 Woody79_00I run Linux am I still a PC?Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state | reply to PrivacyExprt
Re: Your home deadbolt/locks are totally ineffective. With all due respect, this is a waste..the average doorlock you buy at Lowes, etc are not meant to keep people out.
ever heard the phase "Locks only keep honest people out" that phrase can never be more true.
the BEST lock on your home is a dog...2 is even better.
I have two Dogs, 1 is a mix between a Pittbull and a Rottweiler, the other is a pure breed Rotweiler...
I dare some schmuck to enter my house when im not home...he will get eaten up...Dogs can be trained, and its not that difficult...it just takes a little bit of time...they will attack on command if i order them to, they will also back off,m stay down, lie on the floor, etc on command.
Everyday before i leave for work i tell them "if anyone breaks in sic em" and the dogs reply with a bark and nodding of their heads....dogs are smarter then people give them credit for.
one person thought about trying to break in late one night but the doigs scared him off....plus two dogs like the is a GREAT defense against Home Invasions because Dogs will known the perps are outside well before they ever cut any phone lines or anything...in fact...the presense of suck dogs will probably deter 9 out of 10 home invasions due to the fact of un forseen complications of having to deal with multiple guard/attack dogs was not in their plans and may be much more then they bargain for. It also increases the risk, draws too much attention to them, noise factor, etc
the best locks on your house are well trained dogs... |
|
| I keep an angry Mother-In-Law in the house so I'm good to go. 
Dave |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| said by workablob:I keep an angry Mother-In-Law in the house so I'm good to go.
Dave
LOL... I assumed you used the locks to her out, not in.
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|
| Lots of great posts in this thread!
Generally speaking one of the greatest deterrents to a person wishing to gain unauthorized entrance to a "guarded location" is exposure to others while or when they break in.
Exposure is usually expressed by the time, (how long), it takes them to gain entrance, their visibility to others, or the attraction they create by breaking in--sound of breaking something, etc.
The above principles apply disproportionately to the motives or the skills of the perspective intruder. |
|
 ROCINANTEOriginal Member 007Premium
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY | Many burglars are drug addicts who do not care about being detected in middle class neighborhoods. They will smash a door or a patio window and turn the locks. How does a secure lock protect you in this case?
--
CRUNCH THIS! |
|
 rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Exactly. I experienced that about 20 years ago. Home had a deadbolt on the front door, with no window in the door. Burglar(s) smashed the door in, breaking the jamb. No problem and the neighbors heard and saw nothing at the time. It was reported later to the police and they were waiting for us (for me and my wife) when we got back from a trip. No cell phones at the time, so we didn't know. It's not as if they could not have smashed the patio door, too, but it was just easier to bust in from the front. To go in the back would have required cutting the lock on the side gate or scaling the wall. That would have taken longer.
It's a little more hazardous for thieves these days due to more surveillance cameras even in residential areas and more alarm systems installed, etc. Still, we have home invasions and burglaries anyway.
--
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle. |
|
JoelC707Premium
join:2002-07-09
West Point, GA
kudos:5 | reply to ROCINANTE
said by ROCINANTE:Many burglars are drug addicts who do not care about being detected in middle class neighborhoods. They will smash a door or a patio window and turn the locks. How does a secure lock protect you in this case?
What you and so many others missed in this thread is that this isn't about breaking in, in general. It's about preventing them from taking the easy way out and making them break something to get in. It's about forced entry. No, a secure lock won't prevent a burglar from smashing the window next to the door and flipping the lock on the inside, that's not the point. The point is that is then forced entry and that changes the game.
Here's what you're giving a burglar:
Home with insecure lock + uncoated window next to door - smash window (forced entry), pick lock (unforced entry)
Home with secure lock + uncoated window - smash window (forced entry)
Home with secure lock + coated window + wood framing - Cut hole in house (forced entry), bust down door (forced entry)
The goal is to make them resort to forced entry if they still insist on breaking in to your house. With the ultimate goal being to make them pick an easier target and leave your house alone. Yes, technically picking a lock is forced entry but unless they damage the lock, there is usually no evidence left behind and it becomes much harder to prove someone broke in and burglarized your house.
FWIW, I've never liked the chains on doors either. Usually those are secured to the trim around the door frame with short screws. If someone were to pick the lock and were met with a chain, one good kick and the screws will rip out and/or the trim piece will come off the frame (finish nails have a narrow head, won't hold it on that well). Of course a security conscious person would use longer screws that make it to the framing. It'd take more effort but you could still rip off the slide on the door itself. |
|
| said by JoelC707:said by ROCINANTE:Many burglars are drug addicts who do not care about being detected in middle class neighborhoods. They will smash a door or a patio window and turn the locks. How does a secure lock protect you in this case?
What you and so many others missed in this thread is that this isn't about breaking in, in general. It's about preventing them from taking the easy way out and making them break something to get in. It's about forced entry. No, a secure lock won't prevent a burglar from smashing the window next to the door and flipping the lock on the inside, that's not the point. The point is that is then forced entry and that changes the game. Here's what you're giving a burglar: Home with insecure lock + uncoated window next to door - smash window (forced entry), pick lock (unforced entry) Home with secure lock + uncoated window - smash window (forced entry) Home with secure lock + coated window + wood framing - Cut hole in house (forced entry), bust down door (forced entry) The goal is to make them resort to forced entry if they still insist on breaking in to your house. With the ultimate goal being to make them pick an easier target and leave your house alone. Yes, technically picking a lock is forced entry but unless they damage the lock, there is usually no evidence left behind and it becomes much harder to prove someone broke in and burglarized your house. You sir, are an exception and your post is perfectly worded to express the point of this thread. I'm quite shocked so many people just don't seem to understand the core message here.
Dogs are pretty good, but then what about when you leave town and stash the dog in a kennel, or with relatives? Also dogs aren't practical for everyone, especially big smelly ones that make good guard dogs. That little hotdog isn't going to help when someone bump's into your side door, a swift kick and it's flying against the wall with a broken back.
Remember, no forced entry means you are the prime suspect, and your insurance is invalid. That's the important thing here. |
|
rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| OK, then put a chain on all other doors and secure the front door. If the thief breaks in through other doors, the chain will be broken or there will be some evidence of tampering with it in order to restore the appearance of no forced entry. If the glass is on the inside, then you have some evidence that the approach was from outside. If there are no footprints, then I suppose they could say you faked this, but unless you have very expensive contents, is the insurance company going to refuse to pay, especially if the contents don't exceed your deductible or are not covered (jewelry and art)? People who keep expensive art and jewelry in their homes need sophisticated alarm systems and private security officers. All others may just hope for the best.
Oh, and if it is the issue of someone getting into your home without your knowledge, leaving no evidence of intrusion, and maybe taking only information and no actual physical property, then I don't know how you would prevent or detect that with lock alone. You'd need surveillance that was, itself, not detected by the intruder. Makes me think of that old series, "To Catch a Thief," with Robert Wagner. He even looked like a thief
Anytime you leave your home unoccupied, there is a risk it will be burglarized. Don't keep anything valuable in your home and you won't care that much.
--
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle. |
|
rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to JoelC707
Of course you can rip the chain off, but then it's forced entry, isn't it? Unless they have a quick way repair the damage from tearing out the chain and the repair is completely invisible to the naked eye, there will be evidence of the forced entry. You can't use a chain on the door you use to exit the building, however, so that is the one that has to be re-enforced and equipped with a secure lock. That's assuming you have something of value inside the building that you don't want stolen.
--
It is easier for a camel to put on a bikini than an old man to thread a needle. |
|
| reply to PrivacyExprt
said by PrivacyExprt:said by JoelC707:said by ROCINANTE:Many burglars are drug addicts who do not care about being detected in middle class neighborhoods. They will smash a door or a patio window and turn the locks. How does a secure lock protect you in this case?
What you and so many others missed in this thread is that this isn't about breaking in, in general. It's about preventing them from taking the easy way out and making them break something to get in. It's about forced entry. No, a secure lock won't prevent a burglar from smashing the window next to the door and flipping the lock on the inside, that's not the point. The point is that is then forced entry and that changes the game. Here's what you're giving a burglar: Home with insecure lock + uncoated window next to door - smash window (forced entry), pick lock (unforced entry) Home with secure lock + uncoated window - smash window (forced entry) Home with secure lock + coated window + wood framing - Cut hole in house (forced entry), bust down door (forced entry) The goal is to make them resort to forced entry if they still insist on breaking in to your house. With the ultimate goal being to make them pick an easier target and leave your house alone. Yes, technically picking a lock is forced entry but unless they damage the lock, there is usually no evidence left behind and it becomes much harder to prove someone broke in and burglarized your house. You sir, are an exception and your post is perfectly worded to express the point of this thread. I'm quite shocked so many people just don't seem to understand the core message here. Dogs are pretty good, but then what about when you leave town and stash the dog in a kennel, or with relatives? Also dogs aren't practical for everyone, especially big smelly ones that make good guard dogs. That little hotdog isn't going to help when someone bump's into your side door, a swift kick and it's flying against the wall with a broken back. Remember, no forced entry means you are the prime suspect, and your insurance is invalid. That's the important thing here. Understood, and I thank JoelC707  pointing it out while I dawdled and decided whether to do so myself. Of course, as you have mentioned, while more secure locks will help prevent _surreptitious_ unauthorized entry, by themselves, would it really be that much of a deterrent to those that what to enter with out leaving evidence? Even alarm and/or video surveillance has be very carefully configured to prevent circumvention by those with some decent knowledge and skill.
Which brings us back to the Mother-in-law Defense. For those _unfortunates_ with-out access to a full time mother-in-law, check out MILD.com, the nation's premier, full time, mother-in-law exchange service....  |
|
 chrisretusnRetiredPremium
join:2007-08-13
Philippines
kudos:1 | reply to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00:the best locks on your house are well trained dogs... There is truth in those words with emphasis on "well trained". Training must include not taking food from others. About three weeks ago, a neighbor of a friends house was broken into. They "had" three dogs. They were poisoned.
--
Chris
Living in Paradise!! |
|
