Dingo
Well-Known Member
Kennesaw, GA actually requires that you have a gun.
Home Security... Please help.
- Thread starter Chris Kulbaba
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Richard Toms
Well-Known Member
Most motion sensors have like a weight ratio to them. Like they won't sensor on unless the "whatever" is over a certain weight. I seen this on TV on a show on the discovery channel. They had said on the show for motion sensors in the house that it took about 60-80lbs off space to make the sensor go off. Having this, would default anything smaller than the average pet/animal.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
XST,
I suggest you move to a better neighborhood with larger lots where people don't simply walk across other's property.
That's the best suggestion I can give you. Either that, or put up a fence.
TJR
I suggest you move to a better neighborhood with larger lots where people don't simply walk across other's property.
That's the best suggestion I can give you. Either that, or put up a fence.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
You're in CANADA. Surely you must have a hockey stick, right?
Motion lights. Get a couple of good ones and suppliment with some cheapo's. The sensors are really the key. Range, sensitivity and degree of vision. They come in varieties ranging from 30 degrees to nearly 300 degrees. I am working a plan up for my house as we speak. I'm aiming for double coverage where possible, especially around windows, doors and the fence gate.
Make friends with your neighbors. Find out if they have any similar experiences lately. You may be dealing with a "gang" looking for a new treading ground.
I'm not a synical person. It is possible it was all innocent. But I'm also not stupid. I'm in Arkansas so guns are a way of life. Any club object would be preferable to a knife for home defence in my opinion. I'm all about keeping some distance.
With lots of razor wire and a moat
Motion lights. Get a couple of good ones and suppliment with some cheapo's. The sensors are really the key. Range, sensitivity and degree of vision. They come in varieties ranging from 30 degrees to nearly 300 degrees. I am working a plan up for my house as we speak. I'm aiming for double coverage where possible, especially around windows, doors and the fence gate.
Make friends with your neighbors. Find out if they have any similar experiences lately. You may be dealing with a "gang" looking for a new treading ground.
I'm not a synical person. It is possible it was all innocent. But I'm also not stupid. I'm in Arkansas so guns are a way of life. Any club object would be preferable to a knife for home defence in my opinion. I'm all about keeping some distance.
With lots of razor wire and a moat
Last edited by a moderator:
TomT
Well-Known Member
[Broken External Image]:
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
I'm so glad I live in the USA where I can keep my firearms close to me for protection.
If you can't use a Taser, how about keeping a few cannisters of Bear Mace handy?
If you can't use a Taser, how about keeping a few cannisters of Bear Mace handy?
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
TJR are you addressing me or XST?
Where did I suggest my neighborhood was bad?
Where did I suggest my neighborhood was bad?
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Even if a taser was a legal option, I wouldn't recommend it, as it has too many problems. It's a one shot deal, so if you miss, you're facing your adversary with just a hunk of plastic and some wires, and to buy a new projectile piece for a taser is not cheap. Not to mention the 15 foot range and that tasers do not have the same level of effectiveness on all people. Cops use tasers, sure, but they have more guaranteed weapons for when plan A--the taser--fails.
Hockey stick over the taser
(Wait...there are bad neighborhoods in canada? When did this happen?)
Hockey stick over the taser
(Wait...there are bad neighborhoods in canada? When did this happen?)
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
SST, Sorry, a typo...I edited my post. I meant to say XST (note how close they are on the keyboard...S and X I mean).
Tom
Tom
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
Tom T. ? E-Bay or do you have a website for ordering. Perfect for protection, hog hunting and fishing.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Sorry, XST, not trying to insult.
It's just that I don't view motion lights as the solution to the problem you described. Part of a solution? Sure. The entire solution? No.
Glad you are considering a dog. That's a great addition.
As far as a gun goes, for the incident you described, a shoutgun could have been retreived from a fast access (digital keypad) safe, ammo from a seperate source, loaded, and ready, just in case, without breaking an Canadian gun laws.
If you have family views that preclude gun ownership, that's another matter.
Never ceases to amaze me that a government would disarm it's citizens and make them easy prey for criminals. It's a violation of natural rights.
Fair enough, for this incident yes. However, to purchase a rifle he will need a possession and acquisition license, to get that he needs to take a course, after that course it takes around 3 months to get his license. You need to provide them with more info than with a passport application. You need to get people that know you to sign and say they have known you for x number of years. They will then call your spouse/recent ex whatever the case may be to see if they have any issues with you having a firearm. This actually caused problems for me because they only person I had been intimate with in the past three years was dead and they required her contact information. It actually took a few phone calls to get that straightened out. I don't know what part of 'dead' they didn't understand.
Anyway, to sum up, getting a rifle for someone without their license is not a short term solution due to the time delays involved.
Last edited by a moderator:
TomT
Well-Known Member
Olaf, if only it took that much in the USA to own a gun maybe a wacko teenager in PA. or other states would not be able to stockpile an arsenal.
I know that statement is going to infuriate all you NRA freaks and I'm not exactly anti-gun since I own several rifles, shotguns and handguns myself. But it's WAY to easy to get a firearm in this country and way to many nut jobs are doing just that. Is it so wrong to check out a person before hand a little more thoroughly? I don't want to keep responsible people from owning guns, just the ones that shouldn't.
I know that statement is going to infuriate all you NRA freaks and I'm not exactly anti-gun since I own several rifles, shotguns and handguns myself. But it's WAY to easy to get a firearm in this country and way to many nut jobs are doing just that. Is it so wrong to check out a person before hand a little more thoroughly? I don't want to keep responsible people from owning guns, just the ones that shouldn't.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
TomT, if politicians and government were 100% honorable in their intentions, it might not be so bad to have such oversight. But the political system and government process has become abusive to its very core.
For example, in some states, the local police chief has jurisdiction over whether you can carry a gun. So, as you might imagine, the police chief's brother has no problem getting a permit. But the SOB who divorced his sister a few years ago, he's outta luck. Imagine that: An American citizen's rights dictated by a non-elected law enforcement official. Where in the Constitution does it say "This right is valid only if agreed to by local law enforcement?"
Or, how about the 1994 assualt weapons ban? Not a single documented case where the legislation prevented a violent crime. Zero. None. It cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, got some otherwise law abiding citizens convicted as felons and incarcerated for having the wrong grip on their rifle, and inconvenienced a lot of other people. And yet, every time a mass shooting happens, politicians flock to the podium to remind us how this is because the NRA/Bush/the Congress/fill-in-the-name-of-your-current-political-enemy failed to renew the assualt weapons ban.
The ATF is basically a tax agency that likes to ruin peoples' lives at the behest of its political masters. The horror stories are matters of public record. For example, a police leutenant in Pheonix who helped a female friend purcahse a firearm for self-protection. The ATF got him indicated as a "straw purchaser." He was later cleared of the charges. But the ATF's actions got him suspended, cost him nearly $100,000 in legal fees, ruined his career and severly damaged his retirement pension. His lawyer told this story in an ATF oversight congressional hearing, among many others horror tales. Gun dealers put out of busienss or even in jail, ruined for failure to write "Yes" instead of "Y" on an ATF form. Valuable gun collections seized from collectors targeted by ATF investigations, later proven to be innocient, but the collector then has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their property back.
The list is endless.
Threfore, every time government wants to put "reasonable" steps in place, "NRA gun freaks" like me stir the pot, because we know how the game is played. Out of control government likes to step on people. ATF (among others) has big boots with sharp spikes.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Stop blaming the guns. Our society has some problems. We have people with screws loose, for a lot of reasons, without the self-control to stop themselves for killing others. I'd like to stop those people. But not at the cost of my freedom.
For example, in some states, the local police chief has jurisdiction over whether you can carry a gun. So, as you might imagine, the police chief's brother has no problem getting a permit. But the SOB who divorced his sister a few years ago, he's outta luck. Imagine that: An American citizen's rights dictated by a non-elected law enforcement official. Where in the Constitution does it say "This right is valid only if agreed to by local law enforcement?"
Or, how about the 1994 assualt weapons ban? Not a single documented case where the legislation prevented a violent crime. Zero. None. It cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, got some otherwise law abiding citizens convicted as felons and incarcerated for having the wrong grip on their rifle, and inconvenienced a lot of other people. And yet, every time a mass shooting happens, politicians flock to the podium to remind us how this is because the NRA/Bush/the Congress/fill-in-the-name-of-your-current-political-enemy failed to renew the assualt weapons ban.
The ATF is basically a tax agency that likes to ruin peoples' lives at the behest of its political masters. The horror stories are matters of public record. For example, a police leutenant in Pheonix who helped a female friend purcahse a firearm for self-protection. The ATF got him indicated as a "straw purchaser." He was later cleared of the charges. But the ATF's actions got him suspended, cost him nearly $100,000 in legal fees, ruined his career and severly damaged his retirement pension. His lawyer told this story in an ATF oversight congressional hearing, among many others horror tales. Gun dealers put out of busienss or even in jail, ruined for failure to write "Yes" instead of "Y" on an ATF form. Valuable gun collections seized from collectors targeted by ATF investigations, later proven to be innocient, but the collector then has to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their property back.
The list is endless.
Threfore, every time government wants to put "reasonable" steps in place, "NRA gun freaks" like me stir the pot, because we know how the game is played. Out of control government likes to step on people. ATF (among others) has big boots with sharp spikes.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Stop blaming the guns. Our society has some problems. We have people with screws loose, for a lot of reasons, without the self-control to stop themselves for killing others. I'd like to stop those people. But not at the cost of my freedom.
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
Heck-- maybe some of the nutjobs would do themselves in if they had access to guns.
Guns don't kill. People kill.
Guns don't kill. People kill.
Roy Smith
Active Member
sensor lights and a .45ACP with 2 mag.s.Yeah,I like to riddle 'em!!!!never too many holes!!!!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
The famous quote:
That's exactly right.
Which means we better do our best to make sure that guns and other dangerous weapons don't get into the hands of unstable people.
TJR
That's exactly right.
Which means we better do our best to make sure that guns and other dangerous weapons don't get into the hands of unstable people.
TJR
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Or if guns are just plain difficult to obtain, criminals will still get illegal or stolen guns anyway.
"Batches? We don' need no stinking batches!"
I have a security system sign prominently displayed in my front shrubbery (insert Monty Python joke here), I'm known for having what's probably the largest dog in town, nevermind that he wouldn't hurt a flea but they don't know that, plus I have a 9mm with hollow points either on me or nearby most of the time, plus PA passed a "Make My Day Law" a few years ago, meaning that unless you shoot an intruder in the back you're pretty much in the clear. I'd probably get in trouble for tampering with a crime scene, but if I ever have to shoot somebody in my house I'd drag them outside so they wouldn't bleed on the new carpet.
A large dog is not necessary IMO, anything that will bark and wake up the homeowner if it hears something is enough to chase most would-be burglars away.
In Canada, I'd say you need to get some people running for office that will change the laws.
"Batches? We don' need no stinking batches!"
I have a security system sign prominently displayed in my front shrubbery (insert Monty Python joke here), I'm known for having what's probably the largest dog in town, nevermind that he wouldn't hurt a flea but they don't know that, plus I have a 9mm with hollow points either on me or nearby most of the time, plus PA passed a "Make My Day Law" a few years ago, meaning that unless you shoot an intruder in the back you're pretty much in the clear. I'd probably get in trouble for tampering with a crime scene, but if I ever have to shoot somebody in my house I'd drag them outside so they wouldn't bleed on the new carpet.
A large dog is not necessary IMO, anything that will bark and wake up the homeowner if it hears something is enough to chase most would-be burglars away.
In Canada, I'd say you need to get some people running for office that will change the laws.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Unstable people do all kinds of harm with baseball bats, kitchen knives, hockey sticks, etc. Guess we need to have the BBBKNHSATFE now.... that is:
Bureau of Basball Bats, Kitchen Knives, Hockey Sticks, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Baseball Players will need to registers their deadly "Assault Bats". There cannot be any bats painted or stained black, red, camo, or have a bayonet mount on them. Forward pistol grips and folding stocks no longer allowed. It's a $10,000 and 5 years in jail for possessing a Corked bat.
The 1994 AWB basically banned any firearm that "looked" evil. Hence why we in the firearms community alway poke fun at situations by making comments about "EBR's" or Evil Black Rifles. This include but are not limited to AR-15's, M-14's, AK-47's, MAC-10's, Galil's, Kinkov's, etc.
The "ban" did NOTHING to prevent or reduce violence. HR1022 (currently before commitee in the House of Reps) is a '94AWB on steroids that is GUARENTEED to infringe upon approximately 10 million current firearms owners rights, and make it much more difficult on the other 290 million US Citizens to take advantage of ALL THEIR BILL OF RIGHTS. The 2nd Amendment is QUITE clear:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
These are the same "People" listed in amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9.
Accidental shooting deaths only account for 0.7% of the accidental deaths in the United States.
The news media is always reporting on child deaths due to guns. LESS THAN 20 DEATHS OCCUR EACH YEAR DUE TO A CHILD FINDING A GUN IN THE HOUSE.
The recent news sotry about a "potential Columbine" by a 14-year old PA kids was so full of BS it was un believable. The news made it out that the police found "assualt weapons" and "grenades". What they really found were 30 AirSoft rifles... air guns. The grenades were packages that the AirSoft pellets came in. Yes they were in the shape of grenades but made of clear plastic. "You could have added gunpowder to them and made them deadly". Bull honky. Add gun powder and you would have a "dangerous" burning glb of plastic.
Yes there was a 9mm carbine, a .22 rifle and a .22 handgun. None of which were illegal to own last time I checked. There wasn't any 9mm ammo found. They were in the kids bedroom, which is not a crime. They were bought by the Mom who lived at the house, again not a crime. So what exactly was the problem?
