Warning: Crime Skyrockets During the Holidays – Here Are 17 Things That Are Making Your Home a Target for Burglars

Click here to view the original post.

Everybody loves the holiday season, including burglars. Every year, the rate of theft and property crime skyrockets between Thanksgiving and New Years Day. There are two main reasons for this: 1) Burglars know that after Black Friday, most homes contain expensive gifts and gadgets. 2) Burglars know that many people are off visiting relatives, leaving […]

The post Warning: Crime Skyrockets During the Holidays – Here Are 17 Things That Are Making Your Home a Target for Burglars appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Australian Gun Laws & Anti-Self defence laws leave Citizens At Risk!

Click here to view the original post.

Humane Right to Armed Self defence???

The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one’s own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]

If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a “perfect self-defense” justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an “imperfect self-defense” as an excuse.[2]

Thwarted by the demise of its global gun ban treaty, the United Nations declares the human right of self-defense null and void

As far as I can tell, no country is listed for restricting the natural, civil and human right to self-defense. So, it appears Human Rights Watch doesn’t care that people are prevented by their governments from protecting themselves. 

In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. While some states rely on the common law and others have it enshrined in statute, the right itself is never questioned. Moreover, juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is made out.

What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.

The massive Police and government anti-terror apparatus failed yet again to protect the public. How many more reminders do the public need that the state is not their god and saviour? This is not a sleight at Police, but as we’ve discussed at length previously they are reactionary only and in terms of firearms, held to a lower standard than Category H licence holders. Even Queensland Police admit this.

It’s time to get serious about empowering the public by letting them have the opportunity to defend themselves, and end this useless and dangerous obsession with denying people the basic means and right to practical non-lethal and licenced lethal forms of self-defence, in the name of ‘muh public safety’.

RESIDENTS have backed calls from the Shooters Union Australia for the government to clarify and strengthen self-defence laws.

SUA vice president David Brown wants the ambiguity around gun laws, which leave licensed firearms owners at risk of prosecution for defending their homes from intruders, clarified.

Mr Brown this week told The Chronicle guns were the “only means of levelling the playing field against an aggressor”, and his view has earned support from readers.

Human Rights Act 2004 Australia.

9 Right to life (1) Everyone has the right to life. In particular, no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life.

11 Protection of the family and children Note Family has a broad meaning (see ICCPR General Comment 19 (39th session, 1990)). (1) The family is the natural and basic group unit of society and is entitled to be protected by society. (2) Every child has the right to the protection needed by the child because of being a child, without distinction or discrimination of any kind.

18 Right to liberty and security of person (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

Part 3B Limits on human rights 28 Human rights may be limited (1) Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (2) In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following: (a) the nature of the right affected; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; (e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve.

There is nothing in this human rights document that actually states that we have a right to defend ourselves or our families. The United Nations says that we have NO right to defend ourselves or our families against harm!


11 Home Security Tips for Life After SHTF

Click here to view the original post.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: one of the biggest threats during any type of disaster is people who are unprepared. At first, they’ll stay in their homes and wait for the government to send help. But after several days, when they start running out of food and realize no one is […]

The post 11 Home Security Tips for Life After SHTF appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

When Can You Shoot An Intruder in Your Home?

Click here to view the original post.

Although having a firearm for self-defense is a good idea, hopefully, you’ll never have to actually use it against someone. Having to pull the trigger on an intruder can lead to tragedy, with some homeowners going to jail for killing people who broke in. It’s easy to think that your right to defend your family […]

The post When Can You Shoot An Intruder in Your Home? appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Bakery workers chase knife-wielding thieves out of Brisbane shop

Click here to view the original post.
The legalities of defending yourself, other people & property are in question in Australia. It is illegal to purchase or carry ANYTHING for the sole purpose of self defence. Could these shop workers be charged with a crime? One thief was struck from behind when he was leaving the shop, this too is illegal by Australian law!!! This law needs to be changed. Who is the government protecting, thieves, robbers, murderers, thugs? These laws are NOT protecting law abiding citizens!

Farmer has rifle confiscated for defending his family. Home Invasion!

Click here to view the original post.
Bungowannah farmer David Dunstan (a licenced firearm owner) defended his family from an armed intruder (already on the run from a previous local home invasion) with an unloaded rifle and now the police have seized his licensed firearms!

Who are our police protecting by doing this? He lives on a remote property and as a farmer, his firearms are part of his “tools of trade”.

The law says we are not to use a greater force to defend ourselves than we are being threatened by. So what happens when the assailant is much bigger & stronger than the victim? Does this mean that David Dunstan should have gone to the kitchen & protected his family with a kitchen knife???!!! Get into a knife fight???!!! We have effectively lost our rights to self defence & the right to protect our loved ones, this means we have lost our freedom!
So what are we going to do about this? Wait for someone else to get killed? Do you know how many people get attacked,injured or killed each day? Australian women are getting assaulted every two minutes every day!!!

Government Anti-Gun Campaign. Punish the gun owner.

Click here to view the original post.

Two attempted home invasions in the same area. A Father uses an unloaded rifle to scare away a man who has a knife & a chunk of wood to use as a club. The Police can shoot someone who confronts them in this way, but this Father had his firearms confiscated, all of his firearms! Now who’s side do you think the police & the government are on?
It is against the law in Australia to purchase or carry anything that is for self defence. That is bad enough, but when a Father uses what he has to hand to protect his family & then gets persecuted for doing so, well that is beyond the pail!

Farmer’s gun licence under review after confronting intruder with unloaded rifle

Border farmer has guns taken after confronting man armed with a knife at his home

Father fears justice system ‘stacked against’ victims after guns confiscated


20 Crime Prevention Tips From a Veteran Cop

Click here to view the original post.

I’ve learned countless crime prevention tips over the years–some good, some bad–but when they come from a veteran cop, I pay close attention. Police officers have about a thousand times more experience with crime than the average citizen. They learn the many ways burglars break into homes, hear stories of home invasions straight from the […]

The post 20 Crime Prevention Tips From a Veteran Cop appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

5 Easy Techniques to Make Your Home More Secure

Click here to view the original post.

pexels-photo-101808

They say home is where the heart is, but just like your heart, your home needs certain protections in order for it to stay safe. While we may not like to think about it, our homes are often vulnerable to intruders due to our own errors and oversights. In order to protect your property and family, you need to take steps in securing your home against strangers. With that in mind, here are five easy techniques to make your home more secure.

 

1. Don’t Hide Keys

While a hidden key in your mailbox or under a mat is convenient if you lock yourself out, it’s also the easiest way for thieves to break into your home. The dangers of leaving out a spare key far outweigh the benefits, but if you absolutely must leave one, try to pick less obvious places to hide it. Creating a fake pipe in the ground is a good option.

 

2. Home Security Systems

An effective home security system can buy you a great deal of peace of mind. Determine the best home security system for your needs, because that automated system can alert authorities to any intruders in your home, no matter where you are. That could make all the difference between catching a thief and returning your stolen property or the thief going free to rob. A sign in your yard can be a helpful deterrent against intruders, as well.

 

3. Secure Your Doors

Make sure you’ve taken steps to fully secure your doors beyond the basics. Deadbolts are effective at keeping your front door closed, but a metal bar or wooden plank placed in the track of a sliding door makes it even harder for someone to get inside without causing a commotion. The harder you can make it for a thief to break into your home silently, the more secure your home will be.

4. Conceal Your Wires

While home security systems are effective, they have one fatal flaw—wiring. It’s easy enough for a thief to find the wires connecting the security system to the phone lines and cut them. If that happens, there won’t be anything your system can do to protect you. However, by disguising the outside wiring around your home, you can prevent this from happening, since it’ll be harder for burglars to find the wires in the first place.

 

5. Secure Your Windows

Many burglars find access to a house through the windows. Prevent this by making sure all the windows in your home can securely lock from the inside and can’t easily be pried open. Installing security glass is another good option, as a stronger window means less possibilities of a break in.

 

Conclusion

Using these tips, you’ll be able to secure your home against intruders. Whether you’re at work, on vacation, or just taking a walk to the park, you’ll feel safe in the knowledge that your home will still be safe and secure by the time you get back.

Guest Author’s Website

The post 5 Easy Techniques to Make Your Home More Secure appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Here’s What Burglars Will Tell You About Protecting Your Home From Thieves

Click here to view the original post.

I’d wager that no one leaves their home without being at least somewhat concerned about the belongings that they leave behind. Contained within most homes, is the sum total of the owner’s life, and not just in a material sense. There are plenty of items with sentimental value as well. And all of it is typically protected by little more than a few locks on the doors and windows. If someone really wants to break into your home and steal what you own when you’re not around, chances are that there isn’t much standing in their way.

But if you want to make it harder for any would-be burglar to enter your home, or at least make your home a less desirable target, don’t just buy an alarm system and call it day. You should really listen to people who are burglars and take their advice. An MSNBC affiliate out of Atlanta recently did just that. They sent letters to 86 people who had gone to prison for burglary and asked them a variety questions about their crimes. Their answers could tell you a lot about how to protect your home from this crime. What they told reporters included the following:

  • Don’t advertise what you own. One burglar admitted to looking for homes that had cars with NRA bumper stickers, which would indicate that there are plenty of guns to steal there.
  • Burglars don’t just look in obvious places. If they feel safe, they’ll tear everything up looking for hidden valuables.
  • The best time to break into a house was between 12:30 and 2:30, because it’s rare for both kids or adults to be home at that time period.
  • Not all burglars are intimidated by security alarm signs and cameras, and many admitted to knowing how to disable alarms. Some suggested that cameras would indicate that there are valuables in the home.
  • As you might expect, burglars are terrified of large dog breeds.
  • Burglars aren’t typically killers. They don’t want to a serious confrontation with a homeowner, so any sign that someone is home is a deterrent.

When asked what precautions homeowners should take to keep their homes from being burglarized, most of the inmates gave similar answers. For instance, many of them suggested that homeowners leave some sign that someone is home, such as parking a car in the driveway or leaving a TV or radio on.

But the biggest deterrent is visibility, and that applies in more than one sense. They suggested that you keep your bushes and trees trimmed so that your home is easy to see. Homes that were isolated, either by the distance from other houses or by being obscured by big fences and vegetation were definitely easier to rob. It seems that the things people build around their homes to make them feel safer have the opposite effect.

And of course, visibility means nothing if no one is actually watching your home. One inmate admitted to preferring homes in communities where the neighbors were very reserved and conservative, and others recommended that you get to know your neighbors. The implication is obvious. In neighborhoods where people don’t really know each other or care about each other, it’s quite easy to break into a home.

That’s because nobody wants to get involved when they see someone hopping your fence, nobody can tell if anything out of the ordinary is going on in your home if they don’t know you, and nobody is really paying attention. As a result, nobody calls the cops.

The bottom line is that neighborhoods, where people talk to each other and don’t feel the need to build barriers between each other, are safer. And that’s probably something that we’ve known intuitively all along.

Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter.

Joshua’s website is Strange Danger

This information has been made available by Ready Nutrition

Australian Government Makes It Illegal To Carry Anything For Self Defence!

Click here to view the original post.

My wife is an aid worker. She has to park her car in a deserted street outside of her work place. It is illegal for here to carry anything, not even mace or pepper spray for her protection at night in the dark walking to her vehicle! NOT bloody good enough!

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5022/self-defence-law-in-australia.aspx


http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/i-faced-a-14year-jail-sentence-for-carrying-pepper-spray-20140723-3cffk.html

Which Self Defense Weapons You Need?

Click here to view the original post.

Self-defense weapons have become a necessity in today’s society where your personal and household self-defense is frequently threatened. If your prime concern is the safety of your loved ones and yourself, do not have second thoughts about being prepared. Just remember -– it is important to have the right self-defense weapon for your particular situation.

Yourself defense does matter. There are many ways you can prepare for the possibility of attack. Sometimes, preparation consists of nothing more than prevention. Knowing how to act, which situations to avoid, and moving with confidence can all help. But—-sooner or later—-you may be facing an assailant.

 

With the right self-defense weapons, you’ll have TIME to protect yourself and may even be able to bring your attacker down! Your attacker won’t know what hit him. Some weapons can even help you mark him, which will make him easy to apprehend.

 

Know that the safety and security of your family, home, office and property is assured because you’ve taken steps to protect yourself.

 

Have more peace of mind, sleep better at night, and walk the streets in confidence and control, because you have taken the time to learn about which self-defense weapons will best meet your needs. Your personal protection is at stake!

Here are a few weapons you might consider as you start to explore what’s available:

Rifles

Although bolt-action hunting rifles may be perfect for taking large game, they make a wrong choice for home-defense. These guns load slowly, fire slowly, and the high-power cartridges they shoot produce excessive muzzle flash, noise, and recoil and are very likely to over penetrate the target. If you want a rifle for home defense, then consider a tactical semi-auto or pistol-caliber carbine. Always try to keep a rifle scope for perfect shooting.

Telescopic Steel Baton

This is the self-defense weapon that most law enforcement and police agencies use today. Many of these organizations are replacing the old “Billy Club” style baton with the more technologically advanced telescopic baton.

Handcuffs

What could be better for keeping the attacker in place once he is subdued than handcuffs? You can also use leg cuffs or thumb cuffs to immobilize him.

Knives

There are many different types and styles of knives that you could use. You can read all about the many varieties of knives that are available, including butterfly knives, pen knives, and folding knives.

Metal Detectors

For security and law enforcement personnel, a hand held metal detector is an essential self-defense weapon. These small scanners can pick up almost any metal weapon, including pistols and knives.

And here are a few weapons that are not used as much for self-defense as for sporting and fun…

Cross Bows

A crossbow gives its user far more power and accuracy than a traditional bow. If you’ve never shot a crossbow, you can’t believe how powerful it is. This is more commonly used as a sporting weapon, but you never know when it might come in handy for self-defense too.

Blow Guns

Over 40,000 years ago, the first blowguns began to appear in many different parts of the world. In today’s world, blowguns, paintballs, and stun darts offer a wide variety of sporting activities.

Sling Shots

High-Velocity sling shots fold down to a compact size and have over a 100-yard range. They’re perfect for slinging insects, rocks or even bad guys Brings back memories of the good old days.

Air pistol:

This weapon is styled after some of the world’s most famous firearms. The air pistol maintenance free design and affordability make them an excellent entry level weapon for the hobby and recreational enthusiast.

This Guest article was written by Douglas Brooks. He is the founder of ProReviewly.com. He was enthusiastic about hunting from the first shot. He is also Rifle optic guru.

 

The post Which Self Defense Weapons You Need? appeared first on American Preppers Network.

What Time Of Day Break-Ins Usually Occur?

Click here to view the original post.

3dman_eu / Pixabay

Imagine coming home after a long day at work and noticing that your front door is open. You walk inside your home, and you can tell it has been ransacked. Quickly, you realize that many of your prized possessions, jewelry, and even cash are gone. You were a victim of a burglary.

While no one wants to imagine this happening to them or to their home, the truth of the matter is that according to the statistics, approximately 8,000 homeowners in the United States are going to have this experience or a similar experience. And, unfortunately, six out of seven of the individuals who burglarize a home today will get away scot-free. In fact, they will be able to continue to burglarize homes without getting caught. What can you do to minimize the chances of your home being burglarized?

Understand When Most Burglars Strike

If television and movies were to be believed, burglars would be men all dressed in black sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night while using high-tech devices in order to avoid detection. The reality is far different. Most burglars strike in the middle of the day. Most burglars strike in the middle of the week. And most burglars walk into your home using your front door in the middle of summer.

Why Do Burglars Strike When They Do?

In order to understand why burglars strike when they do, you need to put yourself in the mind of a thief. If someone is planning to break into a home, what two things do they want? They want to avoid detection, and they want to have as much time as possible to gather as much loot as they possibly can.

During the day, most homeowners are at work. Children are at school, and entire neighborhoods are virtually empty. Homeowners who are at home are occupied with their day-to-day routine, and in most cases they rarely venture out doors. This makes the middle of the day the perfect time for a burglar to break into your home.

But why do they break in during the summer months? There are three key reasons. First, it’s hot. Second, people are relaxed. Third, everyone goes on vacation.

During the sweltering heat of July and August, most people have their doors open and their windows open. And, inevitably, someone is going to forget to close their windows, or they’re going to forget to lock their doors. This makes their home the perfect target for a burglar.

At the same time, during the summer months, everyone just wants to relax. People are out working in their garden, they are spending every free minute at the lake or at the park, or they have the garage door open all day long. All of these things are a welcome mat for criminals.

During the summer, families go on vacation. Most families are so focused on their vacation that they don’t think about things like having someone collect the mail when they’re away, having someone cleanup leaves that might accumulate near the front of the home, or having someone park in their garage from time to time to give the appearance that the home is occupied.

Burglars are very astute. They see when you and your family are packing to go on vacation, they monitor your home, and they will notice if it is empty. And they will use that as an opportunity to strike.

Now that you have a clear idea of when burglars strike, what steps can you take to protect your home from a potential burglary? Let’s review five.

Five Ways to Keep Your Home Safe

1. Install a home security system. This goes without saying. But still a good portion of homes in the United States do not have a security alarm. Some argue that criminals know how to circumvent home security systems. That is giving the common criminal too much credit. Most burglars are not James Bond and super spy types. They are the type of people who use brute force to kick in your front door and quickly grab what they can and run away. These individuals are looking for homes without home security cameras and homes with poor lighting. Homes with CCTV systems are usually passed over by the run-of-the-mill thief because they do not want to risk getting caught.

2. Good quality door locks. The quality of the lock that you use will have a direct impact on the security of your home. A cheap lock can be bypassed by even the most clumsy criminal. A high quality commercial grade lock, on the other hand, can stop criminals in their tracks. You should install quality locks not only on the front and back door but also on the garage door, the side garage door, and on all of your windows. Although simply having a good lock will not prevent a burglar from trying to break into your home, it can make it harder for them to accomplish their goal. If a criminal realizes that they are going to need to spend considerable time breaking the lock, they are likely to move on to an easier target.

3. Be a good neighbor. It is not uncommon for people to live in the same neighborhood for years and not know a lot about their neighbors. While this may be good for privacy, this is not good when it comes to home security. It is important for you to socialize with your neighbors. Let them become familiar with some of the patterns that you have as well as the people who usually visit your home. That way, when something abnormal happens, the neighbors are immediately alerted. For example, if your neighbors know that you are not moving anytime soon and then a moving truck pulls up to your home, they will know that something’s up and will try to contact you or law enforcement.

4. Close the blinds. The basic principle behind this is don’t advertise. Contrary to conventional wisdom, most burglaries are not planned. Burglars are opportunists. They are often young men looking to find quick cash because they have a drug habit. So if they look into your home and they see that you have electronic devices, cash, or other valuables that are easily accessible, they may decide to take a chance and break into your home.

5. Store valuables in a safe. Buying a safe might be a little expensive, but if you are the victim of a burglary, you’re going to be happy that you made the investment. Even a simple safe requires time to break into. Time is one thing that burglars know they don’t have. It is best to have a safe that is exceptionally heavy or that is bolted down to the ground. If you purchase a smaller safe, a burglar may simply grab it and carry it away.

If after reading this article you realize that there are some aspects of your home or your behavior that you need to adjust, take steps to fix these things now. There is no way to know in advance when a burglar is going to strike your home. All that you can do is take the necessary precautions to protect yourself now. Install a security alarm, purchase a safe, keep your valuables out of sight, become friendly with your neighbors, and purchase quality locks for your doors and windows. Doing these things will drastically lessen the chance of you becoming a burglary victim.


Authors Bio

 

Matthew Wilson is an enthusiast who has a deep interest in all things related to home security.What started out as a superficial interest in home security systems soon led to Matthew becoming an expert in the field and someone that others would turn to when they had questions about the quality or effectiveness of a home security system or device. Read more of his works on – Property Guard Master!

 

The post What Time Of Day Break-Ins Usually Occur? appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Self defence laws put Australians at risk.

Click here to view the original post.
Statewide man hunt ends in Tamworth pub after woman stabbed in face, and neck.

Yet another home invasion and the occupant left helpless to defend herself against a stronger attacker. In Australia it is now illegal to use a firearm in the defence of self and family. It is illegal to carry anything outside the home for self defence. The government would sooner citizens were murdered than attackers harmed or killed. Why is that?

Have You Read The New National Firearms Agreement For Australia?!

Click here to view the original post.
I don’t think many people have noticed the changes to protection rights in the new 2017 NFA. It clearly states that using a gun for the defence of your family, friends or yourself is no longer considered a legal right! Bad enough that we have lost certain guns, bad enough that it is not legal to purchase a gun for self defence, but it was until now understood that if we had no other choice, we could under certain circumstances use a gun for defence of ourselves & our family.
What can it mean when a government wants to disarm citizens? What can it mean if it denies citizens the right to self protection against armed criminals? Practically every day in Australia people are being attacked, raped & murdered, & yet the government has now done all it can to stop us from protecting ourselves. Something is very wrong here!

Remote Area nurse Safety. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

These nurses work alone, and as we all know it is illegal in Australia to carry anything for self defence. Gayle Woodford was raped and murdered whilst at work. We need new laws that will give people like Gayle and other citizens a better chance of survival when crime is on the increase in Australia. Allowing two nurses to work together is a start, but it is not enough. We need legislation allowing law abiding Australian citizens to carry guns for self defence and if necessary for the defence of others, such as family members. In cases where people do not wish to carry a gun, then tasers and capsicum sprays should be a legal option.

‘Gun Violence’ Never Happens in ‘Gun Free’ Australia. Except When it Does.

Click here to view the original post.
Now there’s a scenario for you: an unarmed defenceless father and five teenagers hiding from three intruders who’ve shown that they are ready, willing and able to use deadly force.

Thankfully, the home invaders left. They’re still at large. And Australians are still defenseless against armed criminals. Anyone care to repeat the Australian model of gun control here? The scary part? The answer to that question is yes.

MY HOME INVASION STORY: BREAK IN & ROBBERY ATTEMPT – WHILE I WAS HOME

Click here to view the original post.

When I was 16 or 17,  I was home whilst someone attempted to break in.

The experience ended well for me (not so much for the perp), but I figured it would be interesting to discuss, since enough years have passed and I can look back on the situation critically. Before I get into the meat of this story, I would like to preemptively point out that I had little to no tactical training back when it happened, and frankly didn’t really think about home security very much.

MY STORY

Prior to breaking down my reaction to the threat, let’s discuss the parameters.

My home at the time was my grandmother’s home here in the UK, which is basically a 2 bedroom flat that consists of a top floor of a house (downstairs was one flat, upstairs was another). To get to me you have to open a creaky gate, break down my front door, and climb a long set of stairs. The gate isn’t locked; it faces onto a main street and the front door is plain wood with a very basic Yale lock (not the most secure) and a privacy chain. There’s no secondary door, nothing else to get through once you get through the front door.

Now onto the story. It’s around 4 in the afternoon, I am typing away at my desk much like I am now, and I hear scratching by the door. I ignore it for 1 minute, assuming it’s the postman (in hindsight, I should have remembered the postman already came in the morning), but the scratching becomes more aggressive, and so I decide to take a peek from the top of the stairs. I can see through the privacy glass on the top of the door; it’s this huge bloke. We are talking 6 foot 3+ and all muscle. At this point I figure out he was attempting to lock pick his way in. I sort of freeze.

The strange thing is, I don’t panic or run, but rather just stand there observing him. I’m so unprepared for this event that my mind doesn’t really know how to react – so I sorta just stand there. Staring.

After 10 seconds of standing still and doing nothing, I feel a wave of panic wash over me and retreat to my bedroom. I breath in and out a few times and look around for a weapon. Now some of you reading this are probably thinking… “Bro…Why didn’t you call the cops yet?”

Well, I don’t know. Honestly the thought didn’t even cross my mind.

So here I am in my bedroom frantically trying to come up with a plan. I decide to confront this person because I am 17 and invincible (or so 17 year olds tend to think – I for one did), but first I want to be “ready.”

This is the UK so firearms and ranged weapons are not an option, and even in my quasi-panicked state I realized that if this invader made his way into the house, it wouldn’t end well for me. The idea of standing on the top of the stairs with a bowie staring down this moron menacingly just didn’t feel viable, so in my head, the only option I had was to dissuade him from entering the property. Bare in mind that as I am thinking about this, this guy is still picking away at my door; you can imagine my mental state.

Oddly enough, even though I have been a knife nut since I was a kid, I didn’t grab a knife. Instead, the first thing I grabbed (instinctively) was my tomahawk.

I think to this day I would still grab a hawk for home defence if all I had were edged tools. If I got to choose, either the SOG F06P-N FastHawk or the CRKT Chogan T-Hawk. Can’t decide which.

Anyway, I grab the hawk, slip it in my belt loop, put on a pair of Doc Martens, and stomp my way out of my bedroom. Once I reach the top of the stairs, I still see the top of this bloke’s head through the privacy glass and decide to head over to the living room to get a better look at him from the front windows.

Big bloke.

Meathead.

Looks like an asshole.

Alone.

Right, Meathead is alone.

I go back to the top of the stairs, shout out, “OI, What the f– do you think you’re doing mate?!” (yes, yes, how very Brit of me).

The meathead obviously heard me, though instead of running away like I expected, he instead… I shit you not… tries to ram the door down.

Think about this: house is facing a main road, he has been picking away at the lock for a solid 3 minutes by now and he hears a guy confront him from behind the door…. so he tries to ram it down? Most important lesson I learned that day is that criminals are generally complete idiots.

Back to the story. Meathead is really going at the door, slamming his shoulder in and I can see the frame flexing, so I stomp down the stairs and brace the door.

Here is where it all gets very interesting for me and quite anti-climactic for you, dear reader. At some point, as I am bracing the door and feel this parasite slam his shoulder into it, something inside me just snapped. I felt a sense of fury wash over me to the point that I did something so incredibly stupid that I am surprised I am still here typing this to you today.

I swung the door wide open.

Yep.

I was so f—-ing pissed that I thought, this guy is gonna get a tomahawk to the face and what did this genius criminal mastermind do when he saw me?

Took one look at me and ran away down the street.

That’s the end of that story folks.

3-6 months later (I don’t recall precisely) the Crown Prosecution Service sent me a letter saying the idiot had been prosecuted. I called 20 minutes after the incident ended – needed some time to calm down. Turns out he robbed quite a few places in the area, but they of course eventually caught him, and he went straight to the slammer (prison).

WHAT I LEARNED

Looking back, things that surprised me about the situation & the way I reacted:

  • I am a giant knife nerd and have been for decades and yet, when push came to shove, I grabbed, and still would grab, a hawk. Like I said, this mindset hasn’t changed, and I might write an article on the matter if any of you are interested (let me know in the comments).
  • At no point did calling the police, or anyone else for that matter, cross my mind. To this day I am still more of a do it yourself kinda guy, but honestly – that was pretty dumb of me.
  • The amount of rage I felt when I saw someone try to break into my home can’t be quantified. The idiot criminal outweighed me by 3 of me (easily) and I just didn’t care – I just saw red and went for it with zero tactical foresight. The medieval ages made sense to me for the first time in my life.
  • That a criminal would try to pick a lock in broad daylight and when that failed, ram it down. Brazen is an understatement.

In hindsight, I should have called the police first, shouted out that I knew what he was doing and that the police were on their way, then braced the door.

I would have been fine with little to no risk.

We can anticipate how we will react to stressful events; I’d like to think that I learned from this experience and I would be more cautious if this happened again, but I know myself well enough to know that if someone was trying to break into my home, my gut reaction wouldn’t be to hide out and wait for backup.

When it comes to my family and my home – frankly if you are breaking in: expect war.

At some point, despite pragmatic rationalism, we have to be honest with each other and accept that deep down we are still animals with very basic and very violent core instincts. When you feel like your home is under attack and your family could be in danger it’s very difficult to walk away and be calm. I wager that most people, especially in this day and age of tolerance to the point of stupidity, would argue that in such a situation they would be calm and rational, but straight up – I wouldn’t count on it.

I have learned from this experience. I have 2 front doors now and have both a hawk and a tactical flashlight next to my bed. I 100% would call the cops first and report a robbery in progress, or rather, get Elise to do so, but with the way our current home is laid out, I can open one door and close it behind me whilst forcing a confrontation with the potential assailant without putting my family in danger.

I think when it comes to advice, the best I can do is to say; “Know thyself.” Cheesy I know, but true. Going through life disregarding your own personality when it comes to conflict is frankly silly. I would say that it’s much better to understand how you will react to a stressful, combative situation and plan accordingly for the safety of both yourself and your family.

THOUGHTS ABOUT HOME ROBBERIES?

How about you? Please chime in with your own experiences and thoughts on the matter – what would you have done differently?

 

Source : morethanjustsurviving.com

About the author : Knife aficionado and lifelong tinkerer. Into bushcraft, hiking, and gear.
Coauthor of survival blog More Than Just Surviving.

 

            RELATED ARTICLES : 

 

The post MY HOME INVASION STORY: BREAK IN & ROBBERY ATTEMPT – WHILE I WAS HOME appeared first on .

7 Home Security Measures That Could Save Your Life

Click here to view the original post.

Unless you happen to be the duke of a large estate with a fortified castle, you’ll have to put in a little preparation to secure your home from invaders. While taking precautions to protect yourself from a home invasion is important now, it will become even more critical in the event of a catastrophe. A […]

The post 7 Home Security Measures That Could Save Your Life appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Times of Change. Finally!

Click here to view the original post.

The Seismic Shift to Freedom Through Out the Western World.

Headlines like “Trump“,
“The latest result of a populist wave that is set to upturn the political order”,

“2016 the Year that Changed Everything”,  are not true, most of the changes, almost imperceptible changes, have occurred during the recent 25 year period. These changes are all part of the war, which is almost as old as human history, the war between ‘central control of the few’ versus ‘freedom for the people’.

We can all easily appreciate the recent great efforts of Brexit, David Leyonhjelm and the Liberal Democrats combined with the success of One Nation, the Trump Victory and just recently the Shooters Party victory in Orange NSW. The Nationals suffered a record 34 per cent primary vote swing against them in a seat they have held since 1947.

We all I hope, want freedom in our lifetime, or it would be nice to feel that our efforts would result in freedom for our children and our children’s children, but we are only going to get that freedom by making the correct decisions, and not have our efforts miss directed under the many false flag organisations that spring up and demand your support.

The Genie is Out of the Lamp,
and that Lamp is now shining brightly into every nook and cranny of the international suppressive conspiracy.
The mainstream media are horrified, they try to box it into words of containment, ‘revisionism’, or ‘populist’ desperately attempting to minimalize us all as a temporary phenomena.

With no facts to oppose us their only resort is to demean us.

The media cannot understand that their programming of human minds, their push polls and false stories are not working. Throughout the western world the internet, they call it social media but really we should call it Free Media is fuelling a revolution, but it is a new peaceful revolution, (up to date) in reaction to the impositions and controls that have inhibited the common person for too long.

Now, freedom parties in Europe such as Geert Wilders, who identifies it well and calls his party the Freedom Party of Holland, Nigel Farage led the Brexit Movement, Italy has the Five Star Movement and Marine Le Pen’s the National Front in France. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s with similar sentiment coming from Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic.  These movements all have the same issues in common, not just anti immigration, or anti muslims they are movements that are concerned with rectifying suppression of individual freedoms, such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom to retain their livelihoods, their jobs, their property, their freedom to defend themselves and their freedom from international interference in their countries decision making. They all oppose big international banking, the UN and oppose the free trade agreements, which for all who go to the trouble of researching them find that they are not free at all. They are designed to turn all people on earth equality to compete for the lowest wage, that is set by the central banking system. Work for nothing, or starve, country by country is the Free trade outcome, that they want. Any one who opposes the international disarmament treaty or the free trade treaties, or international control on climate change, or any of the controls over our freedom are treated by the political and media establishment as being so disreputable that we don’t have a right to exist.

We still have a long war to fight but now the Genie is completely out of the lamp, they can never close the lid and trap it again. They may try to kill Facebook, or control the internet, vet emails, but the populace of the western world has realised that the mainstream media is part of the problem, its authority is not just flawed, its been exposed as part of the chains that bind us down.

In the dark days of John Howard’s power trip in 2001 after he stole our rights, property, jobs and our avocations in 1997 and before he did it again in 2003, when he stole our pistols, closing shops, collectors, disarming even security guards accept his own people, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. It was too extreme for them so like hundreds of other letters they did not print it, but here are some extracts.

Regaining our Freedoms will be a Long Term War -2003.

“To answer the many questions, as to why our freedoms cannot be regained for many years, is complex but it is ultimately due to the huge contrast of power between the few people within the academics/ politicians/banks who control the mainstream media and ourselves, hundreds of thousands of voiceless individual people.

We can understand that the same few who control the media also control the parliaments, and huge tools of coercion, the public service, the Police and the Defence forces, but fortunately in our system all that can be replaced by the re-direction of the one single, main power the ‘Media’.

The establishment demands more central control and the people demand individual freedoms. We are going to win this war but it is not going to end with one election victory, one battle, it will take many victories. Neither in theory, or in practice can the weak win against the strong, or the few win against the many. There will be an ebb and flow, it is part of the natural law of the universe every action will have an opposite and equal re-action. We think that obviously what is big and powerful now can always suppress the weak, but there is another huge factor, ‘Time’ and its ability to change the factors in the coming battles. In history very often the small progressive country conquerors the larger country with more people and more resources. Usually, the progressives have technological advantages, time takes its place and the progressive empire gets complacent and then there is a ‘revision’.

In our present case, the enemy, the Anti Gun members John Crook, Rebecca Peters, John Howard with the media building their credibility and regurgitating their every utterance makes them very strong and if we are not vigilant there is a danger that we will lose everything. It is not all bad news though, the enemy has its shortcomings as well.  They have the media but no numbers and no people on the ground in electorates, we have advantages as well. We have to use our advantages to remove their advantages and remedy our own shortcomings. So we can win final victory and avert total civilian disarmament, defeating this central power movement that seeks to choke the individuals to death.

Since our enemies have only one advantage, media power and shortcomings in numbers and we have only one disadvantage no media outlets and are only advantage is power in numbers, this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).

The establishments power is so strong and ours so weak at present it is very difficult for our own supporters to see that the enemy have any shortcomings, but they will become more apparent as we become more proactive on the media battle grounds. We will lose more battles, but gain experience, we will be further from absolute defeat and nearer to victories as time goes by. As we have the numbers and even without the internet we can talk to one another, we have the telephone, we are getting comment on talk back radio, we are communicating and educating the up and coming generations, so they can resist this huge power grab by the anti gun elements within the major political parties. If we employ correct tactics to increase firearm ownership, to increase members of our clubs and train these people to be pro active in communicating their resistance to the government impositions, letter writing, petitions, articles, meeting, emails we can exploit our best advantages and expose their worst shortcomings. Then there will be a continual change in comparative strengths, we will get stronger and they will get weaker. As yet we have not fundamentally weakened them, they know we are here, but they marginalise us and call us conspiracy theorists to box us in.

History shows that disarmament does not work and where ever there is a vacuum other powers will seek to employ it.

Crime will continue to grow. Before John Howard’s disarmament, home invasion was unheard of, now its on everyone lips. To our north are countries that need our natural resource, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, the little island of Singapore could invade us and hold us. As time goes buy Australians will buy target and hunting rifles without mentioning the real reason, their fear in defending their families.  They will enjoy their sport, but keep their rifles close. This, we have to encourage as our numbers increase, and they can appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in creating our own media channels. We will have to sustain some losses but as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we will not win quickly, but eventually we win in this long prolonged war. If we do nothing we may well lose everything.”
……………
Of course our opposition, those few who through there academic and media power state ‘they are fighting for freedom, by freeing their society from the threat of firearm owners’.   We cannot question their right to have free speech, and their right to have a free opinion, but I can question their hypocrisy of using the banner of Freedom by denying freedom to the two million licensed firearm owners in Australia who own property.

We, on the other hand deny none of their rights, yet they continually oppose our rights to free speech and the right to own property. This establishment quango, which is one small anti gun group, has used its power to systematic coerce another much larger group, the firearm owners. We are all supposed to be citizens of Australia, our police are citizens, our defence forces are citizens, the government employees are all citizens with supposedly the same rights as ourselves, but we are treated similar to slaves. These elite few dictate that government employees can have firearms to defend themselves and politicians, but not us, we the common working people are the downtrodden, the peasant peons who have no rights and no freedoms.

Check out who they vote with and if they do really support firearm owners?

Who Do we Trust, Which Party? The Answer. “Know Them By Their Fruits“.(View their past records)

We are in a long protracted war for freedom, this war will be won in three stages, we have been on the defensive during this early period, but now we are approaching the middle stage where we can have much more offensive action, (non violent of course) with a large part of our community now doubting all information from mainstream media and nothing that is spoken by the major party politicians. The main stream media and their masters have lost a lot of their power and we are gaining leaps and bound using internet sights, youtubes and facebook to communicate almost instantly, with the evidence plain for all to see. For the first time we are seeing some of there advantages weaken. We have lots of minor parties, as we have mentioned above, the Shooters, Fisher and Farmers Party, One Nation, the Liberal Democrats and the Katter Party. In this second stage of the our protracted war we have to discern and investigate to find which party, in our area, is going to be the most proactive and keen to remove the huge impositions and protect the law abiding citizens from the henchmen of the establishment. We have to remind each party that per the Crimtrac Annual Report for 2015/16 which has licensed shooters numbers at 1.98 million, that’s a squidgeon under two million and nearly 6 million licensed firearms, a national increase of 37 %.  14 million Australians voted at the last general election, 22 % voted against the major parties, so which policy is going to do the most for shooters. We all have to ask them, each and every one of us has to contact these parties. Ask them for a copy of their Firearm Policy. Then we decide. Then we can support the best of them, in every way that we can.

Never Ever Again, We Now Want Them Back With Interest.

The third and final stage of our prolonged war, and this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996.
I have no doubt that we will win our freedom again, I just hope I live long enough to see it happen.

Ron Owen. Phone 07 54 825070.

9 Simple Security Hacks To Keep Your House Safe

Click here to view the original post.

Although I try not to let it worry me, sometimes the thought of a major disaster keeps me up at night. Not because I’m not prepared, but because other people aren’t prepared. When the SHTF, hungry and desperate people are going to ransack the stores, and then they’ll start looking for food elsewhere–maybe in their […]

The post 9 Simple Security Hacks To Keep Your House Safe appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

10 Low-Cost Home Defense Tactics You Can Implement Today

Click here to view the original post.

home-defense

10 Low-Cost Home Defense Tactics You Can Implement Today

Civil unrest can create a wave of violent crime and home invasion robberies. Here are 10 low cost home defense tactics you can implement right now to protect your family and preps.

Securing A Home is Proven to Reduce the Chances of Break In and Detour Criminals

Civil unrest can create a wave of violent crime, putting adults and children in danger

In these days of high crime rates and looming social crisis, as a homeowner you must have the ability to protect your family and your home. The following 10 low-cost home defense tactics can be installed or built into your home today.

Projects you can tackle on your own and save money on

If at all possible, try to do these projects on your own in order to save money. It should also be noted that hiring others may make it easier for neighbors to see what you have, or inadvertently expose your security measures to others that might use this information to hurt you later on.

If you must hire someone to do these jobs for you, make sure that you work only with a reputable company.

1. Fencing and Lockable Gates

Without fences and lockable gates, you will not be able to control who or where people enter the property. Build a strong fence around your property with only one lockable strong gate at the entrance. The fence can be supported and strengthened by using a combination of natural and man-made materials such as galvanized steel or heavy wooden planking. That will prevent or slow down vehicles from entering a point other than the gate.

The fence posts should be set in cement and the fence should be from 6′- 8′ tall.

• In order to have a good field of fire around the fence, remove all brush and cut down any trees to about 25′ outside away from the fence. When you cut trees down, leave tree stumps over a foot tall and all of the above ground roots. Do this around the gate down each side of the driveway. By doing this you channel all unwanted vehicles or individuals to an area where you control the situation.

• You can install “Do Not Trespass” and “Private Property” signs, however, they may not be of much use in a social collapse situation. During more stable times, however, they do establish that others are being warned to stay off your land.

2. Use and Install Door Braces on All Exterior Doors

These door braces support and make it harder for individuals to break down exterior doors.

• The first type of door brace has a steel rod that fits under the door knob and is secured in a reinforced base attached to the floor.

• The second type of door brace fits across the bottom of the door about 6 inches above the floor. It is anchored into the floor by a reinforced base that is attached to the floor.

• For sliding doors, there is a floor base system. First mount the reinforced base plate on the floor next to the spot where the sliding door is completely closed. Then slide the door brace piece into the floor base plate. The door is securely locked in place.

3. Simple and Cheap Alarm Systems That Can Save Your Life

Alarm systems don’t have to be expensive to protect you and your property. Sometimes the cheap, but very simple ways can work for you. Try to use ways that blend into the surroundings and don’t stand out.

Doorbells when pushed. Activate a CCTV system that automatically calls your Smartphone. When you answer, you can see, hear, and respond to whoever rang the bell. If it is a thief, this is a test to see if you are home. If they hear your voice they will run away.

• Suspend aluminum cans with rocks in them on 15-20 lb. nylon line at different heights of the fence. When individuals try to climb over the fence, the cans move rocking the rocks, and the noise alerts the owner.

• Place little camel bells on a ribbon, which has a loop on one end, to hang on the interior door knob of an exterior door. Another place to use the bells is tacked to the inside of windows. When the door or window is opened or shaken. The bells will ring out and alert the homeowner.

High Decibel Alarms – Battery Powered

• Battery powered mini window and door alarms that are mounted to windows and doors by 2 sided tape or screws. Depending on the model, the alarm is activated when the window or door is opened; some models like the Doberman Security window alarms detect the slightest vibration, immediately sounding a piercing, high decibel alarm on any window a unit is placed on. (Other models by other manufacturers sound an alarm when the magnetic contact is broken.)

These alarms are portable, can be moved, and remounted when necessary, and can be used separately from a standard home alarm security system, Brinks, etc. (They also have models for your front door, back door, garage doors, shed, etc.) For your windows, they are both a deterrent and alarm device; they detour criminals prowling around windows because they are clearly visible, yet because they are mounted inside the home, they cannot be tampered with from the outside.

RELATED : 12 THINGS YOU NEED TO DO AND 1 THING YOU NEED TO HAVE IF YOU GET CAUGHT UP IN A RIOT

Keep electronic alarms invisible from the road

• Try to make electronic alarm systems as invisible as possible — from the road. Cameras in plain view or other “expensive” looking gear that can be viewed from outside your property can actually draw criminals on to your property and to your home because they think you have something worth protecting.

* Note that units like the Doberman Security for your windows are intended to detour criminals once they are actually looking into your home from directly outside a window; data is mixed however; some criminals may decide you have something you are protecting and that may prompt some to try to figure out another way to break inside; others may decide to pass on your home, due to the window alarms — knowing they are likely to go off if a window is broken or opened. The best placement may be out of sight from the road, but in view once a prowler is at a window.

4. Interior and Exterior Mirrors to Help You See Blind Spots

Blind spots can hide individuals who don’t want to reveal their presence while they are breaking in or leaving.

• Install exterior 4-6 inch convex mirrors that can be installed on the corners of a porch and outside of windows.

• The mirrors need to be mounted higher than the average person and adjusted downward.

• Most people don’t have a habit of looking up and would walk right under the mirrors without seeing them.

For interior use of mirrors in the home

• For small rooms and L-shaped hallways, use a 90-degree quarter dome mirror.

• When viewing blind corners and T intersections, use an 180 degree half dome mirror.

• For areas that require 4-way visibility at intersections from all angles, use a 360-degree full dome mirror.

RELATED : Do you know how to make your neighborhood tactically secure?

5. Keep Outdoor Areas Well Lit

Good outdoor lighting will discourage anyone from hiding or trying to break in during dawn, dusk, or night hours.

• Use inexpensive solar lights in shaded areas.

• Use motion detector lights that will come on when a person walks by, but not your pets or other animals.

• Put all other exterior house lights on a dusk to dawn timer. This gives the appearance that someone is home.

6. Pets As an Early Warning Alarm System

No matter if you live in the city or the country, animals will always reveal people who don’t belong on your property.

• A dog barking will tell you if someone is outside the house.

• If anyone breaks in, the intruder will have to deal with the dog’s bite and attack first, if you have a trained security dog. (Most intruders don’t want to take on one or more dogs guarding their master’s home.)

• For those individuals that live in the country, geese, turkeys, chickens, roosters, and Guinea Hens make excellent roving alarms. These birds can even be taught to squawk, bite, and chase intruders away.

7. Panic Rooms

When used properly, panic rooms make it appear like no one is at home. Most of these rooms don’t cost a fortune to build or maintain. Putting your shelter underground adds extra layers of protection. This would make the panic room (also called a “safe room”) more like a bunker and harder to break into. Kitchen islands, closets with hidden doors, or floor trap doors all make good hiding places for entrances to the panic room.

8. Train Your Family to Handle, Shoot, and Maintain Firearms, Crossbows, Standard Bows, and Edged Weapons.

Shooting is an excellent skill to have, as is the development of situational awareness that comes with learning how to be a good and responsible gun owner. Aside from guns:

• Bows and crossbows are excellent medium to long range silent weapons; in a post-collapse enviroment, for that same reason they are also possible weapons used by would be raiders, burglars, etc.

• Edged weapons are excellent in-close weapons (for close quarters combat) or weapons of last resort, when a firearm isn’t an option, and your life is in danger.

RELATED : Home Should Be Your Sanctuary: 4 Security Options For The Constant Worrier

9. Set Up Fields of Fire in Your Home and Exterior Portions of the Property

Fields of fire maximize the effectiveness of weapons within a specific area. These zones are places where you want invaders to go because having fields of fire gives you an advantage and easier defense of your home.

Interior fields of fire

The number and size of fields of fire in your home will depend on:

• The number of people in the household that can be located in active fields.

• The amount of space that can be used for sandbags and other protective covers.

• If there is furniture such as sofas or large chairs, which can also be used for home defense. Here’s how: Each can have a steel plate mounted on the bottom. When a piece of furniture is tipped over with the bottom facing outward, it can act as a cover to protect you.

• These same steel plates can also be mounted just below window frames (especially those where you, members of your family might take positions), and on the inside of doors; these are both probable places that raiders with guns can spray with bullets, if they think you’re on the other side.

Too extreme? Depends on how bad it gets

To the average American, bullet proof defenses like steel plates and bullet proof vests may seem like an extreme step but they are standard in many dangerous places of the world currently, from cartels to embassies and even armored plates added to vehicles driven by diplomats, businessmen, contractors, and others; they are popular because they work well and are proven to reduce the chances of being shot by someone after your life. (The vest detailed at the link must have small plates added to it; it does not come with plates.)

Exterior fields of fire

Exterior fields of fire are also important and act as one of your first lines of defense. They should include:

• Camouflaged foxholes with multiple fields of fire.

• Well constructed out buildings with trenches dug inside around the exterior walls. Just above the ground, gun firing ports should be installed to permit the outer wall sections to swing inward and down out of the way. When not in use, the gun ports should be locked in the up position.

• Remove all yard junk like old, non-running vehicles and any objects that could be used as cover by unwanted individuals.

• Cut grass no lower than four inches high and make the yard look unkempt. Remove all trees and shrubs around any buildings that are in the exterior fields of fire.

RELATED : Tips for using Camouflage when SHTF

10. A Well Camouflaged Fortified Tree House and Bunkers

• These observation posts will be manned around the clock during times of social unrest.

• The tree house should have a steel floor and steel walls (refer to the steel plates mentioned above) to protect the observer. All of the steel will be covered with wood to give the illusion that the tree house is nothing more but a place for children to play in.

• The camouflaged bunkers should be low to the ground and not well seen from a distance.

• These bunkers will be constructed of stone outer walls with steel plates just inside of the outer walls. Sandbags can be added behind the steel plates for added protection.

• Use small slits for observation and gun ports. These slits should blend in with the camouflaged bunker.

• There should be 3-4 of these bunkers to protect the main house and other close-in buildings.

• It would be to your advantage to have a couple of decoy bunkers made of wood and sandbags to confuse the attackers. These decoys would not have any bullet stopping power and could be located in front of one of the actual camouflaged bunkers.

Neighborhood watch

Remember to look after your neighbors, and also start a community watch following any kind of collapse before any looters or thieves arrive. Invest in several dozen safety whistles that can be blown by a neighbor or even a child who spots trouble first, in an effort to alert the rest of the neighborhood to sudden danger.

Neighborhood patrols

If things get really bad, assign patrols (minimum of two people per patrol so that one can effectively guard the other) to monitor the neighborhood perimeter and adjacent streets or open spaces for incoming threats.

Neighborhood sentries

Sentries are posted guards used to monitor areas that crooks are most likely to enter your neighborhood from. Remember though that some crooks are clever and may even have military training; so don’t forget about other areas that crooks may enter from; consider having your patrols (mentioned above) double-back periodically to the neighborhood perimeter, effectively giving any sentries you have posted additional eyes on the ground and immediate reinforcement in a conflict.

Though God can look out for us from up above, for the same reason we wouldn’t leave a small child alone with a pit bull, that’s the same reason we shouldn’t down play the idea that crooks may make an attempt on our life or property in a post-collapse environment. In a dangerous world, basic safeguards are important to consider and be prepared for.

Keeping your home safe from looters and thieves

In conclusion, keeping your home safe from looters and thieves during a time of social unrest does not have to cost a fortune. A comprehensive home defense system is as much about keeping your fortifications secret as it is the methods you actually use. Please feel free to comment below this article on low-cost home defense tactics that you have seen or feel would be of use to the average person.
bulet-google-3

 

Source : secretsofsurvival.com

The post 10 Low-Cost Home Defense Tactics You Can Implement Today appeared first on .

Self Defense Shooting In America.

Click here to view the original post.
A woman defends herself, her household & her property against three armed intruders.

In my opinion this is how it should be. Australian citizens get hospitalised & murdered because they do not have a legal right to own a gun for reasons of self defence. Guns are being imported illegally into Australia & sold on the Black Market to criminals, yet we have to keep ALL our guns locked in a gun safe where we can not access them in time to defend ourselves. I understand the need for gun security, I understand that there is still a chance however small that guns can be stolen from private residence, but it seems to me that there should be some compromise between maximum protection of life & the minimum chance of having firearms stolen. Handguns are restricted to use on pistol club ranges only, this includes archaic firearms such as matchlocks, wheellocks, snaphaunce & flintlocks. It is about time that the government started showing some concern for people’s safety & stop the bullshit & the scaremongering that they use to make ignorant Australians toe the line & back their draconian gun laws.

Last night I watched the Australian movie “Tomorrow When The War Began” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHGC2YoTiI  for the second time, & it made me wonder just how Australian citizens were going to be able to defend themselves IF this survival situation was ever to really happen.

Protecting Yourself and Family is Key!

Click here to view the original post.

triad1We know that the big one is coming. We prepare ourselves to survive by having enough food & water, medical supplies and other things on hand but we also need to protect ourselves from all.

Protecting yourself and your Family at home from violence, intruders, Terrorist groups and more has become one of the highest priorities these days. So what areas should one begin to protect? Entry ways & Windows! There are various ways intruders can penetrate a home or business but most common are Doors and Windows. Violators will most likely act quickly by blasting down a door or shooting down windows. It is important to know what economical Bullet Resistant materials to use and how to easily install them. Here is what you can use to make a normal door Bullet Resistant.

Triad Security Solutionstriad2 has developed a UL Level 3 Bullet Resistant Door Guard that can be installed on any normal door in 15 minutes making it bullet resistant. The BR Door Guard covers 75% of a standard size door and covers the most important areas that a gunman will most likely shoot at. The BR Door Guard shown below absorbed 120 bullets shot from a 38 special, 9mm, 357 mag, 40 caliber, 44 mag and 12 gauge slug and pellet. None of these rounds penetrated the BR Door Guard.

 

This same product has been made available to public and private schools, colleges to protect the students and teachers from a Gunman.

triad3

Triad Security Solutions also outfitted the cabin area with the same Level 3 Bullet resistant material for Jim Delozier’s well known

“SURVIVOR TRUCK”

triad4

Triad built the BR Door Guard to be affordable for everyone. Unlike Level 3 Bullet Resistant Doors that cost from $4,500 – $7,500 installed, the BR Door Guard retails for $1,399.00. The Door Guard comes with (10) TamperPruf Security Screw and (10) predrilled holes for easy and quick installation. Wood grain laminate is used to cover the BR Material and can be painted or stained to fit home or office décor.

triad5

As an introductory offer Triad is offering American Preppers Network members a 10% discount ($140.00) and FREE Shipping ($100.00).

The post Protecting Yourself and Family is Key! appeared first on American Preppers Network.

5 Worst Types Of Firearms To Use For Home Defense

Click here to view the original post.

With home invasions becoming more common in urban neighborhoods, having a way to defend your home from violent criminals is crucial. After all, the police can’t be everywhere at once. So despite the exorbitant prices charged by some gun manufacturers these days, gun sales are on the rise. In fact, the AR-15 may be the […]

The post 5 Worst Types Of Firearms To Use For Home Defense appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Table of Contents

MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls

MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun

MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime

MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration

MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works

MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns

MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned

MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun

MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous

MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime


Ten Myths About Gun Control

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993

These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

Oppose costly registration of firearms.

Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.

Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.

One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1

A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.

Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.

In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.

The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.

These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.

1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “

There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).

3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).

4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).

5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”

“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”

Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”

Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9

Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10

America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).

10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.

The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.

Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.

Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”

Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11

11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).

MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”

Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.

Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”

Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.

As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.

While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.

The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.

MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.

12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).

MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”

Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.

This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13

When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.

Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.

By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.

The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.

One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.

In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.

By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.

In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.

Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”

While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.

13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they 
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”

Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.

Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.

In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.

T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.

FACTS WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH

Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.

Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.


FINAL WORDS FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams

“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee

“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.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States


Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

Three Layers of Home Security

Click here to view the original post.

layers of home securityWhen we talk about security and defense, it seems as though many people are just concerned with stockpiling weapons and ammunition. The reality, though, is that it takes a layered approach to adequately address the issue. Any real and effective security isn’t accomplished just by:

  • Buying a loud, scary looking dog
  • Putting bars on the windows
  • Posting a “This house protected by Remington” sign on the front door
  • Planting thorny bushes under each window
  • Paying for an expensive security system

Your home security plan might include some of these (the sign is definitely not a good idea!), but other steps as well.

Bear in mind, too, that we’re not just talking about security and defense in a grid down, no “rule of law” situation. This stuff applies to our day-to-day lives as well.

There are different ways to look at and approach the home security puzzle but I like to boil it down to three
basic layers – Deter, Delay, and Defend.

Deter

Deterring an attack means convincing possible intruders that they should seek a better target elsewhere. Human beings generally make decisions based on risk versus reward. The higher the perceived reward, the more risk they are willing to take to obtain it. Of course, the flip side to that is also true – the lower the perceived reward, the less they are willing to do to get it.

From a home security standpoint, much of deterrence involves keeping things low-key and hidden from view. For example, you finally have saved up enough money to buy a new TV. After bringing it home and setting it up, don’t just toss the box out with the trash bins! Doing so tells every person walking and driving by that you have a brand spanking new TV, just waiting for someone to steal. Instead, either cut the box up and put the pieces in your recycling bin, or do what we do and reuse the cardboard for projects around the house. The basic idea with the deter layer is to limit the perceived reward so ne’er-do-wells look elsewhere.

Getting a dog is another thing you can do to make your home a less-attractive target. Burglars are less likely to hit homes with a loud yappy dog. Another strategy for some people is to buy a home security system, but then let the subscription service quietly expire. Sometimes the sticker or sign out in front is enough to keep a potential thief away.

Delay

The next goal is to delay any intruders. The objective is to give yourself as much time as possible to react to the threat. You want to be aware of the intruder as soon as possible, while at the same time slowing them down. The delay layer utilizes things like alarms and cameras as well as keeping entry points secure through the use of locks and such.

One very easy thing you can do today is to strengthen your outer doors by replacing the hinge screws with longer, stronger ones. Most doors are installed with fairly small screws on the hinges. Go to the hardware store and pick up a handful of screws about 2.5 – 3″ long. Open your door and, one at a time, remove and replace the screws affixing the hinge to the door frame. The longer screws will go through the frame and into the studs, making your door stronger. If you don’t have a deadbolt on your exterior door, consider buying and installing one.

Defense

The final layer is the one entirely too many think they should start with – defense. Taking physical action against an intruder is your last option. Simply put, it means your other security layers failed. Defense involves the use of weapons such as firearms, pepper spray, stun guns, even improvised things like baseball bats or wasp spray. In a pinch, pretty much anything can be used as a projectile weapon, including cans of soup or books. It really boils down to what you are comfortable using to defend yourself and your family.

READ MORE: If you have kids, you probably have questions about firearms in the house. Read my 5-part article series on “Common Sense Strategies for Teaching Gun Safety”, beginning with Part 1, “A Gun is No Big Deal“.

While firearms are generally seen as the best option, if you aren’t trained in their use or, even worse, are deathly afraid of handguns, then don’t buy one! Without training and proper respect for the weapon, you’ll likely do far more harm than good. Far better to use a defense weapon with which you are reasonably comfortable. Practice using it, to such a degree that you’ve ingrained some muscle memory. This will help prevent you from freezing up should the moment arrive you need to use it for real.

I also highly recommend looking into some form of martial art or other self-defense class. Not only are the skills taught useful, it is great exercise. Knowing Karate is often a deterrent in itself; most Martial Artist who have studied for decades have never needed to use their skills for defense. Click here to read up on how to choose a Karate Dojo.

To tackle the problems of home security properly requires a layered approach. Investing all of your time and energy into only one of them leaves you far too exposed to danger. Common sense will go a long way, too.

layers of home security

Jim Cobb, Liz Long, and Beth Buck contributed to this article.

7 Home Defense Tips for Seniors

Click here to view the original post.

Sadly, seniors tend to be common targets for criminals. They are frequently targeted for scams, fraud, and financial abuse. But more times than not, they’re also the victims of burglaries. Statistically, older people aren’t as likely to be victimized as younger people. Still, this doesn’t mean it can’t happen to you or a loved one. […]

The post 7 Home Defense Tips for Seniors appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

Australian Citizen charged with Murder for protecting his own family.

Click here to view the original post.

Father ‘using force to defend family’ charged with murder over death of intruder.


This is what it is like in Australia, a country with a totally corrupt government. We are not allowed to own a gun for self-defence or the defence of our family, & if we harm an intruder we can be charged with assault or worse. Our government wants to disarm Australian citizens. If this happens, some citizens will have inadequate defence against home invasion.

Guns or No Guns, It’s Your Choice.

Click here to view the original post.

Even so, self-defence is not accepted by the Firearms Registry as a genuine reason for owning a gun. If you do have a gun in your home you are legally bound to keep it locked in a gun safe!!! And if you do use it to protect your life & that of your family, then you must be ready to face the consequences. The police advise that in a home invasion that you leave by the nearest exit!!!

“WELL GET READY TO BELIEVE IN DEATH BECAUSE WE WON’T BE THERE FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES.”

Don’t Get Distracted From The Real Problems By BULLSHIT !!!

Click here to view the original post.

THIS WHAT PROPAGANDA MEDIA SOUND LIKE WHEN THEY TRYING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM REAL NEWS

Posted by Yacub Majeed on Thursday, 14 August 2014

7 Ways to Harden Your Home Against Looters and Thieves

Click here to view the original post.

Too many preppers go all out when it comes to food storage and water purification while ignoring home security. Yes, food and water are incredibly important, but if things are so bad that you need to dig into your supplies, then it means things are also so bad that other […]

The post 7 Ways to Harden Your Home Against Looters and Thieves appeared first on Urban Survival Site.

7 Tips To Prepare Your Apartment From Home Invasion

Click here to view the original post.

Bugging out may be the best option for most of us when disaster strikes, but we should also consider bugging in as a worthy alternative. It may be the only option in some circumstances such as a home invasion. If you decide to stay put, you need to make sure your home (house, apartment, etc) is prepared for a potential home invasion.  Even if you plan to leave home when the riots start, you’re still gonna wanna fortify your home to decrease its chances of getting ransacked while you’re gone.

I think we have enough reasons to talk about all the various things you can do to prepare your apartment for a home invasion, what do you think? Here are my top tips…

Tip #1 – Strengthen Your Door

If you live on the fifth floor, there’s little doubt that, should someone attempt a home invasion, he’s gonna do it through the front door. Luckily, there are several things you can do to make sure they don’t get through:

  • Use longer screws to secure the door
  • Use a door barricade (most doors can be knocked down by a few kicks)
  • Get a bigger door (not always possible in an apartment setting)

On top of these improvements, the most important thing you can do is never leave your door open. Around 20% of all home invasions in the United States happen because the bad guys are very tempted by open doors and windows (Source: Bureau of Justice).

7 Tips To Prepare Your Apartment From Home InvasionTip #2 – Install A Pick-Resitant Door Lock

Most locks are helpless against lock bumping. I won’t go into the details of this technique here but there are a number of types of locks that are “bump resistant,” such as the Abloy Protec2 Double Cylinder Deadbolt.

Of course, if you can have at least a couple of different locks on your door, that’s even better. It will surely discourage most burglars from attempting a home invasion.

Tip #3 – Your Other Doors Or Windows

Your other doors and windows are vulnerable too. Let me ask you a question – how easy it is right now for someone to click one of your windows open? Or, how easy would it be for them to break the glass from your balcony door?

To strengthen your windows, you can use plexiglass. Also, make sure all of them are safely locked when they’re not fully open. It’s also good practice to always lock them even when you’re at home. Don’t forget that a good portion of home invasions happen while the owner is inside!

Tip#4 -Designate A Safe Room

This could be your second bathroom, for example. It doesn’t need to be big, it just has to keep you and your team/family/group safe. You’ll have to strengthen its door just like you did with your front door.

Keep in mind that you might have to spend entire days there (worst case scenario, of course), so you’re going to need food, water, weapons, light sources, and a phone to be able to call the police (if police will be available).

One key aspect to keep in mind is the number of people it can hold. There has to be enough space for all of your group members.  If there are four or five people in your household, you might have to designate another safe room.

Whatever you do, do not attempt to open the door to face your opponent during a home invasion. If you have an escape route you can use, that’s fine, but don’t ever use the main door.

Tip 5 – Know Your Escape Routes

You may have only one shot at getting out of your apartment during a home invasion. The one thing you won’t have is time to think. Since locking yourself up in your safe room should be a last resort, it would be fantastic if you could have at least one way of getting out of there (through a small window, for example).

Now, I can’t possibly know what that route is, that’s something for you to figure out on your own. Maybe you have a fire escape, maybe you live on the first floor and you can use an escape ladder to climb down the window. Escape ladders, like this one, are relatively cheap on Amazon and provide good insurance for this scenario.

In fact, if you could have an escape ladder in each room, that would be even better. You can keep them under the bed, for example, and you can even have one in your bug-out bag, you might need to climb down at some point when bugging out.

Tip #6 – Install Early Warning Systems From Home Invasion

Having an alarm system or even a common bell that jingles every time the door opens could give you those much needed seconds to escape. You can also think about having and activating motion sensors at night.  A dog is also a great option for altering you of a home invasion.

Speaking of which, dogs can be a very helpful during home invasions but they can also be easily taken down with pepper spray or other weapons if the attacker is prepared.

Tip #7 – Know Your Neighbors

It’s always good to know who you’re dealing with. They may be really nice people or, on the contrary, they may be thieves themselves and just wait for an opportunity to start planning a home invasion when police may not be readily present.

Now What?

What I covered here on preparing your apartment for a home invasion is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to know more about how to protect your home, whether you live in the city, the suburbs or in the countryside, check out my other article here.

7 Tips To Prepare Your Apartment From Home Invasion

*** Consider letting folks know about this article at TopPrepperWebsites.com ***

Guest Poster: Dan Sullivan on twitterGuest Poster: Dan Sullivan on rssGuest Poster: Dan Sullivan on pinterestGuest Poster: Dan Sullivan on facebook
Guest Poster: Dan Sullivan
His dad was military. His grandfather was a cop. They served their country well. But Dan doesn’t take orders from anyone. He’s taking matters into his own hands. He’s not just preparing, he’s going to friggin’ war!