Houston Man Shoots Home Invaders

Why Home Alarms Don't Work. A Practical Approach to Home Security - Stop Intruders Before they Enter

he home alarm industry has conditioned homeowners to believe that home security begins after someone has already invaded your home. In fact, an alarm system does nothing to prevent an intruder from entering your home, it simply alerts you that an intruder is already inside. Armor Concepts new door security products help keep intruders out.

Saddle Brook, NJ -- August 22, 2008 -- According to the FBI, more than 70% of all break-ins begin with a kicked-in, or forced-in door. An average 12 year-old can kick in an average entry door equipped with a deadbolt, which is why kick-ins are usually the preferred method of entry for burglars. Why then do homeowners spend so much on alarms, that will alert them after someone has invaded their home, and so little on ways to keep intruders out? The answer is that most homeowners believe that alarm systems keep them safe. There have also been very few effective and practical ways to secure the doors on a home, until now. Armor Concepts has been praised for Door Jamb Armor® and its new ARMOR LATCH sliding door deadbolt because they are effective, economical door security solutions that actually help keep intruders out of a home.

Homeowners spend billions each year on alarms systems that alert them that someone has already robbed or invaded their home. According to the FBI, only 13% of all burglary investigations ever lead to an arrest. The reasons for this are simple. More than 95% of all home alarms are false, which has made them a lower priority for police. This means that police will respond to almost any other emergency before responding to a home alarm. The result has been longer police response times, which can average more than 20 minutes in most areas to several hours in others. An experienced thief will be in and out of a home in less than 5 minutes. The real function of an alarm system is to limit the amount of time an intruder spends in a home, not to prevent the intruder from entering, as many homeowners believe.

#61 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

No room to speculate that the gun was effective in this instance.

When burglar alarms don't work

www.marketplace.org

Dubner: You know who hates it even more than the homeowners are the police. Listen to Craig Steckler. He's the police chief of Fremont, Calif. When he realized that 98 percent of these alarm calls to his department were false alarms, he started to figure out what this was actually costing.

Craig Steckler: The officer's time, we figured that it was around $67 for each officer to respond, two officers per call. Then the dispatch time was around $12 for every dispatch call. So we took those figures and multiplied it by our number of alarms and came up with this figure of $664,000-something. Pretty outrageous.

Ryssdal: Geez. Wow. That's just a lot of false alarms. [...]

#62

To say alarms don't prevent break ins is ludicrous. You are reading an advertisment for a product.

Question:

If you were a bad guy, would you break into a house with an alarm system sign out front or would you break into a house that does not have an alarm system sign out front? Which would you choose?

1. I would break into the house with no alarm sign.

2. I would break into the house with an alarm sign.

3. I would see no difference in the houses.

Let's see your answer.

;-)

No room to speculate that the gun was effective in this instance.

#63 | Posted by et_al at 2013-02-24 04

Of course there is room for speculation. Had they had an operational alarm system with a sign out front, there may not have been a problem at all. That's speculation.

#65 | Posted

Well I can say for fact they dont stop people, I have a alarm system that I can't wait to cancel. Our home has the sign and stickers on very damn window and door. The alarm had gone off when I was at work and I was notified, and so was the police. I headed home which was a 36 min drive and the police was still not there and guess what, I STILL LOST OVER 10 GRAND worth of personal property. All it does is put a time limit on robbers and when I spoke to the police they said alarms dont scare robbers at all. Robbers wait till the home owner leaves and a group can easy make enter into a home and snatch a grab the big ticket items and be out the door under 4 mins. What a group can do in a smash and grab with a alarm is the same as one or even two robbers can do when there is no alarm. The home alarm signs and systems are a false sense of security just like no gun signs think it will stop a criminal. THEY DO NOT WORK.

#67

I missed your answer to post #65.

Sheriff alarm fails in gun store theft 6 robberies in 15 years
www.youtube.com

#68 | Posted

If I was robbing a home it would not matter, I would research want the home has in it by looking into the home and wait to see the home owner leaves. Because it is a known fact the police do not respond to alarms as fast as ADT and other love to try and claim. Also very few alarm company's put sensors on windows because all the burgles does is break out the glass and they never trip the alarm. ADT and Monitronics charged big $$ to put sensors on the windows and they advise against because it cost more then what little chance it will sent a alarm offADT advised me to not put the sensors on the windows because it is a waste of money, and guess what I paid the extra money for those sensors and come to found out they were correct. 11 install fee per window and 35 for the sensor per window.

Having an alarm system is one thing---using it is another. There were no reports from her about her alarm going off, so they didn't have it set. There are different kinds of alarm systems also---was hers bought from Radio Shack or installed by ADT. Was there a sign in their yard prominantly displayed?

I'm not wrong....let me just move the goalposts just a liiiittttlllleeee bit more....

There. I'm still right. Alarms are an indestructible barrier against evil.

-Bob

Of course there is room for speculation.

Question:

Did the use of a gun in this case result in the successful defense of the family and their home? Which would you choose.

1. Yes
2. No
3. blah blah blah blah blah I'm going to make a bunch of contrived crap up now to avoid answering the question directly because...well...I'm Bob

Let's see your answer.

;-)

That's speculation.

Yes that is speculation about a different topic. No room to speculate that the gun was effective in this instance.

#70 | Posted by zack991

So, a gun would not be any protection against you if you were a bad guy---correct?

#71

No goal posts moved. Saying an alarm system protects against break ins ASSUMES the alarm is active. Just as saying having a gun ASSUMES the gun is loaded.

I missed your answer to #65

No system is perfection---the point is playing the best odds for survival and defense.

#53

So according to your logic, if they had had a lion in their house and when the bad guy breaks in the lions kills and eats him, so the best protection is a lion in your house.

I doubt you see any flaw in that logic.

#55 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-24 03:36 PM | Reply |

A lion is not as good as a gun---you'd have to spend a lot of money to feed the damn thing or have a welcome sign on the front lawn welcoming bad guys.

So, a gun would not be any protection against you if you were a bad guy---correct?

#74

I would avoid a home that owner was home if it was known he/she had a gun hence why the majorly of all break in happen when the home owner is not home. Even the criminals in prison state this as fact. Simply police are obligated to try and take me in with non lethal force if possible, civilians are not required to be so kind. If I illegally enter their property and they are fearful of me then can empty 15 rounds into my chest.

www.youtube.com

#72

The answer to your question is---1. yes. The point under discussion is whether or not an alarm system might have prevented the whole thing.

I missed your answer to #65 [...]

#77

I missed your answer to #74. Let's try again.

1. A gun would not be a defense against me breaking into a house because I would wait until no one was home to break in.

2. A gun would be a great defense against me breaking in whether the person was home or not.

I hope that helps.

;-)

1. I would break into the house with no alarm sign.

2. I would break into the house with an alarm sign.

3. I would see no difference in the houses.

Let's see your answer.

;-)

#65 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-24 04:11 PM | Reply

#2 is the correct answer. I've found that the ones with the alarm sign are like a large neon sign advertising the occupant has more valuables then the occupants without signs.

1. A gun would not be a defense against me breaking into a house because I would wait until no one was home to break in.

2. A gun would be a great defense against me breaking in whether the person was home or not.

I hope that helps.

;-)

#79 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2013-02-24 05:33 PM | Reply

#2 would be the right answer since I would not be sure of the backup lion.

So, a gun would not be any protection against you if you were a bad guy---correct?

#74 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
______________________________
______________________________
________

I missed your answer to #74. Let's try again.

1. A gun would not be a defense against me breaking into a house because I would wait until no one was home to break in.

2. A gun would be a great defense against me breaking in whether the person was home or not.

I hope that helps.

;-)

#79 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I guess your unable to read because I covered your first question quite well and just because you did not get the answer you wanted shows, keep spinning the question does not change the answer. Your questions are leading just as biased polls directing people to the answers that you want.

#82

You didn't answer at all. You merely changed it to "some other bad guy"---not yourself. I was asking about YOU.

Would a gun be a protection against home break ins against you if you only break in when there is no one home?

I apologise for asking you such a hard question, but I doubt others reading it will find it difficult to answer.

I will put it into stupid terms for you. IF I knew the homeowner was a gun owner, their home would be the last home I would even attempt to break into home or not because I cant be positive all the inhabitants are not home when I am breaking in. A alarm system does not deter me at all because the people who can stop me won't be there anytime soon. I will belong gone before they ever get there. A big dog would scare me more then a alarm system.

222222222222222222222222222222
222222222222222222222222222222
222222222

I missed your answer to #65 [...]

65 wasn't addressed to me, but since you ask I'd go with option 3.

An alarm would make no difference as the name of the game would be speed. Only takes a few minutes to toss a house and grab what you can carry (IIRC there was a reality show on this showing just how little time it took to toss a house and load the back of a pickup). [...]

The point under discussion is whether or not an alarm system might have prevented the whole thing.

No, that's your tangent that was accurately described as speculation.

Would a gun be a protection against home break ins against you if you only break in when there is no one home?

See Bob, this is what's meant by "contrived crap".

No one claims a gun does anything when there's no one around to use it. [...]

It takes experience to speculate what a criminal would do or not do in a given situation? Any speculators fit the bill?

#83 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

So answer this question.

Who house would you break into first, neither have large dogs.

1. A known gun owner on the block who carry's everyday

2. A known anti-gun person that is known they do not support gun rights.

3. A home that has a alarm system with signs in every window.

#65 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2013-02-24 04:11 PM

So you don't need an alarm, you just need a sign in the front lawn? That's idiotic. Plus it just negated your argument that an alarm is better than a gun. All you need is a sign. Maybe put up a beware of dog sign.

Also, people typically don't set alarms when they are home. False alarms cost and more than 2 can get you fined by the local police department.

So you don't need an alarm, you just need a sign in the front lawn?
Who said that? Oh yeah. You. It is known as a straw man.

That's idiotic.

Well, you said it so...

Plus it just negated your argument that an alarm is better than a gun. All you need is a sign. Maybe put up a beware of dog sign.

An alarm is more effective than a gun in deflecting random acts of home invasion if the sign is displayed---but the alarm has to be active.

Also, people typically don't set alarms when they are home.

There are panic buttons that can easily be carried in a pocket that will set off a 120 db alarm.

False alarms cost and more than 2 can get you fined by the local police department.

Few alarms are wired directly to the police. The alarms go to a control center and an emergency is verified before police are called. There are few false alarms.

#91 | Posted by T_Man at 2013-02-24 06:12 PM | Reply

#93 | Posted by jpw at 2013-

The only "highly contrived" situation I ever recall bringing up is---a guy pulls his gun on you---what do you do?

Maybe you can refresh my memory and entertain your friends and family with one of my many contrived scenarios which you seem to recall so well [...]

#94 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB AT 2013-02-24 06:41 PM

Nice try to deflect. Your questions centered around someone not breaking into a home because of an "alarm sign"

Try reading what you write. Evidently, you believe all it takes is an alarm sign or a pocket panic button. Let me know how fast the cops respond to that.

a guy pulls his gun on you---what do you do?

Fire your shotgun into the air.
~Joe 'Warrior' Biden

Let me know how fast the cops respond to that.

Two words: Rigor mortis.
Alternatively: Room temperature.

#96

You see what you want to see. When I say an alarm sign in the yard, it indicates that there is an active alarm. When I say "panic button" it should be assumed that it is connected to the central alarm and performs the same functions. Let me know how fast the police respond with no alarm.

Police consider these alerts as their lowest priority and took up 50 mins to just show up to my home when we had a break in, and in many cases they dont show up at all.

www.hamiltonpolice.on.ca

Almost every PD has policy regarding home alarms and this is one of many I have found that to include the city I live in. Home alarms hold very little if any priority in virtually any city.

THINGS TO CONSIDER.

"
. Most residential burglaries take no more then 2 to 5 min.

.Residential Alarms are not consider emergency's in the city of Hamilton and will be dispatched on a priority 2 basics( 15 min) (Panic Alarms are updated to priority 1)

.Most residential burglaries happen during the day, not at night when you are sleeping.

.Police WILL NOT RESPOND TO A RESIDENCE FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD after 4 false alarms or if suspended for non-payment of false alarm fees."

Whenever I think about intruders and firearms, I think of Duncan.

en.wikipedia.org

It's too bad this man is still alive. SOB had my kid's daycare in his GPS.

If anyone 'breaks' into my house, I am not going to ask them, "are you here to rape and kill my family, or are you just here for our TV?".