Are you kidding? It takes a couple minutes ‘at least’ for the alarm company to call you first to see if it’s a false alarm, and to decide even to call the cops. You don’t really have much experience with alarms do you?
Are the neighbors armed?
You’re wrong here. Alarm calls are put on the back burner during an especially busy shift. Additionally, by the time we’ve been dispatched to an alarm on a non-busy shift, several minutes have already passed. I’m not sure what utopia you live in, but neighbors couldn’t generally give a shit. Uncooperative and terrible witnesses.
ETA: I need to learn to multi-quote.
Talk about confirmation bias :rolleyes:.
The plural of ‘anecdotes’ is not 'data. Come back when you actually have something to back up your statement.
And I don’t know about the little shit-hole you live in, but our neighborhood is extremely good at checking out alarms. Everyone actually likes each other. So far they’ve all been false alarms, thank goodness.
I’ve had home security systems for 20+ years. IIRC, you don’t have an alarm system, right? In which case you’re just parroting back whatever you read on some website, right? Maybe you should Google better alarm system companies?
Sure and the cops pull up in a couple minutes, yeah right. I bet you are right about most alarms being false, probably that’s why the cops don’t come so fast. So what percent of alarms made are false? Maybe 90%, more? Glad to know you have never “needed” your alarm system though.
I have one at my business. If it goes off they call my office first, then my cell phone and everyone else I put on my list, then they decide if they want to call the police or not. Then the police take some number of minutes to arrive, maybe 5, maybe 30.
I’m not a thief, but isn’t that putting up a giant neon sign to burglars saying, “Hey! I’ve got some incredibly valuable, easily fence-able stuff in here!” Same with all of the “Protected by Smith & Wesson,” “We don’t dial 911,” stickers and the like. Sure, they’re going to make really sure that you’re gone before showing up—assuming these are the minority of criminals with some form of impulse control—but why would you think that letting them know there are guns in the house would keep them away?
Anecdata, but the cops I’ve talked to, and used to live with, recommended the alarm approach, despite its shortcomings noted elsewhere in the thread. The alarm didn’t even have to be working. Since this is America though, why not have all of the above?
In a neighborhood of $3 million homes, do you think the one without the alarm system / target practice sign is the one without any valuable things?
My dad’s side is almost entirely LEO. To a person, they recommend strong door & window frames and home alarm systems with lots of external lighting.
Yes. Several hundred a year is negligible. And I said HIT by lightning, not killed by lightning. But then you knew that.
Yeah but how does the sound stop the criminal from shooting you in the face or abducting you.
So you don’t want to take guns away from people, you just want them to be inaccessible to anyone who doesn’t have a lot of money? The very people who are most in need of guns as a security emasure in their home are the ones you want to tax out of the market for guns? And you don’t think your a gun grabber?
Do you have a private security serveice because I’ve had private security (it was part of my HOA) that showed up within maybe 5 minutes. I’ve also had security alarms in suburban and urban areas and sometimes response times could be measured in hours (usually under 30 minutes).
Thats the thing. Some people live in shitholes. I don’t think I need a gun for home security and I don’t feel the need to carry a gun around where I live but other people live in shitty neighborhoods.
Just imagine for a second that some people don’t live in neighborhoods of $3 million homes where there are lots of cops floating around a well funded police department.
If you are trying to make the argument that alarms provide some positive security value, then fine but it wounds like you are trying to say if you have an alarm system, you’re pretty much done and you don’t need anything else. And for that proposition, you have provided much less evidence anecdotal or otherwise than Ozone or Kable.
So if poorer people in this country are largely minority, and Dragonash does not want to outlaw guns but only wants to make them expensive, so as to keep them out of the hands of poor people who are disproportionately minority, does that make him a racist? Cause that sounds racist to me.
You’ll like this one, Kable. It’s a new paper from the most recent issue of Applied Economics Letters, An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates, by a Quinnipiac University Econ professor, Mark Gius. The full-text is only for those with an account with Taylor & Francis, but the Abstract is available:
Obviously not the final word on the subject, but it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast with studies by, e.g., Dr. Arthur Kellermann.
Your dad’s relatives’ recommendations dovetail with what I’d heard from the LEOs in my family and friends. I was just pointing out that, IMHO, visible evidence of gun ownership is counterproductive towards deterring crime and may actually entice thieves.
No, I think its just the myopic thinking that is so typical of the anti-gun side of the debate.
Then say what you mean please. Also, cite for how many people are hit by lightening each year, and then we can compare that to how many people are hit (not killed) by accidental gun shots.
And you think close to a thousand people every year being shot to death by accident is no big deal. Fuck you.
I guess you think we should not tax cigarettes either? ‘Only the rich are allowed to smoke’? And may be we should make cars free as well? Cars are expensive. Video game consoles are expensive. iPads are expensive. Are you saying that it’s unfair that only rich people get to buy them?
Yes, guns and ammo should be fucking expensive. That someone has to save up for longer to buy one doesn’t concern me in the slightest.
And all the ‘you’re racist’ comments: Double fuck you. My position on guns has zero to do with my position on things like immigration, tax policy, or other areas that may or not affect low-income households. My doctorate work was in economics. I also grew up dirt poor - as in, we couldn’t even buy dirt. And I laugh at the prospect of my family, growing up, wasting money on a gun to ‘protect’ our meager possessions. The added risk of having a gun in the house vastly outweighed any ‘protection’ gained, and given the other protection options, I strongly suspect this is the case for richer families as well.
I’ve had private security companies and regular corporate service. See, things like windows being broken in or other ‘panic button’ type calls are high-priority calls in every police department district I’ve lived in (i.e., a front door or window being breached vs a sensor inside the house). High-priority call, as in, cherries flashing sirens the works.
The burglar may or may not know how fast the response time is, but when alarms go off & lights start flashing etc he/they are going to assume the cops are on the way. Assuming they were stupid enough to try and get in the house in the first place: Every police department I know of recommends some sort of home security system.
Interesting, I’ll have to see if I can get the whole study when I get to my office.
As I recall when I read Kellermann’s most cited article was that long guns in the home were associated with lesser risk of homicide in the home, and while handguns were associated with increased risk, that increase was slight and less than having just one household member who wasn’t a teetotaler.
But is it really close to a thousand? Compare that to motorcycle accidents. Is it more, or a lot less? Do you want to tax motorcycles out of the hands of poor people too? If not, fuck you you hypocritical bastard.
Cars should cost what they cost, same with cigarettes.
Right, especially poor minorities. Does it concern you that that poor people can’t afford alarm systems?
Truth hurts don’t it? If you wanted to keep guns out of the hands of all people you would just want to ban them wouldn’t you?
Why then are you not calling for a ban of firearms then? Your tax them out of the hands of poor people strategy would I’m sure, if the democrat party tried to implement it, only result in millions more guns sold, just like the bans and attempted bans did.
Sure, unless they’re doing something else though, cause probably some kid just threw a rock at a window. Again, what percent of alarms are false?
Yeah, and most cops oppose gun control. Here’s some data to go against your beloved anecdotes.
I still think alarms are great and you should be free to use them. I bet MOST of the time they work. I still want my guns though, so thanks for not wanting to impose on my freedom to do so. I just wish you felt the same with regards to poor people, who can’t afford security systems.
Yes.
What the fuck to motorcycles have to do with gun deaths, accidental or otherwise? Motorcycles are a mode of transportation. How many miles per year do you think motorcycle riders put in on the roads? Last time I checked, guns were not a mode of transportation. Are motorcycles a means of protection? Facing the threat of a home invasion, do you arm yourself with your motorcycle?
I thought you were just naturally stupid, but apparently you fucking *work *at your stupidity.
Really? Even in New York, which has the highest tax on cigarettes in the country? Excise tax of over $4/pack. Compare that to states like Virginia or North Dakota (under $0.50/pack). I guess New York is racist and all, denying poor people the right to smoke? :rolleyes:
I’m curious - why do you think poor minorities can afford guns & ammo & storage but somehow can’t afford an alarm system?
You can have your fucking guns. You should just be forced to shoulder some of the costs you inflict on society because of your overwhelming lust for your penis extension.
Cite?
Of course I would not want a motorcycle when facing a home invasion, I would want a gun. Guns are able to defend people when nothing else can. As for modes of transportation, people can take the bus. I’m happy to see how selective you are with regards to caring about risk factors you hypocrite.
I’m sorry, you don’t know shit about guns. Let me educate you. You can buy a new one that’s peachy for home defense for $177…
…and they all come with FREE trigger locks, and they last several lifetimes. How much does your an alarm cost per year?
Of course you would say that. I’m white.
When someone is killed because of a motorcycle it’s usually the rider, who made the decision to ride. Most people killed by guns haven’t consented to live in your wild west fantasy. Where’s the hypocrisy?
Well, technically speaking most firearm deaths (60% or so?) are suicides so I’m not quite sure the analogy works.
They’d just kill themselves by some other means*, or so we,re told. By motorcycle maybe?
- ignoring the obvious fact that a gun makes it much, much, much easier to kill one’s self, but facts have no place in this discussion
We were talking about accidental gun deaths, in which people do kill themselves, or close family who apparently have consented to live in or around others with guns. So there’s your hypocrisy if you had trouble finding it. We could talk about alcohol and drunk driving if you preferred, or cigarettes and second hand smoke.