Total dependence on a home alarm system without guns > definitely illogical! I once had a neighbor who's home alarm system went off in the neighborhood, and no cop came by and neighbors did nothing or didn't even care. It is like someone's auto alarm going off in the grocery store parking lot, nobody cares. The best way for legal defense of one's home or domicile is with a good pistol, like a Glock.
Brinks Security Systems, et. al., are for city slickers who don't know how to use guns to protect their homes. An armed criminal comes into someone's house within a few minutes, so the alarm goes off and the cops come to the house in 10-15 minutes. So by greater force of logic, what is going to happen? Duh???
And I'll give you a hint about how our criminal "justice" system works in reality... Years ago when they came out with DNA testing, they retested the evidence in many rape cases. It was found that a very large number of men who were in jail for rape were actually innocent!
So these men where charged with a crime and then convicted by a jury and then went to prison, yet they were innocent. Apparently no one believed their side of the story. Something to think about....
Burglars and thieves seem to enjoy a quiet and anonymous work environment. A properly installed modern alarm system can remove both those advantages for the thief. A firearm can end their career. It is an order of magnitude approach to the problem.
Sir, I suggest to you that total dependency on a firearm to protect your home is equally illogical. Proper home security is a mixture of a lot of different things, of which an alarm system (and a gun) are only one. If you care to read a bit, my site will explain what I mean.
Living in the USA, you are living in a country which allows you the right to own and carry a firearm, subject to what I would consider only minor restrictions. However, most other law abiding countries in the world do not allow such actions, or if they do, it is only available subject to major restrictions and licensing.Carrying a firearm for personal defense carries with it an enormous responsibility !! One of the things never mentioned in discussions about firearms use for home defense is the pyschological trauma suffered should you choose to shoot an intruder. Unless a person is totally devoid of human emotion, such an event will have a major impact on you, sometimes scarring you for life. I suggest you might want to think long and hard about using a gun against another human being, even when it is allowed by law.
And "no", I am not an anti-gun type ! I am decidedly "pro gun" and use handguns for competitive action shooting around North America. But using a firearm against another person is not to be taken lightly, and should only be a measure of absolute last resort. And as one other poster pointed out, the onus will always be on you to prove you didn't use excessive force. If you cannot prove it to the courts satisfaction, you may find yourself in serious trouble with the law. And such events give the anti-gun crowd more arguments for their cause....
While I live in Canada, and have to abide with untold useless firearms restrictions, one of the things that Canada does well is mandate safe storage and safe training and use. If I were to be at all critical about the situation in the USA, it would be the far too casual attitude that most gun owners take towards safe handling and storage of their guns. Enjoy your guns (as do I) but remember, they are a tool. Like a poisonous snake, they require careful handling, but can be easily handled safely with proper training. But forget the rules for one second, and they can turn and "bite" you just as easily.
I suggest you also give some thought to other far more effective things you can do to build up your home defenses.
R.H.Campbell Home Security Metal Products Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Around here (Oregon & SW Washington), lots of people have guns to protect their homes.
The problem is, often the wrong people get access to the guns and bad things happen. This can be a distraught spouse, a psycho intruder, or even your own child.
The "bad things happen" incidents easily occur with a much greater frequency than the "homeower shoots intruder and protects his family" incidents. Not that this is any reason to ban guns or impose sever restrictions, though. The reality of an armed population is a fact of life, however.
Suprisingly, this has even happened on more than one occasion to members of law enforcement agencies (who you think should know better) in situations where their curious kids found the household gun storage place and wound up shooting themselves, their little sister, or the neighbors kid.
You should ALL listen to what Tommy Lee Jones said in the movie, "US Marshalls", "Get rid of that nickel-plated sissy pistol, and get yourself a GLOCK".
RHC: Gun safety is gun safety regardless of what anyone does for a living. You would like to think however, that law enforcement agents would hold to a higher degree of care given their familiarity with firearms. Usually that is the case, but not always. Where I shoot, we have what is called a cold range. That means that any firearm behind the actual firing line must be unloaded until the range master gives the command to "load and make ready". A lot of police drop in to practice their shooting, and we have to continually remind them to unload their service firearms on the range behind the firing line....maybe familiarity breeds contempt...who knows...
I too would never entertain the severe restrictions the gun haters and urban paranoids propose. Rather what the NRA proposes makes far more sense...train people properly and store them safely. Gun safety rules are simple and easy to understand. Handle them according to the rules, and there should NEVER be an "accident" where someone shoots themselves while cleaning their gun....WTF ..!!! A gun is only a tool but one that can do harm pretty quickly if abused. Here in Canada, we are just as heavily armed as the US population is per capita; however, the vast majority are rifles and shotguns, with handguns in the minority (only a million in the whole country registered..who knows how many not registered). And I sometimes think I've owned half of the legal ones at some time or other....:)))
Dunno what the answer is other than to teach pe> >While I live in Canada, and have to abide with untold useless firearms
RHC: Neither of these were true "accidents". Why would any trained person lay a loaded, cocked shotgun on the ground with the safety off ? Why would anyone leave a loaded pistol on a table with a round in the chamber and quite possibly the safety off (depending upon the model) ? No...in both cases, these where negligent acts by the gun owner, and he has no one but himself to blame....both were clear violations of basic safety rules of safe gun handling !!
I would go so far as to suggest there is no virtually no such thing as a true gun "accident"....only negligent actions on the part of someone
If you can blame farts and missing homework on the dog, why not gunshot too?
RHC: Doesn't work ! I tried blaming farts on the dog but my wife said if our Shitzu puppy ever dropped bangers like that, it would kill the dog...I did try though....:))
Tommy Lee Jones is an actor, and probably doesn't know a Glock from a Sig.
I have a Glock. Actually, I have two of them. And a Colt .45. And a S/W .357. And several rifles and shotguns. Know what? They're in my safe because I don't want some crack head to steal them while I'm at work. That's what an alarm system is for. To state that you don't need a security system simply because you have a gun in the house is pure folly.
i agree with you to this point. total dependance on _any_ single form of protection is illogical.
true security comes from having many layers of resistance. if you wish to harm me or mine you must first get passed my two shepherds that run freely in my yard. if you get past them and make it into my house you will set off my brinks alarm. while brinks is notifying the police, you can expect to be greeted by both my 115# german shepherd as well as my 100# bulldog terrier mix, neither of which youll find hospitable. if you should somehow happen to make it past the outside dogs, the secured structure proceeding despite the alarm blaring, and by an act of god you somehow get past the german shepherd and bulldog greeters inside my home, it is then that you will get to admire the working end of my 870.
the firearm is the final solution, and should NEVER be your only layer of defense, and certainly should not be depended upon as your only deterrent. the firearm is indeed an absolutely critical aspect of security, but its only part of the overall plan.
formatting link
i think i know how to "use guns" at least well enough to hold my own, yet i still depend upon an electronic alarm as one of many layers of defense. i suppose its all in your priorities.
i hope you were fishing for responses and dont really mean most of what you said.
RHC: Frank, it's quite a different "mind set" south of the border relative to firearms. It is one of those societal things that differentiates Canada and the US. North of the border, we use firearms for hunting and sporting purposes, and there is no right to carry for purposes of protection. Unless you are a rare exception such as a geologist working in the far north, a permit to carry is only available to police officers, and only then when they are on duty. This dates back to as far as 1874 when the RCMP used to disarm Montana cowboys driving their cattle across the border to market up north. We have a long tradition of treating sidearms with suspicion, and ownership and use in Canada is severely restricted (ask me how many permits I need to own and transport to various competitive meets across North America). Any firearm of any type in Canada has to be stored in a safe manner, in an unloaded condition, so it never would be available for personal protection. The ONLY place I am allowed to carry my competition handguns in a holster is on the range (where it is actually encouraged to maintain security against theft).
As much as I have a lot of mixed and somewhat confused feelings about this business of carry for self defense, when all is said and done, I prefer our system of control versus the free and easy access in the USA. I just wish Canadian authorities would let up a bit on the restrictions once you do go through all the shit to get approved. And the continual stream of anti-gun bias from politicians and the left wing press does nothing to make firearm owning Canadians comfortable that one day they won't wake up and find themselves legislated out of existence through some idiotic "feel good" piece of legislation. As I said, I am quite ambivalent about the differences, but the strong lobby in the NRA is a true blessing for our American friends. We could sure use a bit of that political strength up here to keep the political nut cases on their toes....
It is completely different in the state I am in. A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun. However the number of folks having an interest in guns seems to be on the decline here. I see far fewer guns stores in business than I used to see. During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006 The historical roots to gun ownership in the US versus Canada are very different. That suits me as it seems to suit you as well.
"A democracy is two wolves and a small lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.