The Relative Merits of Home Security Systems, Home Defense and Gun Control

Remove all ads!

First some background information from the That's gonna leave a mark thread.

Followed by:

While I most definitely agree with you that a dog - even a relatively small one - is an excellent burglar alarm (at the very least a dog will wake you up), I disagree with most of the rest of your post.

I would rephrase your initial statement to say: "as a crook the first thing i would do is look for one of those little yard or window stickers that security companys like to put up & after finding one, pick a different house to burglarize." One of the reasons that security companies put those yard and window stickers up is they are great deterrants. People with security systems are much less likely to be attempted to be broken into than homes without one.

My home is in the middle of a community where all of the homes are of similar value. The cars in the driveway mid-sized vehicles, and there is nothing about our home that would suggest our house represents a more lucrative target than any of the other dozens of homes in our neighborhood. Why would a burglar pick our house to burglarize as opposed to one of the others without a burglar alarm?

Let's assume an intelligent burglar like the one you suggested. Which house looks like a better target: My house, that has a security system, but no sign of a dog, with two cars in the driveway being a Honda Accord and a Toyota Corolla, OR the house across the street, about the same size, no sign of a dog or security system, with a Lexus and a BMW parked in the driveway. An intelligent burglar would almost certainly chose the house across the street, as it offers a bigger reward with a lower risk.

I'm not saying my security system is in any way inpenetrable - a burglar that did as you suggest could get in. All I'm saying is adding a security system in my home makes it not worth the bother to break into. A criminal like the one you suggest would have to be very smart. He likely would have cased the neighborhood prior to choosing a target. He may even look into windows to see what's inside. The only thing he's going to see of abundance in my house is baby paraphenalia. I don't own a stereo system. I don't own any type of high priced electronics. I don't even own a Wii, Playstation, or XBox. Looking into the living room window he's going to see a lot of baby stuff, a couch, a recliner and a 27" tube TV set. There is nothing about our home that would suggest we have anything worth stealing that isn't present in every other home on the street, and a lot to suggest that we actually have quite a bit LESS stuff worth stealing than other homes on the street.

If the burglar STILL decided to break into my home, then I assert he isn't very smart - probably not smart enough to get inside without tripping the alarm. However, even if the burglar managed to get inside undetected, how would having a gun make me any safer? If he's standing over my wife and I sleeping soundly in bed, he can easily get the gun out of the nightstand, or prevent me from getting the gun out of the closet, or any place else that I may keep it. If the burlgar is standing over my wife and I sleeping soundly in bed, I'm ****ed no matter what type of weapon I have in the house.

 

i have always thought that a dog was a much better alarm than a security system. they don't quite when the power goes out & they tend to have a higher chance to chase the intruder off at the first bark than a house alarm(as most people know it takes the cops at least 5-10 minutes to get there) there is a pretty ggod show on cable about this called "to catch a thief" not the best but not bad.
oh, & yes i love my dogs i ain't to sure about the wifes cat, gives me that danged vulture stare sometimes.

 

Unfortunately, in my experience, those that have security systems generally have the better cars, too, so it's bigger risk for bigger reward.

As for an actual deterrant, I'm still firmly of the opinion that steel or even alluminum work better than lead and copper. If the guy coming in is sober and smart, the close-quarters environment will actualy give small to medium melee weapons an advantage over firearms. If the guy coming in is on something, especially something powerful, I trust a few pounds of metal more than a few ounces. A bullet may damage muscles or even penetrate a lung, but a meat tenderizer or baseball bat will shatter bones. The latter is much more likely to stop someone on meth or speed.

 

The alarm system is good for keeping the neighbor kids out of your place when you're gone. It also scares away the desperate thief -- these are the dangerous ones, in general.

The professional thief rarely hits a house when someone is inside. They often strike during the day when everyone is at work. At that point, murtaug's scenario is quite valid. Light actually helps the professional -- they can go through a house quickly for easily pawned items.

I don't have an alarm system (except a big dog). I don't have a gun or a taser. I don't plan to get any of those either -- except another dog.

On a side note, we have a dog door built into the side of your house. It just has a flap on it to allow the dog to go in and out anytime. My older son (from my first marriage) was visiting and remarked how easy it would be for a thief to come in through the pet door. My response -- "I think any thief would realize a dog, about the size of the door, is somewhere on the other side. Would you want to put your head through there to see just where that dog may be?"

 

Not all dogs are reliable that way, though. I had a dog that would have just licked the thief's face and wagged his little heart out. I loved that dog, but man was he stupid.

I think the gun scenario most people envision is this: the owner is sound asleep and then is wakened by a strange sound coming from downstairs / outside the bedroom. The owner retrieves the gun from its resting place in his room and then proceeds out the bedroom door, wherein he makes use of the gun to foil the criminal's plan.* How often this happens is open to debate.

I would not be comfortable confronting an attacker with a baseball bat. I'm a lover, not a fighter**, and I'd likely get my buttinski royally kicked, though I would rather have a bat than nothing and I'd like to think I'd go in and do my best if the well being of my family were on the line.

*He might confront the guy and the criminal will run away, or he might end up shooting the guy -- no one says he must fire it. However, if someone were in my house, I would want to get the drop on him and shoot before he even knew I was there. I hate criminals***

** For a long time I was neither, actually!

***Of course, this attitude has caused men to shoot their college aged kids coming home late for a surprise visit, so I can see the danger there as well.

 

i know it sounds strange but one of the best self defense tools available is one of those rechargable 1-1.5 million candlepower spotlights. even at noon time you can dazzle someone with one & blind them completely, at night they will be completely disoriented.

as for doggie doors they make ones that have locking bolts at the bottom that retract when your dog, wearing the special collar, gets within 1-2'. very nice & not that expensive. funny as heck the first time the dog hits it full speed when the power is out though. . . . . . . ok not that funny at the moment but within twenty minutes you will be just about peeing on yourself laughing so hard.

 

I guess the whole issue for me comes down to this: To what lengths are we willing to go to defend our lives or our property? This sort of thing includes but subsumes the gun issue, which is being pounded out in another thread. Let's look at some scenarios:

1: You are walking along the street. A big bruiser comes along with a knife and says "your wallet or your life." Now if this happened to me today, the bastard gets my wallet, no question. He can have my American Express, video store cards, and the rest of the goodies therein. I'm not dying for that stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't deserve them. If I had the skills to defend myself, and the corresponding confidence, I'd fight the guy. But now the cost / benefit analysis says I just hand it over.

2: Same scenario, but the guy says "put these handcuffs on and follow me to my car." This changes things (particularily if I'm a woman, but maybe he gets off on raping/torturing both genders.) I would try a karate yell (which would probably sound pretty femmy), and run for it. My money is not on the line here, but several hours of torture/sodomy are, and I'm willing to fight for that. Again, I recognize that this scenario is MUCH more likely to happen to a womam, but if she's going to die, she might as well do it sooner rather than later. I see no reason she should let him rape her on the off chance that after he's done he'll let her live.

3: Home invasion. IMHO as soon as someone enters your house uninvited for the obvious purpose of felony commission, he deserves to die. There is no way in hell the homeowner can tell if the guy is merely a thief or something more insidious. I suppose if the guy runs off it's not worth chasing or shooting him, but I subscribe to what I believe the Americans describe as the Castle mindset -- a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it. I know that many people who I will call liberals here would say that I should have compassion on the man because his mom didn't love him enough when he was a little boy, and so that gives him the right to steal my stuff, but I don't think that makes any bloody sense at all.

Now I don't have any weapons of any sort, as I concede the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands and my wife is leery, so I opt to always lock the door and keep valuables out of plain sight. Living on the 4th floor also helps. But I have to say the feeling many people on the conservative side of things wonder when liberals seem to tell us that we have no right to protect our property. That's how many feel when weapon legislation (both lethal and supposedly non-lethal) is discussed.

To sum up, if someone wants to steal my stuff, I'll probably let him rather than lose my life, but in principle I think that he deserves death if he's too stupid to run off in the face of an intended victim who is capable of resisting. If he's coming for my life or a loved ones bobbly bits, he deserves death. I can think of a lot worse ways to go than fighting to protect life or virtue.

 

This is strange. I consider myself pretty liberal, and LKD considers himself pretty conservative. Yet, I would react pretty much identically as he would in all three hypethical cases he presented.

 

i'm suprised at that aldeth as a lot of the liberals here in the states want to due away with the castle doctrine. they want to make it a crime if you don't basically retreat to a far corner of your room & allow your house to be ransacked. i am glad that you would stand up for yourself & your family, there may be hope for the liberals yet(no,i'm not being sarcastic)

 

The only scenario worth considering in my opinion is the first one and there I agree with LKD. Sure, the guy can have the 20$ I have in my wallet, he can even have the 500$ I have on my account. Knock yourself out I am not going to risk anything for the pittance that is my disposable income.

As for the other two, again, I dont know in what kind of society you live in but both scenarios are about as likely as being struck by lightning unless you live in a Afgani suburb and appears to have a whole lot of cash and relatives able to pay ransom and I do not see a bunch of people advocating running around with grounded boots.

There are things you can't expect and thus cant defend against, if ten guys with weapons decided to kidnap me to use me in some sick sex game then I am screwed not much I can do about it but I dont run around worrying about it as the likelyhood is so minuscule. Why are you so afraid? I sleep with my door unlocked, sure I live in a reasonable safe country in a reasonably safe neighbourhood but so does most of you. If someone of you lived in Iraq or any of the other places where gangs of armed thugsmore or less rule everything then I could see your fear. But you don't, do you?

 

No, but I live in a city where home invasions and drive by shootings are becoming everyday occurences. Per capita, my city has the worst crime rate in Canada. Despite Michael Moore's filthy lie in his movie, most Canadians I know lock their doors at night and in the day.

 

@martaug - I am only a liberal by today's standards. I think that the middle has shifted to the right in the last several years. I don't think that my views have changed that much in the last few years, but the Fopster of 2000 would have been considered a moderate, yet that same Fopster in 2008 is a liberal. Just to elaborate slightly on the points: 1.) Looking in my wallet, I have $86, which is actually more than I usually carry. A thief can have $86. My credit card will be deactivated as soon as I get home, and my ATM card isn't doing the thief any good without my PIN. 2.) I actually agree with joacqin on this one. While I would resist, the likelihood of ever finding one's self in such a scenario is so remote that I consider the risk negligible. 3.) You're damn right I'd defend my family if someone broke into my home. I don't care if they have assault rifles, if you come into my home and threaten my wife and child, it's go time.

@joacqin - as I said above, I only view scenario #2 as so unlikely that it can be discounted. Scenario #3 happens every day. Every year thousands of homes are buglarized. Considering there are millions of homes in the US, the chance that your particular home would be targeted is relatively small - less than 1% in fact - but not so small as to be completely discounted. While I have no idea how many men are handcuffed and forcibly sodomized every year but I have to believe the number is NOT in the thousands.

As far as locking my door - it takes like 2 seconds to do so. I will admit that I only started checking my door before going to bed at night since I got married and have a child - I didn't do it when I was single. Plus, it would be seer idiocy (pun intended) to spend money on a home security system and then not lock the damn doors to the house.

 

@ LKD, martaug and Aldeth: If you saw someone in your home at night trying to steal something, you believe it is justified to shoot them with the intention to kill? Do you not think your revenge is out of proportion with the crime being committed? I can see why you would defend yourself if it was your life or the lives of your family that were in danger, but for a lesser crime?

I have little doubt that you consider me to be one of those despised liberals, but not only do I not hold that view, but no-one I know does either. Really, I think people who honestly believe what you wrote are a very small minority. Trying to defend your client in a legal case is a different matter- it is not so much your feelings that matter there as what you believe will win.

I was not aware stupidity was punishable by death.

 

This is off topic but related to the last couple of posts. Male rape is one of the most underreported crimes there is. No one knows how many are assualted & are too ashamed to admit it but figures are projected to be at least as high as the number of women that don't report rapes each year. Too many people still look at rape as a form of sex & it has nothing to do with sex. It is all about power & is especially devastating to a man.

 

Before I answer your questions, I should first state that the answer to your first question is completely hypothetical. I don't even own a water gun, much less a real gun, so about the most dangerous thing I have in my house that I could use to "shoot" at an intruder would be a rubber band. Furthermore, I do not foresee a situation arising that would cause me to purchase any type of firearm. Since I will likely never own a firearm, I have to answer your first question with a no.

Having said that, there is no way in hell that I'm taking a chance that an intruder in my home is only there to steal. Not with a 9 month old baby and my wife in the house. There aren't many things I would kill for or be killed for, but the safety of my son is one of those things. You can bet your ass I wouldn't hesitate to take out my baseball bat, swing at his head, and knock that mother ****er out. As far as your question regarding proportional force is concerned, the only way I can know what proportion of force would be appropriate would be to know why he was there. I'm sure he isn't there to talk to me, so a discussion is out of the question. I do not and will not intend to kill him, but I certainly have to incapacitate him while I wait for the police to arrive, and a baseball bat to the skull should do the trick.

I do not know if I personally could bring myself to shoot and kill someone, which is one of many reasons I have for not owning a gun. However, not everyone has the same self-imposed moral restrictions as I do. If someone breaks into your home, I think it is reasonable to assume they are there to do harm to you and your family. Just because I couldn't do it, I cannot say unequivocally that someone else would be wrong to shoot and kill the intruder. If I had my choice the intruder would wake up in handcuffs with a headache the likes of which he has never previously experienced, but I cannot say that in every situation you'd be absolutely wrong to shoot the intruder.

As an aside Decados - when I was your age, I was just like you, and I would have agreed with you completely. Having a child changes your perspective in ways you do not expect and cannot predict. I think there's more than a few parents on these boards who will agree with that statement.

 

My two cents.

I will purchase my first home in about a year. When that time comes, I will also apply for a gun permit and purchase a handgun. Probably a glock 9mm (hell, my father might just give me his), though I'm considering a pump-action shotgun (because hearing that loud "ca-chick" when I cock it is just about all the deterrent you need). I will also go to the range regularly and know how to use it. The house isn't in a crime-ridden neighborhood and I don't think I'll ever need to use it. But I'd much rather have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one.

This, to me, is a reasonable justification for the average citizen to own a (one) gun. I also think it's acceptable to collect antiques or own and store multiple hunting/sport shooting rifles. But anything beyond that is excessive and unnecessarily dangerous. The average civilian citizen has no need for and certainly no good reason to own a fully-automatic anything, period. I don't care how law-abiding they are.

 

Uh, deathrabbit you are aware that a Glock 9mm is a semi-auto aren't you? I think you are making the mistake that a lot of non gun owners do & confusing gun terms, do you mean a fully automatic weapon?

which model did you have in mind? the standard size M17, the compact M19, the subcompact M26, the longslide M17l or the tactical M34?

 

Yes I am, and you're right - I did mean fully auto (edited above). I wasn't confused, it was a typo. As for the model, I have no idea what will work best for me. I'll likely get a hands-on feel at a gun shop (they're more common in Texas than Starbucks) and do appropriate research when the time comes. But that's about a year off.

 

Yeah, your best bet is to go to the range & try out their rental guns. Most ranges have anywhere from 30-100 different guns available for rental to use on the range for just a few dollars an hour. Typically everything from a .22 to the massive .500S&W(which is like 3 .44magnums going off at once), some even have class 3(full-auto waepons) for rent. The glock 9mm/.40 frame is ok sized but if you want to move up to the .45/10mm size you will need to have large hands or it won't be comfortable to you. An extremely small gripped hi-cap .45 is the taurus 24/7 series. Holds 12 rds of .45 & is as small as the glock M17 9mm. Very nice.

 

A well put answer Aldeth. If I was wearing a hat, I would tip it towards you.

Fair enough, I can't really argue against that.