Rarely does camera footage result in charges. The only way cameras benefit a system in a break-in situation is when they are integrated for interfaced with the intrusion system. I could get into the whole integration thing but I’m already starting to annoy myself with this long post.

All other advice is great. In all fairness I know nothing about bouncing or bodyguarding (is that right term?)[/quote]

Of course, I disagree with you (maybe semantics). A camera system is a deterrent like everything else on the list. Everything on that list can be “defeated”. For instance, I can cause a power failure, bring a simple ladder, defeat your alarm system, cause your dog to be poisoned a week prior, etc. We both know the point is to make your house less a target than the next.

Resulting “charges” is irrelevant. If there are “charges” to be had, there has been a failure (e.g., a break in or crime). We both know that if someone is determined there is no fool proof means to safeguard yourself or your property. If they can get to a President…

It’s “personal or executive protection”. The same “risk management” principles apply. It’s all just “risk management” in my opinion. And, I’ve consulted on Estate protection and cameras certainly have their place. If money were no object, armed security, roving patrols of the estate grounds - and even that can be defeated.

As for cameras, I love them. Nothing like viewing your property from the comfort of your home or remotely (many now are accessible over the internet). And, they have been affordable for quite some time now.

#33

I was gonna go with camera when we moved in. Wife thought it was overkill, and it may make us look like the crazy/scared white folk that just moved in. So, I held off for now.

It’s just another layer of security that like mentioned isn’t that expensive these days.

But, we have ADT and 2 full grown Danes that bark any time there is a knock or noise right outside the house. Plus we take them on walks around the neighborhood. Partly to make it known :wink:

Have Beware of Dog signs facing each access point to our yard (front, side, rear) along with ADT sign in front and rear. We don’t live in the ghetto, but where we moved is known to have higher break-ins/crime than what is probably normal for MD (PG county for those that are MDers).

Heck, I remember where I grew up (So. MD), you could go to sleep at night with front door unlocked or go to the movies with car unlocked and not worry.

Here, not so much.

#34

Here’s my security system. I have to feed it a neighbor kid once in a while to keep it functioning.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

  1. A dog. Does not have to be a “guard” dog breed. Any dog that will bark (alarm) is suitable. Houses with dogs that bark are generally avoided. Barking attracts attention, alerts the homeowner and sometimes neighbors.

[/quote]

#35

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I was gonna go with camera when we moved in. Wife thought it was overkill, and it may make us look like the crazy/scared white folk that just moved in. So, I held off for now.

It’s just another layer of security that like mentioned isn’t that expensive these days.

But, we have ADT and 2 full grown Danes that bark any time there is a knock or noise right outside the house. Plus we take them on walks around the neighborhood. Partly to make it known :wink:

Have Beware of Dog signs facing each access point to our yard (front, side, rear) along with ADT sign in front and rear. We don’t live in the ghetto, but where we moved is known to have higher break-ins/crime than what is probably normal for MD (PG county for those that are MDers).

Heck, I remember where I grew up (So. MD), you could go to sleep at night with front door unlocked or go to the movies with car unlocked and not worry.

Here, not so much.[/quote]

Careful with the “beware of dog” signs. First, when your insurance company does a property inspection (usually just a drive by), they may notice the signs and then wonder if you’re harboring a dangerous dog. In addition, if by chance your dog does ever bite someone, the “beware of dog” signs could be used against you in an effort to portray that you knew of your dog’s dangerous propensities - or why else would anyone need “beware”?

I’m not saying the above will happen, the above is just cautionary - food for thought. I have seen the signs used against people in actual civil litigation though. I’d have to do a whole treatise on dog bite law to fully explain it, but trust me, it can happen.

As for the cameras and “crazy white people”, you can do a pretty good job of concealing them…but then again, you lose the deterrent factor if you do.

#36

[quote]fatInIC wrote:
Here’s my security system. I have to feed it a neighbor kid once in a while to keep it functioning.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

  1. A dog. Does not have to be a “guard” dog breed. Any dog that will bark (alarm) is suitable. Houses with dogs that bark are generally avoided. Barking attracts attention, alerts the homeowner and sometimes neighbors.

[/quote]
[/quote]

:slight_smile:

My first dog was a Doberman :slight_smile: Long ago…

#37

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Of course, I disagree with you (maybe semantics). A camera system is a deterrent like everything else on the list. Everything on that list can be “defeated”. For instance, I can cause a power failure, bring a simple ladder, defeat your alarm system, cause your dog to be poisoned a week prior, etc. We both know the point is to make your house less a target than the next.

[/quote]

It’s like that old apologue or whatever you want to call it about a bear coming on two guys at a camp site. One guy puts on his running shoes while the other asks why he’s wasting his time doing that since he can’t possibly outrun a bear. The guy with his shoes on says, “I only need to outrun you.”

What percentage of break-ins qualify as actual home invasions or proper armed robberies? I’m assuming it’s a pretty small proportion. What percentage of those are randomly targeted?

#38

[quote]etaco wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Of course, I disagree with you (maybe semantics). A camera system is a deterrent like everything else on the list. Everything on that list can be “defeated”. For instance, I can cause a power failure, bring a simple ladder, defeat your alarm system, cause your dog to be poisoned a week prior, etc. We both know the point is to make your house less a target than the next.

[/quote]

It’s like that old apologue or whatever you want to call it about a bear coming on two guys at a camp site. One guy puts on his running shoes while the other asks why he’s wasting his time doing that since he can’t possibly outrun a bear. The guy with his shoes on says, “I only need to outrun you.”

What percentage of break-ins qualify as actual home invasions or proper armed robberies? I’m assuming it’s a pretty small proportion. What percentage of those are randomly targeted?[/quote]

Love that joke.

Not sure about the point you’re trying to make though.

If I were concerned about a home invasion (If I were such a target, or I was consulting for such a target), I’d be talking about safe rooms, locking (and fortifying) bedroom doors at night, etc. That said, home invasions are becoming more common and anyone thought to have a decent sum of cash in the house are common targets (from drug dealers to immigrant store owners). I know of several well-publicized home invasions in the Philadelphia area the last few years (and those are just the incidents I’m aware of and were widely reported) and immigrant store owners were the targets. Hell, one just happened in the suburbs of NJ recently.

I’m curious, what point were you trying to make?

#39

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#40

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]etaco wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Of course, I disagree with you (maybe semantics). A camera system is a deterrent like everything else on the list. Everything on that list can be “defeated”. For instance, I can cause a power failure, bring a simple ladder, defeat your alarm system, cause your dog to be poisoned a week prior, etc. We both know the point is to make your house less a target than the next.

[/quote]

It’s like that old apologue or whatever you want to call it about a bear coming on two guys at a camp site. One guy puts on his running shoes while the other asks why he’s wasting his time doing that since he can’t possibly outrun a bear. The guy with his shoes on says, “I only need to outrun you.”

What percentage of break-ins qualify as actual home invasions or proper armed robberies? I’m assuming it’s a pretty small proportion. What percentage of those are randomly targeted?[/quote]

Love that joke.

Not sure about the point you’re trying to make though.

If I were concerned about a home invasion (If I were such a target, or I was consulting for such a target), I’d be talking about safe rooms, locking (and fortifying) bedroom doors at night, etc. That said, home invasions are becoming more common and anyone thought to have a decent sum of cash in the house are common targets (from drug dealers to immigrant store owners). I know of several well-publicized home invasions in the Philadelphia area the last few years (and those are just the incidents I’m aware of and were widely reported) and immigrant store owners were the targets. Hell, one just happened in the suburbs of NJ recently.

I’m curious, what point were you trying to make?[/quote]

If evening news is at all reliable, home invasions don’t occur too often around here outside of the ghetto and like you said targets that have reasons for being targets. I could be mistaken but my impression is that for most people this should be pretty far down on the list of risks to lose sleep over. Of course there are some people who have more specific reasons to worry but they probably aren’t the average person.

#41

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]etaco wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Of course, I disagree with you (maybe semantics). A camera system is a deterrent like everything else on the list. Everything on that list can be “defeated”. For instance, I can cause a power failure, bring a simple ladder, defeat your alarm system, cause your dog to be poisoned a week prior, etc. We both know the point is to make your house less a target than the next.

[/quote]

It’s like that old apologue or whatever you want to call it about a bear coming on two guys at a camp site. One guy puts on his running shoes while the other asks why he’s wasting his time doing that since he can’t possibly outrun a bear. The guy with his shoes on says, “I only need to outrun you.”

What percentage of break-ins qualify as actual home invasions or proper armed robberies? I’m assuming it’s a pretty small proportion. What percentage of those are randomly targeted?[/quote]

Love that joke.

Not sure about the point you’re trying to make though.

If I were concerned about a home invasion (If I were such a target, or I was consulting for such a target), I’d be talking about safe rooms, locking (and fortifying) bedroom doors at night, etc. That said, home invasions are becoming more common and anyone thought to have a decent sum of cash in the house are common targets (from drug dealers to immigrant store owners). I know of several well-publicized home invasions in the Philadelphia area the last few years (and those are just the incidents I’m aware of and were widely reported) and immigrant store owners were the targets. Hell, one just happened in the suburbs of NJ recently.

I’m curious, what point were you trying to make?[/quote]

We’ve had a few of those home invasions here too (Frazer Valley BC) and it seems like a lot of the homes being invaded belong to the elderly. :-/

#42

[quote]pushharder wrote:

All of the above is plumb ridiculous when we know that claymores will do the trick more simply and efficiently.[/quote]

You should also sleep with Dillon minigun. You never know when you’ll encounter a PCP fueled junkie human wave attack.