Home security system

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
What if you have guests over who have kids?

I think you should at least have a trigger lock.

I'm not anti-gun but are guns really for theft deterrence or more for an anarchy event like a zombie apocalypse or foreign hostile takeover?

In suburban areas like Irvine, I'm not sure you want to get into a gun battle with your family around when anything that can be stolen is easily replaceable.
 
freedomcm said:
davenlei said:
Unfortunately they stole all his guns along with the electronics. 
Click to expand...

This is one reason responsible gun owners have gun safes.  the other is "the kids" that you are supposedly protecting.

with rights come responsibilities....
Click to expand...

He does not have kids but I do agree he should have had a safe.  Now his guns are probably on the black market.  I have a safe for my stuff even before kids. 
 
irvinehomeowner said:
What if you have guests over who have kids?

I think you should at least have a trigger lock.

I'm not anti-gun but are guns really for theft deterrence or more for an anarchy event like a zombie apocalypse or foreign hostile takeover?

In suburban areas like Irvine, I'm not sure you want to get into a gun battle with your family around when anything that can be stolen is easily replaceable.
Click to expand...

Unless the kids are 18 and over they won't be in my house. A friend brought her two year old over, a disaster. Another friend brought over her 7 year old, a disaster.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
What if you have guests over who have kids?

I think you should at least have a trigger lock.

I'm not anti-gun but are guns really for theft deterrence or more for an anarchy event like a zombie apocalypse or foreign hostile takeover?

In suburban areas like Irvine, I'm not sure you want to get into a gun battle with your family around when anything that can be stolen is easily replaceable.
Click to expand...

I am not a gun enthusiast (Not an NRA member and don't fit the profile you see on TV) but guns have many purposes:
1) Sport - My BIL competes in long range competition.
2) Collection and admiration - Some people collect coins, baseball cards, swords, cabbage patch kids.  Others collect guns for the look, history, functionality, mechanics, nostalgia.
3) Defense - Used for personal and family defense.  There are many types of guns for specific purposes.  For basic home defense, a 9MM hand gun with hollow points are good as well as a short barrel shot gun with #4 low velocity buck shot work good since they have reduced wall penetration compared to others and are relatively compact. 
I agree, if someone broke into my house and was just after stuff, I would probably tell them to freeze and if they ran or scooted away from me, I would grab my family and stay defended in a room until the cops came.  If, they came after me or were going after a family member, well, my family is not replaceable and I will do only what is needed to stop the imminent threat while the cops were being called.  One of my greatest fears is that I will actually have to use one of my weapons for self defense someday.  I never want to be in that situation but am prepared in case it happens. 
4) SHTF - If Zombies or an Earthquake hits Orange County, I have something to protect my family or at least make the hungry mob consider going down the street to a house without any defense.  As we all know, we should all have an earthquake kit.  How many people actually have one with enough food and water to last a few weeks?  I would bet one out of ten if you don't take what is in the pantry into consideration.  Look at what happened after Katrina if you think it won't happen in the U.S.
5) Fun/Stress relief - It is actually fun to go to the range or desert and shoot a few hundred rounds.  I only have time to do it a couple times a year or so.  It is like playing darts with very fast darts and no beer (until after the range).


I agree a trigger lock is the very basic minimum and in my opinion is not good enough.
 
I can understand 1, 2, 4 and 5... but who on this board actually successfully had to use a gun for self-defense?

The large majority of break-ins in Irvine are non-violent and not the family abduction/violation type. The presence of a gun could change the makeup of that crime whereas the criminal may feel the need to use a weapon they were not planning to use. Self-defense rubs both ways so I imagine a criminal who is already breaking the law would be less hesitant in using a weapon if he were threatened with one.

And if you don't have an alarm to warn you, or the burglar surprised you, that gun is useless because you don't have it. If you were to be able to barricade yourself in a room, the threat of the authorities arriving (esp in Irvine) is probably a much great deterrent than a gun (which you could also pretend to have behind a locked door).

I think, like an alarm, the presence of a gun in the house is more of peace of mind for the owner, but the reality of its usefulness is probably very different from theory. In fact, the very few times I've seen guns pulled by owners is for offense, not defense, which is troubling.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I can understand 1, 2, 4 and 5... but who on this board actually successfully had to use a gun for self-defense?

The large majority of break-ins in Irvine are non-violent and not the family abduction/violation type. The presence of a gun could change the makeup of that crime whereas the criminal may feel the need to use a weapon they were not planning to use. Self-defense rubs both ways so I imagine a criminal who is already breaking the law would be less hesitant in using a weapon if he were threatened with one.

And if you don't have an alarm to warn you, or the burglar surprised you, that gun is useless because you don't have it. If you were to be able to barricade yourself in a room, the threat of the authorities arriving (esp in Irvine) is probably a much great deterrent than a gun (which you could also pretend to have behind a locked door).

I think, like an alarm, the presence of a gun in the house is more of peace of mind for the owner, but the reality of its usefulness is probably very different from theory. In fact, the very few times I've seen guns pulled by owners is for offense, not defense, which is troubling.
Click to expand...

the point of having the gun is for the one time you need it.  its like those diseases where the odds of getting something is 1 in a million, thats great and all until you are that 1.  like you said, you may not be able to get to it in some circumstances. this is one where people agree to disagree. if you feel better about having some guy in your house while you sleep while not having a gun in the house more power to you.  in my house, with the alarm and the dogs there would be virtually no circumstance where i would not be able to get to the gun (perhaps a home invasion). and then what ill do is call the cops immediately while i wait at the top of the stairs with my "weapon" wiating to say hi to the intruder.  at that point the intruder can choose to leave or if he chooses to go up the stairs he is going to have a little problem.
 
Why it is assumed that there is only one intruder?

I just think that in a scenario where one would require a gun (meaning that the intruders have intent other than burglary) they are more prepared and have better numbers than you.

I guess my point is that for where we live, scenario 3 is more than one a million, more like never, and that ownership of a gun falls into more like 1, 2, 4 and 5. For anyone to claim otherwise seems more like false bravado and just rationalization rather then realistic reasoning. Unless you are well trained and versed in gun use, defense, and markmanship, mere ownership of a gun is just bluster. I doubt most of you have a certain set of skills like Bryan Mills. :)

Just my opinion, and probably not a favorable one here, but I always like to present a different view of such things.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Why it is assumed that there is only one intruder?

I just think that in a scenario where one would require a gun (meaning that the intruders have intent other than burglary) they are more prepared and have better numbers than you.

I guess my point is that for where we live, scenario 3 is more than one a million, more like never, and that ownership of a gun falls into more like 1, 2, 4 and 5. For anyone to claim otherwise seems more like false bravado and just rationalization rather then realistic reasoning. Unless you are well trained and versed in gun use, defense, and markmanship, mere ownership of a gun is just bluster. I doubt most of you have a certain set of skills like Bryan Mills. :)

Just my opinion, and probably not a favorable one here, but I always like to present a different view of such things.
Click to expand...

why do you assume there are more than one intruders?  and if their intent is do more harm than just a burglary wouldnt it make sense for me to be prepared with a gun? and you give these guys too much credit, they arent that smart.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I can understand 1, 2, 4 and 5... but who on this board actually successfully had to use a gun for self-defense?

The large majority of break-ins in Irvine are non-violent and not the family abduction/violation type. The presence of a gun could change the makeup of that crime whereas the criminal may feel the need to use a weapon they were not planning to use. Self-defense rubs both ways so I imagine a criminal who is already breaking the law would be less hesitant in using a weapon if he were threatened with one.

And if you don't have an alarm to warn you, or the burglar surprised you, that gun is useless because you don't have it. If you were to be able to barricade yourself in a room, the threat of the authorities arriving (esp in Irvine) is probably a much great deterrent than a gun (which you could also pretend to have behind a locked door).

I think, like an alarm, the presence of a gun in the house is more of peace of mind for the owner, but the reality of its usefulness is probably very different from theory. In fact, the very few times I've seen guns pulled by owners is for offense, not defense, which is troubling.
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree that most break-ins are not violent/kidnap/rape situations which is a really good thing.  Unfortunately those bad situations do happen even if rare and an offender planning to do actual harm probably already has a gun or other weapon to 'control' the situation if needed while they do their deeds.  Most burglars seem to not be very smart and do not think about the consequences of their actions (or penalties).

I also agree a gun for many people is a 'peace of mind' item since they are not comfortable with shooting it (even at paper targets) and would be seriously nervous if having to shoot at an intruder. 
 
I can recall in the past few years there was in incident in Yorba Linda and Dana Point where homeowners were woken up to the sounds of someone in their house and were confronted by the intruder before the homeowner shot the person.  I think the Dana Point intruder was not armed (had several B&E and drug charges on his record) but did confront the homeowner at his bedroom door.  Either way, I don't recall the police filing murder charges against the homeowner on either case so I would guess it was considered a justified defensive shoot.  I am not sure what would have happened to the homeowner if he did not have a weapon when he was confronted at his bedroom door.  I am pretty sure it would not have been a positive experience for the homeowner since the intruder must have known he was in an occupied home (Homeowner checked on the noises earlier before getting his gun).
 
Regarding the Bryan Mills statement, most of us don't have the skills like Mario Andretti but we do well enough to drive without hitting things (well, most of us).  Throwing out that it is just bluster if you are not well trained like a special ops guy is a little overboard.  I know you were half joking there but still.  Many people are a decent shot when they understand how to use sights and are not afraid of shooting.  Some people are horrible shots regardless and are scary.

In the end some people are comfortable with guns and others are not and that is fine.  In addition, some people are responsible with their guns and other are not which sucks because the irresponsible ones hurt everyone including non-gun owners.

 
 
I know you get my point davenlei... but to bring your Mario Andretti comparison to my side of the table.

If you had to drive like him in a race in order to save your family, unless you have his skills, most won't be able to do it. Just because you have a car, does not mean you can drive like a professional race car driver. So it goes, just because you own a gun, does not mean you will be able to use it to successfully defend your family, it may end up doing more harm than good.

What are the statistics of incidents that result from having guns in the house (ie kids or adults shooting each other or themselves) vs successfully preventing violent crimes? Is that worth it? I'm more worried about that than an intruder. I don't mind gun ownership as long as it's responsible ownership. qwerter may think not having safe if you don't have kids is not irresponsible, but it is, because it allows someone else to access that gun that you may not want to... like an adult guest who never held a gun before and starts playing with it.

To get back on topic, I would much prefer a home alarm (even a passive non-monitored one) over a gun. I prefer preventive medicine.
 
comparing driving like mario andretti and shooting a gun is absurd.  a gun is much simpler to operate. point and shoot. all i know is that if an intruder is coming at me and a gun is in my hand i like my chances in being able to hit him, at some point he gets into point blank range.

i think its time we let this topic rest. like i said, this is one where there is no right or wrong answer. regarding the safe, if an adult from of mind somehow finds his way into my bedroom and shoots himself, well frankly he deserves it for being stupid.
 
Heh... I know qwerter is a very smart guy but sometimes his other weapon gets the best of him.

How would you feel if that adult guest shoots someone other than himself? You have to think of all the possibilities, not just the ones that are favorable to you.

Whether you own or gun or not, being responsible is always the right answer.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
I know you get my point davenlei... but to bring your Mario Andretti comparison to my side of the table.

If you had to drive like him in a race in order to save your family, unless you have his skills, most won't be able to do it. Just because you have a car, does not mean you can drive like a professional race car driver. So it goes, just because you own a gun, does not mean you will be able to use it to successfully defend your family, it may end up doing more harm than good.

What are the statistics of incidents that result from having guns in the house (ie kids or adults shooting each other or themselves) vs successfully preventing violent crimes? Is that worth it? I'm more worried about that than an intruder. I don't mind gun ownership as long as it's responsible ownership. qwerter may think not having safe if you don't have kids is not irresponsible, but it is, because it allows someone else to access that gun that you may not want to... like an adult guest who never held a gun before and starts playing with it.

To get back on topic, I would much prefer a home alarm (even a passive non-monitored one) over a gun. I prefer preventive medicine.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, I knew you were going to grab the Andretti reference and run with it.  :)

As in life, almost anything can do more harm than good if not used or managed responsibly.

Regarding statistics, there are statistics that bolster and counter both sides of the debate.  Although true, they (the pro/con statistics) identify only one data point each in a very complicated issue.

Yes, I did not want to deviate too much from the alarm discussion.  So, I use Monitronics for my service for over a decade and have had no problems with them.  They will negotiate on the price and are much cheaper than ADT (which I had a long time ago).
   
 
So to get back on topic... does a monitored alarm have any significant advantage over non-monitored?

And I'm talking about in Irvine where crime, like Ivy admissions, is not supposed to be as prevalent.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
So to get back on topic... does a monitored alarm have any significant advantage over non-monitored?

And I'm talking about in Irvine where crime, like Ivy admissions, is not supposed to be as prevalent.
Click to expand...

if you want the cops to come out while your being robbed its helpful to have it monitored. however, the way you phrase your question "talking about irvine" i get the sense you dont think the chances of your home being hit to be such a big deal so you probably dont need an alarm at all

Edit - irvine should outlaw all forms of alarm systems since crime doesnt occur there.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
So to get back on topic... does a monitored alarm have any significant advantage over non-monitored?

And I'm talking about in Irvine where crime, like Ivy admissions, is not supposed to be as prevalent.
Click to expand...

I feel so.  One thing a monitored alarm does for you is home invasion/panic and fire
 
@qwerter:

Every single person I know in Irvine, including myself, has never had their home robbed or burglarized in the last 40+ years.

That's not the same for other cities where I know people.

But that also does not mean that there are no burglaries in Irvine but it does speak to the low chance of it. I do know that cars parked in driveways or in front of homes have been burglarized (including my own about 15+ years ago).

So my question goes, that if you live in a relatively safe area, what advantages does monitoring give you if it's not really necessary? Davenlei gave a good answer in regards to fire.

Also, isn't there some delay with monitored systems because the alarm company has to verify a true break-in from an accident? Or do the ones with cameras have a live person checking the video feed so that they can do their own verification and notify the proper authorities.

A passive system that calls the police will have that issue where it's a false alarm and may cause problems with the po-po but it's more direct.

So is it worth the monitoring fee? Or is having a passive system sufficient enough a deterrent? Or is the only way to go is full qwerter-style with automated lasers and pressure sensitive non-pet detecting pads with a taser fence perimeter? (see I can be hyperbolic too)

I guess I compare it to car alarms. I don't think my car will get stolen but I do think it should have an alarm as a preventative measure... but not so much as to have LoJack (the equivalent of monitoring) installed.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
@qwerter:

Also, isn't there some delay with monitored systems because the alarm company has to verify a true break-in from an accident? Or do the ones with cameras have a live person checking the video feed so that they can do their own verification and notify the proper authorities.

A passive system that calls the police will have that issue where it's a false alarm and may cause problems with the po-po but it's more direct.
Click to expand...

Based on personal experience.. Once, our motion sensor inside the house was triggered for unknown reason.  Alarm called the primary, then the secondary contact number (my wife and me), we were not able to answer right away.  When we called the alarm company a few minutes later, they said Irvine police is on the way and recommend that one of us go home.  I told the alarm company to inform police that I'm coming home.  My work is less than 20 min from home.  By the time I arrived, two policeman is waiting for me outside, ask for my ID to verify residence and "escorted" me inside to check the house.  Once they are satisfied its nothing, I got a "warning" note stating something like if I exceed certain amount of "false alarm" call to police (forget the exact number) within 12 months period, we will get charged for it.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
@qwerter:

Every single person I know in Irvine, including myself, has never had their home robbed or burglarized in the last 40+ years.

That's not the same for other cities where I know people.

But that also does not mean that there are no burglaries in Irvine but it does speak to the low chance of it. I do know that cars parked in driveways or in front of homes have been burglarized (including my own about 15+ years ago).

So my question goes, that if you live in a relatively safe area, what advantages does monitoring give you if it's not really necessary? Davenlei gave a good answer in regards to fire.

Also, isn't there some delay with monitored systems because the alarm company has to verify a true break-in from an accident? Or do the ones with cameras have a live person checking the video feed so that they can do their own verification and notify the proper authorities.

A passive system that calls the police will have that issue where it's a false alarm and may cause problems with the po-po but it's more direct.

So is it worth the monitoring fee? Or is having a passive system sufficient enough a deterrent? Or is the only way to go is full qwerter-style with automated lasers and pressure sensitive non-pet detecting pads with a taser fence perimeter? (see I can be hyperbolic too)

I guess I compare it to car alarms. I don't think my car will get stolen but I do think it should have an alarm as a preventative measure... but not so much as to have LoJack (the equivalent of monitoring) installed.
Click to expand...

you dont know everyone in irvine. you know the answer to this question. its just up to you whether you want to pay the money or not. i love my dogs, so i got the setup that would allow me to see if anything happened to them i could react as quickly as possible to get them help if something happened.  was that worth the dlink cam i first bought, then the video cameras i bought with the alarm system? to me it was.  im not sure what a passive system is and how it calls the cops, so for me ill take the monitoring. like we have all said a million times before, the chance of it being used is slim to none, but that one time you need it you kick yourself in the ass for not having it and then what do people do? they go out and get alarm system. once the kid was born the systems now doubles as nanny cams and now that i know about dropcam, i may get that too.

with my company they dont monitor the live camera, they just go by whether you put the code in or not. if you break into my house you have 15 seconds to put the code in. if you dont you will get an call to your primary phone shortly thereafter, if that doesnt pick up they call the secondary, if that doesnt pick up they call the cops. in tustin i think we get three false alarms before they fine you and you have to get a permit (pay 10/year for it). the good thing about having video is that if your house was empty and the alarm went off you could check the live feeds.
 
I think TD just violated Laguna Altura HOA regulation 1a-b:

Though shall not maim or obliterate intruder on said premises.  Please drag all violators onto 133 and then deal with accordingly.

Otherwise please submit authorization to the Boomstick Comittee that meets twice annually before mayhem ensues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top