Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

This...

Living in a low crime area, having good locks and double glazing will do far more to keep you safe than any gun, dog or alarm system.

In fact in the UK (the US is different for obvious reasons) having a gun in the house can make you more at risk, as it is not unknown for gun owners to be targeted for the guns.

 Steve steveson wrote:


Living in a low crime area, having good locks and double glazing will do far more to keep you safe than any gun, dog or alarm system.
.

It'll do more to keep you safe, but will do a lot less to soothe your ego by letting you engage in macho hero fantasies where you get to use violence to feel powerful and reassured and less like an unimportant, short-lived and quickly forgotten participant in the human story.

AR15 and night vision, with a good alarm system, hearing protection, and a switch to kill the power to your house located in the bedroom. And it helps not to live in the ghetto.

I voted shotgun but you were missing several options

DOG
Minefield or claymores both are dynamite
Moat, with sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads
Ex IDF Mossad
Spiders because no one feths with spiders


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

AR15 and night vision, with a good alarm system, hearing protection, and a switch to kill the power to your house located in the bedroom. And it helps not to live in the ghetto.

The AR-15 is a poor choice for combat indoors. Too long and will absolutely travel through many layers of drywall. Ideally you would be looking at a sawed off shotgun with buckshot or a good HIGH QUALITY cqb weapon would be something of the MP5 or P90 sub machine guns

Living in a small city where everyone knows your "little" brother works pretty well. Our local druggies steer clear because they don't want to have a discussion with a huge red-bearded seaman and his even larger construction worker friend. They've beaten up the resident bike thief a few times already.

Ofc, criminals here aren't usually armed unless they're bikers or otherwise into heavy drug-related crimes. There's no need for a gun to threaten people with when a knife is enough. And the packs of foreign (usually Eastern European) burglars that tour the country go for easy targets that look rich, not just any random run-down house. A criminal interwieved in prison described his crimes as "Robin Hood", taking from the rich and giving to the poor (himself) - but that's bloody obvious, isn't it? The poor don't have anything worth stealing!

 Chongara wrote:


It'll do more to keep you safe, but will do a lot less to soothe your ego by letting you engage in macho hero fantasies where you get to use violence to feel powerful and reassured and less like an unimportant, short-lived and quickly forgotten participant in the human story.

This is pretty much my thoughts on most of the thread.

 namiel wrote:
I voted shotgun but you were missing several options

DOG
Minefield or claymores both are dynamite
Moat, with sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads
Ex IDF Mossad
Spiders because no one feths with spiders


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

AR15 and night vision, with a good alarm system, hearing protection, and a switch to kill the power to your house located in the bedroom. And it helps not to live in the ghetto.

The AR-15 is a poor choice for combat indoors. Too long and will absolutely travel through many layers of drywall. Ideally you would be looking at a sawed off shotgun with buckshot or a good HIGH QUALITY cqb weapon would be something of the MP5 or P90 sub machine guns

Pistol rounds penetrate just as much drywall, if not more, than 5.56. Buckshot also penetrates just as much drywall as 5.56. Meanwhile, a 5.56 rifle has better capacity, precision, controllability, and ROF than a shotgun or handgun.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-12-insulated-walls/

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I voted shotgun but you were missing several options

DOG
Minefield or claymores both are dynamite
Moat, with sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads
Ex IDF Mossad
Spiders because no one feths with spiders


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

AR15 and night vision, with a good alarm system, hearing protection, and a switch to kill the power to your house located in the bedroom. And it helps not to live in the ghetto.

The AR-15 is a poor choice for combat indoors. Too long and will absolutely travel through many layers of drywall. Ideally you would be looking at a sawed off shotgun with buckshot or a good HIGH QUALITY cqb weapon would be something of the MP5 or P90 sub machine guns

Pistol rounds penetrate just as much drywall, if not more, than 5.56. Buckshot also penetrates just as much drywall as 5.56. Meanwhile, a 5.56 rifle has better capacity, precision, controllability, and ROF than a shotgun or handgun.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-12-insulated-walls/

Good experiment but read it.

4.The 5.56 rounds deviated greatly from the original flight path once they started tumbling. This occurred after the second wall. We need to do some more tests, but need to build bigger walls so that we can make sure we capture the flight path of the rounds.
5.Spreading the walls out at room distances seemed to make little difference for the pistol rounds, but made a big difference for the 5.56 rounds. Possibly this was due to the tumbling of the rounds causing them to deviate from a straight line.
But this raises an important point. When you shoot a 5.56 into walls, you cannot be sure where the flight path of the bullet will go. This is an important consideration if others are in your home.

So this right there really kills your case. ALSO yes a shotgun has a slower rate of fire and less capacity but less shots need to be fired.

The MP5 has a 30 round capacity of 9mm whos rate of fire is the SAME as an M-16 or AR-15. Except it is a 9mm round not the 5.56 thus indoors it does not deviate from its flight path through walls. Secondly it is significantly lighter, shorter barrel length for working in tight spaces. The p90 has a faster rate of fire, larger capacity, shorter barrel, lighter weight, etc.

So do your research....also I never mentioned handgun

 namiel wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I voted shotgun but you were missing several options

DOG
Minefield or claymores both are dynamite
Moat, with sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads
Ex IDF Mossad
Spiders because no one feths with spiders


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Spoiler:

AR15 and night vision, with a good alarm system, hearing protection, and a switch to kill the power to your house located in the bedroom. And it helps not to live in the ghetto.

The AR-15 is a poor choice for combat indoors. Too long and will absolutely travel through many layers of drywall. Ideally you would be looking at a sawed off shotgun with buckshot or a good HIGH QUALITY cqb weapon would be something of the MP5 or P90 sub machine guns

Pistol rounds penetrate just as much drywall, if not more, than 5.56. Buckshot also penetrates just as much drywall as 5.56. Meanwhile, a 5.56 rifle has better capacity, precision, controllability, and ROF than a shotgun or handgun.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-12-insulated-walls/

Good experiment but read it.

4.The 5.56 rounds deviated greatly from the original flight path once they started tumbling. This occurred after the second wall. We need to do some more tests, but need to build bigger walls so that we can make sure we capture the flight path of the rounds.
5.Spreading the walls out at room distances seemed to make little difference for the pistol rounds, but made a big difference for the 5.56 rounds. Possibly this was due to the tumbling of the rounds causing them to deviate from a straight line.
But this raises an important point. When you shoot a 5.56 into walls, you cannot be sure where the flight path of the bullet will go. This is an important consideration if others are in your home.

So this right there really kills your case. ALSO yes a shotgun has a slower rate of fire and less capacity but less shots need to be fired.

The MP5 has a 30 round capacity of 9mm whos rate of fire is the SAME as an M-16 or AR-15. Except it is a 9mm round not the 5.56 thus indoors it does not deviate from its flight path through walls. Secondly it is significantly lighter, shorter barrel length for working in tight spaces. The p90 has a faster rate of fire, larger capacity, shorter barrel, lighter weight, etc.

So do your research....also I never mentioned handgun

You say you never mentioned handguns, but 9mm is a handgun round. Read my post again - it says very clearly "pistol ROUND." Pistol ROUNDS penetrate drywall just like 5.56 penetrates drywall. Note that not all of the 5.56 rounds penetrated all of the interior walls, whereas every pistol round did. As for deviation, I'm not bothered by it. I live alone, sleep on the second floor, and my home is brick on the outside. Worst case scenario, I'm sending a jacket into a brick wall or into the ground shooting down the stairs. No problem here.

Doesn't kill my case at all. 5.56 penetrated 4 walls. Handgun rounds penetrated 4 walls. Shotgun pellets penetrated 4 walls. Any round will penetrate drywall. The bottom line is that 5.56 does more damage than 9mm or 5.7. The only argument you could realistically make for a subgun is controllability. Do you own a full-auto MP5 or P90? If not, then it's kind of irrelevant, because 99.9999% of people aren't going to purchase a $7,500+ collectible machine gun for home defense.

I'm an IDF combat veteran with experience fighting human enemies in urban environments. I've actually used an AR15 (M4 really) in "tight spaces," and it's plenty short. That is the perspective that I bring to the table. I'm not going to try to convince you that my opinion is better informed than yours. Take my advice, or don't.

Whats really cool? Not everyone wants to swing around a freaking rifle.

All conditions are not the same.

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

You are correct it's rare. But it does happen. I want to take "slim and rare" down to as close as "non-existant" as i possibly can for myself and family.

If interested. It's a horrific story, but this is a famous case in New England in a very affluent, low crime community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Also more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Savopoulos_family_massacre


If you cared to read either or both (the Cheshire one in particular is just god awful due to the level of detail we actually know), .... yeah. No. Both I and my dog will be assuming room temperature before anyone gets that far with my family. I'll gladly be in jail for filling a couple of donkey-caves full of extra orifices before they do that my girl and kiddo.

I do hope it never comes to that, but I have a weapon for home defense, and a mean(ish) dog for companionship and home defense. Meanwhile we make the home and grounds as unappealing a break-in target as humanly possible in comparison to the neighbors.

 Haight wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

You are correct it's rare. But it does happen. I want to take "slim and rare" down to as close as "non-existant" as i possibly can for myself and family.

If interested. It's a horrific story, but this is a famous case in New England in a very affluent, low crime community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

The chances of death due to accidents with guns being stored in such a way that they are available for "home defence" than are far higher killed in burglarys. Your far more likely to accidentally shoot a relative than a burgler. I would NEVER get one of my guns out to "defend" my home.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings..."

As for alarms, they are sod all use. People don't do anything about them and burglars know this. They put the pillow over their head and mumble about "who's alarm is that". Too many false alarms.

 Steve steveson wrote:


The chances of death due to accidents with guns being stored in such a way that they are available for "home defence" than are far higher killed in burglarys. Your far more likely to accidentally shoot a relative than a burgler. I would NEVER get one of my guns out to "defend" my home.

Care to site some sources?

Edit: damn you edit.

Alarm. Then shotgun.

 Desubot wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


The chances of death due to accidents with guns being stored in such a way that they are available for "home defence" than are far higher killed in burglarys. Your far more likely to accidentally shoot a relative than a burgler. I would NEVER get one of my guns out to "defend" my home.

Care to site some sources?

Edit: damn you edit.

Actually i must be blind I cant find anywhere on that source that states the chances of death due to accidental gun discharges is higher than being killed in burglaries.

First statements show in 2010 its 600 accidental deaths.
and that doesn't even consider what kind of accident.

That and the nature of burglary would generally not involve the threat of death anyway.

robbery and home invasions sure. though i haven't found statistics for those numbers yet

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

You are correct it's rare. But it does happen. I want to take "slim and rare" down to as close as "non-existant" as i possibly can for myself and family.

If interested. It's a horrific story, but this is a famous case in New England in a very affluent, low crime community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

The chances of death due to accidents with guns being stored in such a way that they are available for "home defence" than are far higher killed in burglarys. Your far more likely to accidentally shoot a relative than a burgler. I would NEVER get one of my guns out to "defend" my home.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings..."

As for alarms, they are sod all use. People don't do anything about them and burglars know this. They put the pillow over their head and mumble about "who's alarm is that". Too many false alarms.

Yup accidents can happen. They are much less likely if you're not an idiot, which we are not. Suffice to say that it's nearly impossible for anyone to get and operate my firearms that shouldn't have them (EDIT: if i haven't been a dumbass, which has yet to happen... important caveat i suppose). We also have some other things at play within the fam for avoiding mistaken identity, etc. as failsafes.

Alarms are useless if its just a noise maker: when its connected to a call unit that notifies police. if not deactivated in 45 seconds or after 3 failed tries in less than that, its a bit more useful. The real danger of an alarm is an event happening while its not armed, which is why you take other measures. My alarm i can also arm on various levels while others are not. I.e. - all the bedrooms are on the second floor: we go to bed, and the alarms are armed on the second floor windows, and the first and basement floors. My second floor, non window, alarm is my man-hating aforementioned dog.

But sure, i do agree, accidents can totally happen. I take security very very seriously. Again its all about reducing "slim to rare" to "nearly nonexistent" risk. Security and safety / risk mitigation go hand in hand.

Oh the Bright side that same Utah study states that child based accidents are going down.
so thats good.

Personally I've always wanted to own my own M4 Sherman. Nothing says get off my lawn like a 30 ton war machine

A combination.

Good locks and sturdy doors. A security system. Maybe a big scary looking dog. And finally a shotgun.

The absolute worst nightmare of any burgler is the racking sound a shotgun makes. Its even more scary than a dog.

One base their sense of security in the environment they are in

 Haight wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

Right and a fair number of people make money gambling. Yet somehow sound finical planning includes whole-market index funds, but not scratch tickets and trips to Vegas. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's prudent, productive or rational to plan for. One only has so much time, mental energy and resources to work with and all of them are better spent on things that aren't remote edge cases.

However much time an energy you spend security and/or weapons to protect your family from The Strangers or those two dudes from the beginning of Se7en, you could probably have better net increase in overall safety and welfare for your family allocating to almost anything else.

 Haight wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Haight wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Given the rate of burglary is pretty low, even lower those that would happen when the owners are home, lower still those that would happen in the kind areas that people who can afford to support an internet-and-miniatures habit would live I'm just not worried about it. It doesn't register on my list of threats.

That said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Sturdy locks and a safe neighborhood are the way to go, though I probably couldn't be bothered with the former in the latter. At any rate I'm not particularly interested in violence, even less so using it to escalate it with an intruder who more than likely just wants to make off with my TV. The TV covered by my homeowners/renters insurance.

Like the Trenched-coated child abductor at the playground, pill-tampering factory worker, and devious person slipping razor blades into Halloween candy the spontaneous murder/rapist who kicks in the door of your suburban home is far more common in fiction than reality. I don't really have a plan for defending myself from escaped zoo animals either, but hey maybe that'll bite me in the ass someday.

And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

You are correct it's rare. But it does happen. I want to take "slim and rare" down to as close as "non-existant" as i possibly can for myself and family.

If interested. It's a horrific story, but this is a famous case in New England in a very affluent, low crime community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

The chances of death due to accidents with guns being stored in such a way that they are available for "home defence" than are far higher killed in burglarys. Your far more likely to accidentally shoot a relative than a burgler. I would NEVER get one of my guns out to "defend" my home.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

"A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings..."

As for alarms, they are sod all use. People don't do anything about them and burglars know this. They put the pillow over their head and mumble about "who's alarm is that". Too many false alarms.

Yup accidents can happen. They are much less likely if you're not an idiot, which we are not. Suffice to say that it's nearly impossible for anyone to get and operate my firearms that shouldn't have them (EDIT: if i haven't been a dumbass, which has yet to happen... important caveat i suppose). We also have some other things at play within the fam for avoiding mistaken identity, etc. as failsafes.

Alarms are useless if its just a noise maker: when its connected to a call unit that notifies police. if not deactivated in 45 seconds or after 3 failed tries in less than that, its a bit more useful. The real danger of an alarm is an event happening while its not armed, which is why you take other measures. My alarm i can also arm on various levels while others are not. I.e. - all the bedrooms are on the second floor: we go to bed, and the alarms are armed on the second floor windows, and the first and basement floors. My second floor, non window, alarm is my man-hating aforementioned dog.

But sure, i do agree, accidents can totally happen. I take security very very seriously. Again its all about reducing "slim to rare" to "nearly nonexistent" risk. Security and safety / risk mitigation go hand in hand.

There is two issues, first, all the identity checking in the world does not help when half asleep at 2am you hear someone making noise, and it turns out its your 18 year old son sneaking in after being out too late and having a few drinks. That is why I would never use one of my guns for self defence. All the safety and double checking falls apart in reality and for me it's just not worth the risk. Also, by the time I have got the keys, unlocked the door to the room with the gun safes, unlocked the gun safe and the ammo safe (all of these things are what the UK law requires for safe storage, and I consider reasonable) and replace the bolt it will be too late. All I would be doing at that point is giving someone who broke in time to find me with my keys and the location of my guns whilst I stand there fiddling with the plastic wrap on a pack of ammo or try and fit the bolt half asleep.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Also, by the time I have got the keys, unlocked the door to the room with the gun safes, unlocked the gun safe and the ammo safe (all of these things are what the UK law requires for safe storage, and I consider reasonable) and replace the bolt it will be too late. All I would be doing at that point is giving someone who broke in time to find me with my keys and the location of my guns whilst I stand there fiddling with the plastic wrap on a pack of ammo or try and fit the bolt half asleep.

I can't speak to the UK, but in the US I keep my handguns loaded in a combination (keyless) safe in the bedroom. So what is impractical there - it appears you indeed need to have ammunition stored in a separately locked container or cabinet - is less so here. While I wouldn't do it and I think it's poor judgement, generally speaking in the US you can just keep a handgun cocked & locked right on an end table or what have you.

 Haight wrote:
And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

And meteorites have been known to fall from the sky, punch through cars and hit people, but I'm not building a protective dome over my house.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Haight wrote:
And yet things like the Petit family murders happen.

And meteorites have been known to fall from the sky, punch through cars and hit people, but I'm not building a protective dome over my house.

But you must admit, part of the reason you wouldn't is because it's impractical and expensive to do so, right? Whereas you can buy a decent 9mm pistol or a shotgun for around $200. I'm not saying a gun is the right answer or even a good answer - I think dogs are best for home security as I said previously, no firearm ever stopped a robbery when the homeowner wasn't present - but it's not especially difficult or impractical either.

As far as less lethal options go, you can get a taser for $300. My wife feels much more comfortable with the taser than a firearm. It has a built-in flashlight and laser sight, so it's pretty simple to use. Obviously it's not a silver bullet as you can only stop a single person and only long enough to get away, but it's an option.

Like many other people in this thread, I am going to go with Dog. I am talking about a real dog though, not one of those chihuahua sized things. (Weiner Dogs count as real dogs)

I think you'll find the best 'system' is actually a 'system of systems' which has deterrent and reaction capabilities and is coupled with a security conscious mindset of the occupants of the residence.

Simple actions and practices can aid in both deterrence and detection. Lighting (maybe coupled with motion detectors), window coverings, appropriate landscaping, fences, types of locks and doors (and door frames) all need to be factored in. An alarm system with warning sign has some deterrent factor as well, and assuming it is a monitored system and the cops have a decent response time in your neighborhood (and are not on another call when you need them) the alarm has a reaction capability. Dogs are good as deterrents and have some reaction but not everyone lives where you can have a dog. Guns tend to have no deterrent capability but are strong for reaction (though they CAN have a deterrent capability in some places under certain conditions).

Your goals should be to deter and be able to react to protect life and property if deterrence fails.

My land lord has an alarm on his warehouse/workshop and on the cabin by the river on the property, and has cameras set up around. We were talking about it (he was suggesting hidden motion activated cameras by our gates) and I told him I thought a decent resolution camera with night vision capability may help the cops figure out who broke in, but don't do squat to prevent the break in or stop it once it starts. And that assumes the folks breaking in come in on the road. You can also get motion alarms you can set on a road/driveway/path that have a monitor in the house, but the ranges on them are pretty low (meaning your reaction time when they go off is very short) and are prone to false alarms (they are hard to set to avoid animals setting them off yet still sensitive enough to go off if a vehicle goes through, and the signature of a dismounted person and deer are too similar for the ones that are reasonably priced).

I personally hope my property, or at least the house, have enough deterrent set up that I never need to react. Having said that, I do have reaction capability.

Often being the Hard Target in an area where there are easier targets is itself a fantastic deterrent.

Silly ideas like 'automatic gatling BB guns' are nothing but fantastical mental masturbation that if put into real action would get you sued or hurt. Suggestions like claymores are the same.

Ouze wrote:
But you must admit, part of the reason you wouldn't is because it's impractical and expensive to do so, right?

Well, I would say the main thing preventing me from building an anti-meteorite shield is that, to my knowledge, no such technology curretnly exists. Also, I think my HOA would send me a strongly worded letter if I did.

Whereas you can buy a decent 9mm pistol or a shotgun for around $200. I'm not saying a gun is the right answer or even a good answer - I think dogs are best for home security as I said previously, no firearm ever stopped a robbery when the homeowner wasn't present - but it's not especially difficult or impractical either.

I'm not arguing that owning a gun for home defense is a bad idea, I'm arguing against the mindset of "an extremely rare thing happened this one time and therefore is the reason why I tough-guy talk about blowing holes in intruders." When I was 18, my home was broken into during the day while my mother was in house. The guy broke in because no one answered the door when he rang the bell and as soon as he figured out someone was home, he tried to get out while my mother beat the gak out of him with a belt. Even though I have anecdotal experience with burglaries, I understand that the chances of it happening (again) are statistically insignificant and therefore illogical to prepare for it. That being said, I am a gun owner and keep loaded magazines in my safe, but I neither want to nor expect to ever use them, especially in defense of my material goods.

I don't believe in the need for a multi-tiered home defense system. For starters, I don't like dogs. Chances are, if it were to happen, no one would be in my home to stop it to begin with and if someone wants my gak that bad, they can have it; I can buy a new TV or Blu-Ray player. It's an illogical concern, but I understand it's human nature (remember the Ebola thread?) so it is what it is.

 Chongara wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:


Living in a low crime area, having good locks and double glazing will do far more to keep you safe than any gun, dog or alarm system.
.

It'll do more to keep you safe, but will do a lot less to soothe your ego by letting you engage in macho hero fantasies where you get to use violence to feel powerful and reassured and less like an unimportant, short-lived and quickly forgotten participant in the human story.

I don't think that anybody, anywhere, feels that way.