Skip to main content

I think we can do a favor for our friends who are scared that their home, or castle because a man's home is his castle, is under attack.  I am not talking about the jackbooted thugs in their stylish black helicopters.  I want to focus on the barbaric hoards of criminals out their.  Home/castle security is easy, so can we brainstorm to help those who need our help? These are serious suggestions with a little of smart ass included for humor.

Security systems are an easy and inexpensive way to protect your home.  ADT or any of the others are reasonable in cost, often having free or low cost installations. The monthly fee isn't much and will help reduce your home/renters insurance premium.  By the time you wake up, go to your gun safe, unlock it, load your unloaded weapon like the safety guys say it should be, and find the intruder, the police have probably already arrived and apprehended the bad guy(s).

If you cannot afford ADT or one of their competitors? Just get a bunch of their stickers and put them on the doors and windows.  Unless you haven't been shredding your old bills like you should be, and the bad guys are searching your trash, they will never know and will probably leave for a better target.

Get some outside flood lights.  Criminals do not like to be seen.  That is why most home invasions happen at night.  Leave them on all night or get motion detectors.  The cost of these lights has gone way down with the introduction of LED lights (at least the cost of operating them).  But even the cost of purchase is worth it, right.

Get a dog.  I have a 40 pound dog.  His bark sounds like one 2 to 3 times bigger.  I swear, people say they are scared shitless when they hear him on the other side of the door. Cannot have a dog because of your landlord or allergies or whatever, get a recording of one, set up motion detectors around your doors and windows.  Unless they are casing your huose or apartment, they will never know.

Roses.  They aren't just for prettiness anymore.  Just make sure that they are the ones with the big thorns.  The other kind will not work unless the bad guy has allergies.  Place the roses in front of windows.  Thieves are bad, but most aren't so stupid as to crawl through a bunch of thorns, and they probably left their pruning shears at home.  If you don't like roses, try something else with thorns like blackberries.  Place them under windows and up a trellis.  Put them around your fence line.  You get the benefit of the blackberry pie, and security.  don't blame me if you put on some extra pounds.

A little thought and ingenuity and you can protect yourself, your family, and your property without a gun. Please feel free to put forth other non-lethal methods of home safety, just please also make them useful.

If you don't even consider these suggestions and dismiss them out of hand, then you have something else going on.  I will not attempt to guess what or attempt to question your character or your motives.  What I will say is that your argument is lacking in self-awareness, or it is disingenuous.

Originally posted to kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (31+ / 0-)

    When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

    by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:52:42 AM PST

  •  I live in suburban MD, about 20 miles out of DC. (18+ / 0-)

    Our town is great, population of about 30,000.  Crime is increasing here--or at least it seems so, as our community gets larger and gets caught up in some of the sprawl of some of the more socio-economically troubled areas of the county (Montgomery).  There are more reports of gang violence, drug-related violence, and there was actually a double-murder just last year on my street--not drug related--but by a mentally ill youth which was all the more tragic because he was from a very close, well-respected family.  It happened right next to the local elementary school.

    While we're a bit more paranoid than we were in the 80s, I guess--we have a security system now and my parents are a bit suspicious when the doorbell rings after 8 or 9 at night,

    never in a million years have any of us felt any need WHATSOEVER to have a gun in the house.  What the hell woul i need it for?  It's probably just as likely as likely a family member would be shot accidentally as a burglar--and to be honest most burglars around here are misguided high school kids who I'd rather not shoot, thank you very much.

    I'd have better luck with an alarm, a phone that can dial 911, and a baseball bat.  Plus if I had a gun the perpetrator (if armed) would probably be MORE, not less, likely to shoot me out of fear.

    This whole 'I need a gun to defend myself', mantra makes absolutely zero sense to me.

    •  i live in the hood, or at least (9+ / 0-)

      Portland's version, and I too feel no need for many of the same reasons you state. Home security is good, just guns are not that useful.

      When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

      by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:09:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I live in the suburbs (5+ / 0-)

      At best it would take the police five minutes or more to get here, and we've had home invasions in our neighborhood including victims being injured.  Having grown up with guns of course I own some, but due to having small children in the house I don't count on them to be available in the scenario of a home invasion.  They're somewhere that my wife can't even get to them (not that I don't trust her, but she's short.)  Once I'm older and more frail, I probably will keep one available for self defense because the elderly sometimes face the worst violence.  Either way, I don't see it as a problem for someone to have a gun for self defense as long as they aren't paranoid.  Different people have different need.

      •  I grew up with guns (0+ / 0-)

        And I don't own any, I don't know why you of course own any.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you want to know why? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mumtaznepal, ladybug53

          Not that it's anyone's business, but I used to go hunting, I used to enjoy shooting targets and was really good at shooting skeet, and I could use one for self defense if an extremely unlikely situation happened.  I've been in one unlikely situation where I was more comfortable having a gun since all the police apparently escaped the region with their families and people were waving guns at each other and fighting over gasoline.  Anyway, my guns are mostly in storage now because I am too busy for target practice, I would prefer fishing over hunting, and I have kids so I won't keep anything readily available for "protection" because I am aware of the statistics about accidents.  So they're locked up and unavailable without too much effort for now.

          •  serious question--do you actually feel that (0+ / 0-)

            you were safer with a gun in a lawless situation like that  than without?  See, I would think that you'd be much better off without the weapon and much less likely to either kill or be killed in such a situation.  Is that always the case?  No.  but in general.

            •  I do feel that I was safer (6+ / 0-)

              I am not a show off or hothead (other than online) so I didn't attract attention to myself or act aggressively.  There was a moment when I did begin to get my gun but the aggressor backed down quickly.  Either way, I think I am wiser now and have other, non-gun items to help in a crisis to where I could avoid that specific situation again.  However, it bothered me to learn how police protection basically disintegrates in a national disaster.

          •  got it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Oh Mary Oh

            I was just responding to the apparent assertion that if you grew up with gun of course you have guns.

            I also get the idea that when you're surrounded with people who have guns, you may feel safer if you have one yourself. That's what an arms race is after all.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:55:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  you're entitled. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh

        No one is questioning the right.  I just see them as more likely to cause unnecessary harm than to keep me safe.

        •  As Dirty Harry once said, ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "A man's gotta know his limitations".  Klutzes, butterfinger-types and morons are, therefore, probably much safer not owning guns.  Too bad they lack the ability to understand what it's like to NOT be such a danger to themselves.

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:49:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And I live... (10+ / 0-)

      45 minutes from the police station. Toss in the two or three extra minutes for ADT or whoever to notify the authorities, then, assuming there's an on duty cop available who isn't already responding somewhere on the other end of the county (big "if" in these days of budget cuts); well, you see where I'm going with this one.

    •  maybe the 12 yr old should have (13+ / 0-)

      an adult around.  BTW is the 12 yr old going to have access to the gun? You going to give her a key to the gun locker or you the kind keeps it loaded under the pillow? That's real responsible.

      When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

      by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  there won't always be an adult around-- (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, dewley notid, FrankRose

        sometimes kids ARE home alone.  But we always had safety procedures, we knew who to call, the neighbors were aware, we had the whole 'helping hand' program in our community (back in the 80s)...

        But yeah, always better to have someone watching over you if possible.

      •  If she were 12 or 21, what difference would it (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neuroptimalian, FrankRose, ancblu, meagert

        ...have made?  If her only choice was to wait for the cops, she might be dead.  As it turns out, she's alive and the cops have a suspect in jail.  

        Thanks for one of my favorite debate tactics though.  Though I'm surprised to see a progressive using it, since it's usually a trademark of republicans:  the "personal choice/responsibility" mantra.  "If this person lived exactly as I prescribe they should, they'd never have the problem to begin with."


        •  so you're advocating that loaded guns be (6+ / 0-)

          accessible to kids, am I right?  What if she were 7?  

          Because if you're not, and you believe that the guns are fine in the house but should be locked up, then this kid wouldn't have access to them.

          •  No, you're not right. And even you should see how (7+ / 0-)

            absurd a strawman that is.  This 12 year old, from the limited information I have, seems to have her shit together well enough to be left alone with a loaded gun.  

            Your kid?  I have no clue.  You do, and as his/her parent, the onus is on you to make that decision.  I had a .22 when I was 12.  I also had 80 acres in rural Wisconsin on which to use it, including a large dirt berm that used to be the ramp of a burned down dairy barn as a backstop.  I never killed myself or anyone else.    

            Do you see a common thread here?  What was right for me as a 12 year old may not be right for your kids at 12 years old.  Or 13, 14, 15, 16, or 35.    

            •  it's not a strawman at all. There's a lot of (8+ / 0-)

              responsible kids who make mistakes.  (same with driving)  And there are lots of kids who get killed because of these mistakes.  Point is, we're playing a dangerous game as a society if kids can have easy access to these weapons.  They can't vote till they're 18, can't drink till they're 21, but it's fine for a 12 year old to simply walk over to a drawer and pull out a gun?

              Good thing she's responsible, yes.  And good for her that she showed maturity to get out of a jam.  But that wouldn't be the case for many others.

              •  Yet, there are thousands like me... (10+ / 0-)

                ...who never got into trouble.  I'm not unique.  In my area of Wisconsin, there was nothing at all unique about a 12 or 13 year old having his (or her) own .22 or .410 or 20 ga. shotgun.  And I can't recall anyone in my youth who ever got into trouble because of it.  I'm sure it happened to someone somewhere though.  

                Yes, many younger drivers get into trouble with cars.  Sometimes, they kill other people (in my high school years, we lost three students in one car crash).  Yet, we don't ban cars.  We don't have people who live in NYC and have access to the subway dictating that if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else, no matter where they live or what their situation is.        

                That's why prescriptive "this is good for me so it must be universally good" stuff really rubs people the wrong way.  And it really doesn't win elections.

                And I'm sorry but with a strawman, you distort someone's statement into something it is not, then attack the distortion. I never advocated guns for all kids.  Never.  My point all along has been that what works for the diarist or anyone else may not work for others.  In much the same way, each kid is unique, and one thing that one kid is fine with, another won't be.  Just because I happen to believe that ____ can be permitted, does not mean I am endorsing _____ as something that everyone should do.


                •  again--if you accept that, by law, it is ok for (0+ / 0-)

                  this 12 year old to obtain a weapon, then by law (since this is, for good or ill, the way laws work) it is ok for all 12 year olds to obtain a weapon.  This strikes me as needlessly dangerous (imagine if every house with a child had guns lying around that would be easy to access)  The stories of accidental deaths would FAR outweigh the stories like the one we're discussing here.  You know full well this is true.

                  Like it or not, laws are generally universal. THey have to be, or else they couldn't get written.  We can't evaluate the responsibility of every parent and every child in this country to make sure safety is ensured.

                  There are lots of 14 year olds who might be good drivers, too.  But we don't let them on the road.  OK, maybe we can enforce at the state rather than the national level, but we're still drawing arbitrary lines because we don't have much of a choice.

                  Anyway, you're completely altering the point of the argument by shifting to the 'ban'.  I'm not talking about a 'ban'.  I'm talking about your invoking one particular case of a 12 year old girl who was able to get herself out of a jam to suggest that this scenario should be available to every single household.  I don't think it should.  

    •  what's your point? The 12-year-old girl is (9+ / 0-)

      going to call her dad, ask where the key to the gun closet is, load the thing up with ammo and blow the guy away?

      Or should she just have been packing to begin with, just in case a guy with a history of kidnapping underage girls happens to drop by?

      This comment makes zero sense.

      Yes, crime sucks.  Arming this kid isn't the answer to it.

      •  The point is, that what works for you... (17+ / 0-)

        ...doesn't work all the time for everyone else.  Like the woman in a major city (heavily patrolled by officers) who dialed 9-1-1 and waited for police for 11 minutes.  The 9-1-1 operator recorded this woman being murdered while she waited 11 minutes for the cops.  

        So really, yeah things like security systems do help.  Nasty plants by windows do help.  Dogs do help.  But despite those things, if someone wants to get in your house, they will.  And if they do, do you want to wait 10 minutes for the cops?  Do you want to tell someone else that their only option is to sit on the phone and die?    

        The point really is, where do you get off insisting that whatever works for you is the universal panacea for the problem, and nobody else should be permitted to do anything different?    

        If my parents who live in rural far northern Wisconsin called 9-1-1 now, I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that a cop would not get there for a minimum of ten minutes.  Probably more like 15.  Unless one of the five deputies that patrol a county 3/4th the size of the state of Delaware just so happened to be nearby.  

        So why do you get to tell anyone else "This works for me in my situation, therefore, you can't do anything different."  

        This is why people don't trust gun control advocates.  A vast majority of gun owners in this country have some common ground with you.  They're interested in ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  But instead of seizing on that, gun control people start the invective and the ridicule.  They say stupid things like "this works just fine for me in my dense urban area.  Why shouldn't it work for the guy in rural Wisconsin who lives 30 minutes from the local cop shop and whose neighbor almost got shot after he accidentally stumbled upon some meth cooks on his own property?"  Many gun owners would even agree that "assault weapons" are a patently absurd thing, and nobody really has any real use for them.  But they don't trust you:  they worry that if they give you an inch, you'll take a foot.  And if it continues, 2014 is going to be a bloody midterm for the Democrats, especially in rural and suburban districts.  

        •  are you aware of how often kids are shot by (6+ / 0-)

          accident because guns are completely unsecured in the house?

          Too much.

          Or our astronomical suicide rate because guns are so easy to come across?

          Too high.

          Good for this 12-year old for poise and presence of mind--and maybe she lives in a really remote area in which help wasn't available if she were to get out of the house (I live in a neighborhood so I would be much safer leaving the house than hiding in a closet)

          I didn't say to outlaw all guns.  Just that your example doesn't strengthen any argument.

          •  Great, you don't need a gun. (12+ / 0-)

            Good for you.  So why the invective:

            I think we can do a favor for our friends who are scared that their home, or castle because a man's home is his castle, is under attack.  I am not talking about the jackbooted thugs in their stylish black helicopters.  I want to focus on the barbaric hoards of criminals out their.[sic]
            ^^^^ That is why people do not trust people who talk about gun control.   You're lumping people I know into that crowd.  people who, much to your surprise, might agree with you on a ton of gun related issues, like background checks, keeping them out of the hands of people who are not functioning at a capacity to use them, and even the assault weapons issue.  

            Not everyone who owns a gun thinks the way your invective seems to portray them as thinking.  That may come as a shock to you.  What also may shock you is that many millions of people in this country live in places where the police are not 2 minutes away.

            Why are you trying to paint everyone that owns a gun as a conspiratorial nutjob afraid of black helicopters?  Why do you paint everyone with the same brush as believing the castle doctrine?  (FWIW, I don't agree with it and have said so in comments months ago after the Trayvon Martin murder, and even pointed out how the Castle Doctrine of English common law has been grossly twisted.)


            •  that's not my invective. I didn't say that. (5+ / 0-)

              The diarist was sarcastically invoking Wayne LaPierre's obscene line that was denounced by George Bush and precipitated his renunciation of his NRA membership.

              So you have the gun lobby to think for that invective--not the gun control advocates or the diarist.

              Also your response doesn't respond to me at all--I never say anything you claim I said.  You seem to have either misread or responded to the wrong comment.

              •  So you excuse "sarcasm" as appropriate response (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, ER Doc

                to the "gun lobby" when the point of the diary is to ratify the the validity of home/castle threats ... by recommending "non-lethal" defense measures as viable alternative to gun ownership/use.

                Home/castle security is easy, so can we brainstorm to help those who need our help?
                You are being intellectually lazy and dishonest here -- and in more ways than I've bothered to point out.
                •  this comment is convoluted and makes no sense.nt (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Quite right ... I'm sure it doesn't make (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ER Doc

                    much sense to you since it was pointing out logical and factual fallacies you asserted.  

                    •  no, your confusion arises from the fact that (0+ / 0-)

                      you walked into someone else's exchange a bit too late to understand exactly what was going on.  The commenter thought I wrote the diary.  I informed him that I didn't.  I said that the use of the 'jackbooted thugs' line was an ironic twist of Wayne LaPierre's completely foolish and ill-conceived use of the term.

                      If the person I responded to can understand this, I'm assuming that you can as well.

                      •  No ... I followed that point as well and it (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ER Doc

                        is quite distinct from the one I addressed.

                        You rationalized the diarist's inappropriate and insulting sarcasm as an appropriate response to "the gun lobby" ... a broad brush characterization in several respects, lacking any sensible nuance and reflecting a stereotypic construct that is all too tiresome in these control vs. rights debates.  

                        Moreover, the diarist's insult implicitly ridiculed the rationale for household gun ownership because it was "fear-based" and yet he went on to provide "non-lethal" alternatives to address the supposed "fear-rationale" -- thereby validating the premise that he initially rejected.

                        And yet you gave a pass on this hodge-podge of insult, straw-men and evident error of fact and logic ... and now don't really seem much inclined to understand these reasonably obvious issues I raise or prefer to ignore them.

                        •  in many cases, it IS fear based. (0+ / 0-)

                          so I agree with the diarist on that point.  

                          Our gun culture--at least these days--is very much strengthened by often unfounded fears.  You don't see this sort of rush to self-protection by firearm in other countries comparable to ours.  

                          If the diarist wants to be a bit condescending, so be it.  It's a bit sarcastic, but not terribly inflammatory compared to other ones I've seen.

        •  also what's this 'gun control people' nonsense? (4+ / 0-)

          I'm not one of them, dude.  Yes, i advocate strict regulation (because it's constitutional and there are tons of dangerous people out there), but  I"m hardly a 'take away all the guns' type.

        •  First, take a breath, second, take anything (7+ / 0-)

          you might have forgotten this morning.

          I didn't say that people had to do it my way.  What I did say is there are many ways to protect oneself without having a gun.    Your Ma & Pa live in rural WI, good for them. Maybe they should think of moving if it is a war zone there in the North Woods. Maybe they should get a couple dogs

          The thing is, GUN ADVOCATES are the ones forcing the rest of us to live and die because you have a fetish about things that go bang.  Gun safety advocates are not talking about taking ALL guns away.  They ARE talking about reasonable measures to reduce gun violence.  One of the best ways is to reduce the number of guns, especially specific types, and make sure they are in the hands of responsible people who do own them.

          I also have the Google, and I can do a search and come up with a gazillion stories about the kid who got daddy's unsecured gun and killed themselves or someone else.  I too can find a gazillion stories about the person who shot their spouse coming home real late and mistaken for an intruder,.  I too can find a gazillion stories about bullets going through apartment walls and hurting or killing someone because the dumb ass who legally had a gun was drunk, discharged it while he was cleaning it, or missed his target for whatever reason.  

          So when the NRA and the manufactures who support them get real, and want to talk about reasonable ways of reducing senseless deaths and injuries due to guns, we will be here to have a reasonable dialog.

          When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

          by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:01:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Quite good. (10+ / 0-)

            I especially like the "take anything you forgot to take this morning" bit.  Quite a reasonable conversation you're setting us up for.  Much the same way as the first paragraph of the diary.  

            Ma and Pa live in Northern Wisconsin.  Not much happens up there.  But if it does (and I'm not saying it will, but it could), the police are 20 minutes away.  ADT ain't going to help them.  Their two labrador retrievers ain't gonna help them.  Rose bushes ain't gonna help them.  My dad is a 67 year old former Marine officer with gold wings and multiple combat tours.  He's survived 67 years with some of them in the most decrepit and insane shitholes you can imagine, all without your help, and that's exactly the way he likes it.  I've been working for years to get him to vote Democrat, because despite his bluster, he really is pretty liberal.  He likes the Universal healthcare system I and my brother were born under when they lived overseas.  He thinks everyone should have that.  He thinks college ought to be free, just like it was for him when he got his master's at University of Michigan (thanks to NROTC).  He's an atheist and thinks repubs spend too much time shoving religion down people's throats.  And he thinks a woman's uterus and what she does with it - as well as what two consenting adults do in their own bedroom - is none of his business.  But he's not going to vote for Democrats either if they also start trying to tell him how to live.  My guess is, he won't vote at all...

            But again, I love the suggestion that "they should think of moving."  Maybe they can move where you live and act just like you, and then everything will be peachy, won't it?  

            Anyway, I Just wanted you to know a bit about the people whose lives - and votes - you so casually dismiss as you paint them as "gun fetishists" and "people who forgot to take something this morning."    

            Find all the anecdotes you want.  For every one you find, I can find another.  For every city I can find with lots of gun ownership and lots of gun deaths, I can find another with lots of gun ownership and relatively few gun deaths.  For every city I can find that has strict gun control and low rates of gun death, I can find another that has strict gun control and has some of the most atrocious gun violence rates in the world.  We can go all day in that manner and still not solve any problems.  

            Now, the NRA is a despicable outfit.  I can't stand them.  I never could.  But really, after such statements deriding gun owners as nuts who need to be medicated, and having the temerity to suggest that people just move away from their homes so they can live in your image, how can you expect anyone to trust your word for anything when you say "oh, we're not taking all guns away?"  


            •  In the event I get banned for another post (0+ / 0-)

              you are correct.  I did cross the line in my reply to you. For that I apologize.

              When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

              by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:26:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Are you really serious? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, ER Doc
        Arming this kid isn't the answer to it.
        Except for the unassailable fact that it was -- in this exact case and outcome.

        Talk about zero sense.

        •  laughably weak response. (0+ / 0-)

          gun legislation doesn't rely on the isolated anecdotal story of a single 12-year-old kid who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

          •  Laughably weak? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc

            ... with respect to your bob and weave, I agree.

            Dismissal of this factual case as mere isolated anecdotal story is simply an empty gesture of the intellectually lazy and uninformed.  You should study up on FBI crime data involving defensive use of firearms ... and get back to us.

            •  i just wrote an essay in response and deleted (0+ / 0-)


              I will sum it up instead.

              By fixating on the very small number of cases such as these (which are significantly outweighed by those cases in which accidental death or some other tragedy was the result of an easily accessible firearm), you use a very small set of data points to contribute to a culture of largely mythologized terror that contributes to an obsession with firearm based self protection that simply does not exist in other countries.  The result of that is both a homicide, suicide and accidental death rate that is orders of magnitude higher than it should be.

              Yes, this girl was lucky. I don't fault her for that.  But the circumstances that allowed for her to have easy access to a gun are similar to circumstances that are far more tragically lethal in far more cases.

              So was the situation to her benefit?  Obviously.  But is basing the discourse on rare anecdotes such as these beneficial to the well being of American society in which we are relatively free from fear and don't automatically consider the gun when faced with some perceived threat?  I would say obviously not.

    •  You must have spent days (10+ / 0-)

      searching for one anecdote to support your selfish hobby.

      •  I mean--good for the girl for maintaining poise- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena, Oh Mary Oh

        and you can always find that one-in-a-zillion incident--

        Although the mom should have advised her to get OUT of the house.  (granted, I don't know if this is an isolated farm, or a neighborhood).  

        In any case, this seems like a single incident where the gun was properly used for self defense, and none of the legislation on the table (or the exec. orders) impinges on this particular incident.

      •  No, it happens hundreds of times a year all (11+ / 0-)

        across the nation.  That one is particularly poignant though, since we're talking about keeping kids safe and all.

        And sadly, it's quite easy to find reports of people dying while on 9-1-1 waiting for the police.    

        I'm not advocating giving 12 year olds guns.  All I'm pointing out is that sometimes, security systems fail to protect you.  Dogs fail to protect you.  Locked doors fail to protect you.  Hiding in closets fails to protect you.  9-1-1 fails to protect you.  Why do you get to decide what a person's options are when that happens?      

        •  My diary was directed at those who DO (5+ / 0-)

          believe in the Castle Doctrine, and spout it every chance they can not the person who is responsible.  Having said that, guns in the home give people a false sense of security which often goes quite badly.  

          There a number of very good steps that can provide security for someone in their home that do not require a gun.  How many of these are even looked at and tried before a gun is even purchased?

          When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

          by kaminpdx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:11:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I do believe in the "Castle Doctrine" (8+ / 0-)

            That is, the real Castle Doctrine, not what the NRA has perverted it to mean.  

            In English Common Law, the Castle Doctrine was quite simply stating that a person's home, no matter how crappy it is, is their home and the Bailiff must have a warrant to enter it and search it just as he would for the Lord's Castle.  It stemmed from a case where a Bailiff entered a shanty without a warrant, and used the defense that a shanty is not really a "home."  The "Castle Doctrine" clarified that it is a home, and it is due the very same protections that the grandest home in all the County is afforded.  It says nothing about killing people.  Even under common law, while a person had the right to murder in self-defense, they still had the duty to ensure that no other option was available.  Thus, the "duty to retreat."  

            How the NRA bastardized the Castle Doctrine into "I can shoot anyone that comes in my house" I have no idea.  Your guess is as good as mine.  


            •  I should have mentioned "Connecticut v. Mooney" (7+ / 0-)

              ...oft cited case law that embodies "Castle Doctrine."  Mooney was living in a cardboard box.  Some police searched the cardboard box home (even though the 'entrance" was closed) and searched a duffel bag found within.  They found some contraband in there, arrested Mooney and he was convicted.  

              The Connecticut Supreme court overturned the conviction based on the Castle Doctrine.  Even though it was just a cardboard box, it was Mooney's home, and as such, the cops needed a warrant to search it, just like they would have needed one to search one of the multi-million dollar homes (today's castles) in New Canaan.

              Nowhere does the original "Castle Doctrine" imply you can shoot anyone in your house without any duty to retreat.        

            •  In traditional common law ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, ER Doc

              the unalienable right of self-defense within the home from criminal offenses or unlawful aggression served as sufficient grounds for use of lethal force as a matter of natural law.

              There was no duty to retreat in such cases, which Blackstone addresses in his Commentaries, circa 1760.

          •  Plenty of options are tried (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, PavePusher

            Some of us still decide to buy a gun. I don't own a gun now, but when I lived in San Diego, half a mile from where a friend's 80-year-old mother was raped and murdered, I owned a gun.

            Please visit:

            by Noisy Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:37:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, it absolutely does happen... (5+ / 0-)

          ...hundreds of times a year.

          Documented, with links to news media relating the details, on the "Armed Citizen" page of the NRA monthly magazines.

          Disclaimer: I hate the NRA as passionately as any of you. But facts is facts, as somebody said.

    •  Ever hear of tazers? (0+ / 0-)

      Baseball bats? Other things besides guns?

      What is a 12 year old doing all alone anyway, without a neighbor or someone around, just in case?

      As someone that was home alone at 12, I can tell you it's not a good situation, not something I would recommend.

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 04:25:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the thorny-barrier idea! (10+ / 0-)

    Biggish junipers are also effective. I also strongly endorse the dog idea.

    I think there is too much light pollution already, so think the lights should definitely be on motion sensors. Those are pretty effective as a warning system too, and have a powerful startling effect!

    Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

    by sfinx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:11:39 AM PST

    •  Here in the southwest, we have cactus - (8+ / 0-)

      the ultimate thorny barrier. Especially the cholla variety.

      If you don't like abortion, don't have one! Trust The Women t-shirt from Zazzle.

      by jan4insight on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:20:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (5+ / 0-)

      Around here we have what's known as multi-flora rose, cursed by most everybody who has ever had to deal with them.

      They're pretty during the one-week-a-year they're in full bloom, but when those thorns grab you they don't let go!

      •  The Sleeping Beauty security system. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, Oh Mary Oh

        Deters most intruders, and catches and holds the foolhardiest. Kind of like those coils of barbed wire they put on top of fences, but prettier and self-maintaining. Good to get some use out of those multi-floras!

        Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

        by sfinx on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 08:15:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All the old ramblers are good for that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, Oh Mary Oh, dewley notid

          Long flexible canes that can be trained however you want, lots and lots and LOTS of big sharp thorns, and a side benefit of some very pretty flowers (though probably only once a year).

          Here's a GardenWeb discussion related to the subject. Note that it started as a "nuisance neighbor deterrent", but it does go on to cover a number or pros and cons.

          I've had direct experience with "Common Moss" (a beautiful old garden rambler that no one quite seems to know how it originated, long rather stiff stems covered in nasty sharp spiny prickles, and an absolutely DIVINE, overpowering scent - unfortunately only blooms once a year), "Dr. Huey" (ubiquitous dark-red rambler that's seen everywhere in established neighborhoods because it's been used for nearly a century as rootstock and almost always outlasts - or takes over - the varietal grafted onto it: nice sharp thorns, not much scent, once-blooming, one of the hardiest roses ever, gets blackspot a lot but shrugs it off like acne), and a rather sickly specimen of "Comte de Chambord" that I've been nursing along for four or five years (it doesn't flourish but refuses to die, and ungratefully scratches the hand that tries to feed it).

          Anyone who scoffs at the effectiveness of roses is probably thinking of those pampered prima donnas in show gardens, the hybrid teas. They've been so overbred and inbred that they're not much use for anything BUT show, and often more trouble than they're worth. Roses encountered "in the wild", or closer to their wild roots, are a very different proposition.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:58:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have a nice old Father Hugo's rose that (0+ / 0-)

            threatens to engulf the front porch and certainly puts off some would-be deliverers of nuisance flyers. Not quite a full-fledged rambler but it does spread. Do you know it? Super early, little single yellow blooms. Cheers me up just to think about it. I'll have to try to find a way to get an Old Moss for the other side of the porch!

            Babylon system is the vampire... ~Bob Marley

            by sfinx on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 07:35:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I live in downtown DC (10+ / 0-)

    and have been the victim or burglary twice.  I have no desire to ever have a gun in my house.

    I will say though that while getting a security system was nice nothing has made me or my wife feel safer than adopting a rescue Doberman.  She is a sweet girl but that bark is enough to make me have to meet the UPS person at the street because she wont even come on the porch with the door closed and locked.  

    And a guard dog breed is naturally territorial.  She investigates sounds in the night.  She runs to the window to look at anything moving or making noise.  She doesn't like things happening out of their natural patterns.  

    Doorbell rings 15 seconds after I get off the phone?  No problem.. she knows that usually means food is being delivered.  Knock on the door while I'm at the computer with my head phones on?  ALL HOLY HELL IS UNLEASHED IN A VOLATILE FRENZY OF TEETH, CLAWS AND BARKING until I  look out the window to see the frightened FedEx guy backing down my sidewalk and say its okay.

    If you want security, by ALL MEANS.... get yourself a good dog.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:29:24 AM PST

  •  On the home alarm system advice (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coyotebanjo, mumtaznepal, Oh Mary Oh

    Get glass break sensors.  The "default" alarm system requires the criminals to be inside your house and open the windows for some reason.  You should have glass break sensors at minimum where there are major windows for people to climb through.  Just don't put one in your room where your home theater is, turn on the alarm, and watch a movie with breaking glass.

  •  On the castle doctrine: (8+ / 0-)

    One thing that I don't understand is those people, including those here at DKos, who think it is okay to bring a gun into a home without the owner's knowledge or permission. What happened to my right to my castle ? Yes, they will say, because they have in answer to my comments right here, that all I need to do is put up a sign or tell everyone that comes into my home that they may not bring a gun, but I believe the responsibility should be on them to ask permission.

    (Note: Because I live in Canada, this does not actually pertain to my specific home, but it does pertain to the home  of the mother of my precious nephew, and the homes of many I love.)

    I thoroughly endorse the idea of getting a dog. I have never lived with a dog until 1212, when a new roommate and her German Shepard/Collie cross moved in. Andy is the sweetest, best dog, who only barks when someone is at the door, and who barks anytime and every time someone is at the door. One day, I was upstairs with my door closed, and heard him bark. I was not expecting anyone, so I was surprised. When I got downstairs, there was no one at the door, but there was a package in the mail box. Andy barked because the mail lady knocked on the door to deliver the package. I feel very protected.

                              Just my two cents,

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 12:18:37 PM PST

    •  I agree on not bringing it in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh

      That's why I sold my gun -- I was going to be staying with friends for 6 months and I already knew they wouldn't approve of a gun in the house, and I wasn't going to rent a storage space just for one measly gun.

      Please visit:

      by Noisy Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:38:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Home Defense Thoughts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, PavePusher, Oh Mary Oh

    When the intruders are unarmed or only have a close-combat weapon especially, a good sword might be especially useful. I mean, it was the weapon of the soldier before the firearm replaced it, and there have been a number of successful news stories that I've seen where the owner used a sword to drive off or stop an intruder.

    Given the close quarters situation of (most) homes, a gun's superior range doesn't provide much advantage, and you could jump an intruder by a doorway.

    The length will give you an advantage over a knife-wielding intruder and can make up for a taller intruder who has better reach and/or strength.

    It's also more intimidating than a baseball bat, a famous defacto home defense improv weapon. One of the most famous home defense improvs next to the kitchen knife, which is also a weapon of last resort due to the poor reach.

    The only useful non-lethal one I can think of is a high end security system that instantly summons police or what have you. But not everyone can afford that, and if the intruder is determined to steal from you and doesn't care about killing you, that defense won't deter the worst kinds of intruders.

    A max charge stun-gun or pepper spray might be useful, but those seem better choices for portable legal weaponry like against a mugger, not for home defense. I mean I guess if you combined it with a baseball bat so you can make sure they wouldn't get up and kill you when the effects wore off. I would imagine beating a pepper-sprayed intruder with a bat is easier than beating one who is more able to actively fight back.

    The reason a shotgun is so often cited as a good home defense weapon is because A) it is a close quarters weapon, B) has little penetrating power versus walls, preventing accidental injury, D) requires less accuracy since it fires shot, and E) has good stopping power.

    There are other options though. I think people should stick to whatever they feel comfortable with, gun, sword, pet bengal tiger.

    You only get one life, and if someone is trying to sneak into your home and kill you, you have the right to defend it.

    I don't have a firearm, but thankfully I've never had to experience a break-in.

    Personally, that's why I always get 2nd floor or higher apartments. Less crime.

    •  Main difference (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theboz, Oh Mary Oh

      It requires much more training to be effective with a sword than a gun.  There was a a great line in Jon Stewart's interview with Gen. McChrystal last week, that "technology has democratized killing power" (or something to that effect.)

      Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

      by EthrDemon on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:12:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sure, to a degree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        But if the intruder is not a skilled fighter, you're lack of experience shouldn't be much of a deterrent. We're talking about thrusting/swinging a few feet of steel at a home invader, not dueling in the streets of Venice.

        It's kind of like a knife+.

        I mean, I wouldn't suggest something exotic like a meteor hammer or a three section staff. Those take skill to even operate.

        Even a machete would be an improvement over a kitchen knife.

        Actually, one of the better kinds of unskilled-fighter friendly weapons are polearms and spears. Just take a look at the farmer-fighters through history.

        Those aren't a very good home defense though (especially in a situation like an apartment), where you don't have the room to utilize a weapon like that.

        Actually I researched one of those sword-home-intruder-defenses and found this blog post, where this martial arts practitioner suggests other items:

        The best weapon in the posters opinion? The mighty claw hammer.

        Not a bad call.

        Personally, I'd want something with more reach if I was actually forced to engage a home invader.

        I'd rather just it never happen at all though.

        While it's easy to go over technical schematics of various counter-measures in hypothetical scenarios, it's another thing to deal with scary stuff and a violent criminal invading your home.

        I can't even imagine.

        Note: That quote is spot on, though. They said the same thing about the crossbow when that was introduced, and it was just the next level of ease when the firearm came into play.

        Weapons have become easier and more efficient to use.

        •  I know of a case where a thrown spear deterred (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, Oh Mary Oh

          an attempted home invasion. This happened in a nest of SCAdians, and the thrower went on to become King of the East a time or three. Anyway, he was home watching TV and minding his own business in a room full of sharp implements of destruction handily mounted on the wall. A pair of hands appeared on the windowsill - he grabbed a spear and flung it through the open window - the hands dropped loose and he heard feet beating it down the street. A few days later the cops told him he could retrieve the spear from the side of the next-door building.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:11:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Misconcept (9+ / 0-)

      1) shotguns fire shot, but in 33 feet (top of stairs to bottom) the shot covers under 6 inches, not fills 6 feet.

      The owner can hunt or shoot clay targets with a shotgun, it's not just sitting there for the sole purpose of killing a person.

      2) swords, unless you own the rest of the Pirate costume and a Actors Equity union card, will be pre-determined to have a single purpose, the willful homicide of a person in your home.
      Proving otherwise in court, will be interesting.

      I'd suggest having a collection of Irish sword-dance music, and a kilt.

      "It's a recreational hobby.  I merely seized an object of opportunity, which happened to be my sword."

      Good luck on the tiger.  I'd opt for a badger and a tennis racquet.  Loft the badger, and "serve" to your opponent.
      Upon arrival, the badger will handle the rest without prompting.

      •  SCA membership card should suffice, for swords etc (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, Oh Mary Oh

        Anybody who knows anything about the SCA knows that a lot of its members like to collect sharp pointy steel objects just for the hell of it - and in fact some of those objects, by certain "name" makers, have become collectibles (ask about a "Shadowmaker" knife - but be prepared to have your ear talked off....)

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:15:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've had the occasion... (0+ / 0-)

          to be told "if Baron __ stops by, kindly give him these arrows.
          An hour later, "Mike" shows up.  
          So what are you here for Mike?  Ahh... arrows.

          I never knew Barons drove Subarus.

          There's the question of sanity, as folks who choose the heat of summer to meet enmasse in Pennsylvania... fail the "reasonable and prudent" test.

          Personally, as one trained in Kendo, I understand the use of swords and short swords.  The Masai spear has great utility in close proximity, and a pair of them is three times as good.
          Having a few other collectable African items in the house makes it an object of opportunity.

      •  Your comments always start my day.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh

        with a good belly-laugh.


      •  Oh yeah, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm well aware, but I mean a few inches can matter. My knowledge of shotguns is only academic (I've never fired one or even held one), but I've seen it mentioned as a good choice by people who do know firearms.

        Didn't know about the sword issue. The Garage Guy story I linked, he wasn't convicted of anything and it was judged legitimate self defense.

        As for the badger, that's a better idea than the tiger. Especially if its a honey badger.

    •  Your first suggestions.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      require health and fitness, conditions not everyone has.

      And physical combat always works better with... (wait for it...)  training.  And it takes rather more training to acheive capability at melee combat than with a firearm.  (I have trained in both.)

      Your assertions on shotguns: B & D are incorrect.  Not sure what C was...?  A depends on circumstances and is not a constant.

      Recced for the wrap-up.

  •  If you live in the country... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noisy Democrat, PavePusher

    or anywhere isolated or semi-isolated...anyone bent on a home invasion will go right through your whole list like a knife through butter.  And be in and out pretty quick.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:35:32 PM PST

    •  Not every suggestion will work in every (11+ / 0-)

      situation.  Someone who's allergic to dogs can't get a dog, for instance.  Most people don't live in far-out rural areas.  The suggestions in the diary are very reasonable for people who live in suburbs or medium-density cities.  If you live way out in the country, by all means, get a gun.  That doesn't mean a gun is the optimum solution for many other people.  

      I've seen similar objections to diaries promoting electric cars.  Commenters say, "What about people who live 60 miles from the nearest town?  An electric car that only goes 100 miles on a charge will leave them stranded by the side of the road!"  Well, people who live 60 miles from the nearest town will have to continue to use gasoline or diesel vehicules.  That doesn't mean that city and suburban drivers can't use electric cars.  

      Renewable energy brings national global security.     

      by Calamity Jean on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 04:19:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  excellent (4+ / 0-)

    Great suggestions. Also people can consider bougainvillea to plant under windows. I'm in Florida and not sure how well it grows up north or west but it is beautiful, easy, fast growing in the south. Very long and sharp thorns deters would be intruders.

  •  You Forgot (16+ / 0-)

    Two other types of home defense options:

    a) The bo staff.  For those who have even basic training in martial arts, this can be an extremely effective "beat the crap out of an intruder at a distance" defensive weapon.  For those with more than basic training? It's lethal.

    b)  My own personal favorite home defense item is one that, back in the day, every single home in America had some version of in a size big enough to be lethal:

    Highly Effective Home Defense:  The Cast Iron Skillet

    •  Bo staff = Japanese quarterstaff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Anglo peoples know the quarterstaff as Robin Hood's second-favorite weapon (and, as with the bo, popular with the peasantry because it was easy to make and use).

      While no one knows for sure where the term "quarterstaff" came from, a popular school of thought is that it referred to a hardwood staff shaped from quarter-sawn lumber (which is less prone to do anything weird in the way of deforming than lumber cut by other methods).

      Also, who can forget Sam Gamgee  beaning Orcs with his trusty frying pan? "And that's for my old Gaffer!"

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:15:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Pyrenees (5+ / 0-)

    I live in the downtown area of a medium sized city. Nothing like  living in the " hood" or whatever, I'm sure,  but when I first moved here, friends and family thought I was nuts.There was a perception that it was a really dangerous place to live.

    I have only felt like I might have been in danger one time. I don't think I had my alarm system at the time. In the wee hours of the morning, someone knocked at the door. Without thinking and half asleep, I opened the door.  A car was pulled up very close to my house (I live in an alley, there is no sidewalk) with one guy standing at the corner of the car and another guy standing at the door. I asked what they wanted and the guy at the door leaned toward the screen and asked me if I wanted to get high. I said "No, Thank You". Really, I said that! and shut the door. The whole time I was at the door, my Great Pyrenees was beside me standing on her hind legs and acting like she wanted to tear through the screen and do serious damage. I don't know if  they meant trouble or if they just had the wrong house, but I feel like my dog might have saved me. I realize that a person bent on something evil would just shoot the dog, but I think most of the time criminals don't want to draw attention.

    My Pyrenees died with bone cancer. I now have a Shepherd mix (German Shepherd mix, I think, but people have asked if she is a Malinois or Teuveren, so maybe she has one of those breeds in the mix). She is smaller, but more aggressive than the Pyrenees. She tore the screen trying to get to the mail carrier.

    •  Yes, I am not sure about the diarist's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      suggestion that dogs are a non-violent form of defense.

      If any stranger managed to get into my house with my 5 dogs (meth-heads aren't known for being that sensible), I can tell you what would happen would be anything but non-violent.

  •  I'm way out in the woods, far from police. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radical simplicity

    Creativity is vital. Post signs that say NO HUNTIN or Tresspassers KILT. Use backwards esses. We have 2 dogs, poodle mixes, who are utterly non allergenic. Unshaved, they look more  bearish than poodlish. They do chase bears away. Take then to the local diner, leave them in the backseat and brag about how are actually chupacabradoodles and have killed 40 pound raccoons or treed a 200 pound cougar. (In the country, one must specify the weight of critters to be taken seriously.) Truth is these dogs are baby-kissers. We're safe as can be except for the local drunken hunters, of the Snopes ilk, who forget there are houses mixed into the woods. Think of aliases for your dogs for calling them when nefarious elements might be near ---"Brutus" and "Igor," for example. But do not name them those things for real or they will bite You.

  •  Just thought I'd point out that security alarms... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, theboz, PavePusher

    are subsidized by the general public.  There's a lot of wasted police time and energy on answering false alarms, which the general public subsidizes.

    Not saying people shouldn't get security alarms, but from the numbers I've seen (Not recently, so can't cite anything), showed the expense was pretty significant.

    •  I'm not sold on security systems myself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Flying Goat

      My mother has one, and I swear the damn thing HATES me! Every time she's asked me to look after her house while she's away, the wretched thing has triggered an alarm because I didn't punch in the code fast enough, or hit the buttons hard enough, or use the remote at the right angle or distance, or the remote just didn't FEEL like working just then, or etc.

      I wouldn't mind mounting a "paper defense" consisting of stickers and yard flag, but to actually have a live security system...?

      There's another consideration - if you have DSL, the security system WILL play hell with it unless correctly installed by professionals who know what they are doing. (Mom went through that too.)

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 01:57:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site