Home Invasion Prevention Suggestions

[fredj338]

I know what you mean bout knees Doc. I have had 3 surgeries on my left knee for blown ACL, twice! Both rotator cuffs repaired, I no longer run, but I am still doing cardio on the bike 3-4x a week.
Don't short yourself about what is possible, just set realistic goals then go after it. The reason I am a better shooter at 63 than 33 is I work a lot harder at it in the last 5-6y. I have more time with kids gone so shoot every weekend, mostly in competition. Shooting with younger/faster shooters is a motivation. Beating a MAster shooter here & there in a stage is my motivation to keep at it. The exercise allows me the ability to stay with it. Now if they develop eye transplants, I can do this until I am 90!

 

[TheHobbyist]

I am sorry to hear about your situation. I am posting this for educational purposes only and it is not my recommendation necessarily nor am I a security expert. You must follow the laws in your area. I am simply posting things that I have found helpful, being in the country as well.

-Good lighting. A dusk to dawn light is a big help and additional property lighting can help deter people who might wish to make their presence unknown.

-SimpliSafe. It is cheap and a person can get a good set of motion detectors, glass break alarms, water/fire alarms, for about $ 500.00 with a low monthly fee.

-Deadbolts are a great investment for the peace of mind. A person can get high quality locks and installed for very little money when a person considers the cost of their safety.

-Dogs: even a lap dog has good sense to understand something isnt right. Good for companionship also.

-Even if you are in the country, let your neighbors know what is going on or what may be unusual. Especially if you travel. Obviously do not post here or any social media if you are going to be gone for a while.

-Panic room or wing. A person may have interest in this and it depends on the house layout. You can secure doors for cheap and have a dedicated phone to call authorities if needed.

-Real or fake security system stickers. No need to put it on the front door but if there are more discrete entrances to your home, it might be worth while.

-Technology: the cost for cameras, door bell cameras, heck even real cameras that aren't hooked up has come down tremendously in the past 5 years or so. Serious deterrent.

-Signage on property. No trespassing. Beware of Dog. Violators will be prosecuted. Not a big investment and lets bad guys know that they are being watched.

-Firearms. A 460 is way too much for self defense in my opinion. A person could use a .38 or shotgun and still have hearing afterwards, God forbid.

-Flood lights. Even with motion detectors and lights a good solid flood light at doors and dark areas is a serious deterrent. Bad people do not wish to be seen.

-Finally, and as others have said, a person should remain calm and respond to each situation logically but cautiously. It is easier said then done. In my personal experience, I have had trespassers, people walk on my property a couple acres back to talk to me on if I would sell them land, and who knows what. I find it sad that you have had two encounters, so is there anything you could do different to avoid being a target for these people who wish to do who knows what? I think the aforementioned may help, but it is best to consult an expert.

 

[500SNW]

BTW: In Ohio , if you posses a medical card for cannabis , say goodbye to your CCW. Because you cant have both.....sorry for the derail

Actually, its not a derail as it is all related. For example, your'e a marijuana user sitting in your home and someone attempts a home invasion...you shoot them...yet your'e not supposed to own a gun? What's up with that? This would make an excellent discussion topic for another thread. I heard the Ohio CHL vs. marijuana topic being discussed on AM radio yesterday and it got me thinking. The 2nd says "shall not be infringed" and the Founders made no references to prohibiting weed smokers (or alcohol drinkers) from purchasing, possessing and/or firing guns. With the spread of legal, medical and recreational marijuana in many states...how it interacts with firearms ownership is going to come to a head at some point.

 

[Muss Muggins]

This is well settled federal law. If you’re an active weed smoker, legal in your state or not, you can’t possess firearms or ammunition. . . .

Actually, its not a derail as it is all related. For example, your'e a marijuana user sitting in your home and someone attempts a home invasion...you shoot them...yet your'e not supposed to own a gun? What's up with that? This would make an excellent discussion topic for another thread. I heard the Ohio CHL vs. marijuana topic being discussed on AM radio yesterday and it got me thinking. The 2nd says "shall not be infringed" and the Founders made no references to prohibiting weed smokers (or alcohol drinkers) from purchasing, possessing and/or firing guns. With the spread of legal, medical and recreational marijuana in many states...how it interacts with firearms ownership is going to come to a head at some point.

 

[flagman1776]

While solar lights are very easy to put up... many just don't have the power of line current lights. You want the light to be bright to blind & intimidate.
One thing I built light pole assemblies out of threaded electrical conduit, a right angle fitting on the top & a flood light. I drilled a hole in the side of the bottom & pressed in a grommet to lead the wire out. Wire was a extension cord, end cut off & wired to the flood fixture. Each assembly is attached to the house, barn, outbuilding, occasionally a tree or telephone pole with a hardware store pipe support clamp, a screw & maybe a spacer. The lights can be aimed by twisting the pole from the ground. I drilled holes into the basement or other building & plugged them into a dedicate circuit. There is only a very short piece of wire exposed at the base & it could be protected by crinkly wire loom if you want.
The advantage to doing it this way... is the lights can be built & maintained on the ground & stood up & secured quickly.

When I installed floods on my ex's house & garage... I installed switches in the house & a second set in the garage... which I used when I tended our horses at night. I ran the wires overhead though the attic, over a breeze way to the garage. All the floods were wired up in the air, on a ladder.
When we built this house, I laid a wire to the telephone pole & installed a rectangular halogen flood some 15 feet up the pole. Now, I can't climb the ladder to service that light.

 

[DrDoctor]

The question as to why I selected the 460V revolver still seems to linger, so I addressed the process employed in this selection in the conversation I initiated pertaining to the rationale of removing the single-action feature of the gun. With the comments received there, I’m re-evaluating my thot's about that.
That still leaves the question as to why I selected the 460V revolver in this topic pertaining to suggestions pertaining to preventing future home invasions (my wife and I have already experienced two attempted home invasions). So, in the interest of brevity – rather than repeating the reasons herein, I simply refer anyone interested in the answer to that question to the other topic – “460V - Removal of Single-Action Feature”.
Thx . . . .

 

[Old TexMex]

We may have gotten a bit blood thirsty, over the edge & kill crazy. I want to use a knife so I can be close enough to see the life fade from the intruders eyes.

oh, golly.....

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WO2q1iQX2UA[/ame]

 

[Wise_A]

"Why did this particular fool look at my house and think, 'Hey, that looks like a good place to rob!'"

Answers:

"It's dark!"
"You can't see it from the street!"
"Looks like he's got some nice stuff!"
"I be he has some guns I can steal and sell!"
"Looks like nobody's home!"

PS--You're not dealing with "home invasions". Those are very particular things. You're dealing with the local meth/pill addicts poking around to see if you're worth robbing.

 

[DrDoctor]

“Tomato” / “tomahto” – different names for the same event. Call it whatever you will, it’s still an uninvited intruder attempting to enter our house – uninvited!!! ‘nuff said . . .

 

[Ziggy2525]

“Tomato” / “tomahto” – different names for the same event. Call it whatever you will, it’s still an uninvited intruder attempting to enter our house – uninvited!!! ‘nuff said . . .

Depends on where you live. In my liberal leaning, mid-sized city, you’d likely be prosecuted for shooting a burglar, but not a home invader. We have the Castle Doctrine, but you’d still need to show the intruder was a deadly threat.

Out in the cattle ranching part of my state, not likely to be prosecuted for using deadly force against either. Sheriff in a cowboy hat would likely say “good shot.”

 

[CB3]

Motion Lights—batteries

About as easy, affordable and even portable as you can get.

[ame]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OYHSQ8S/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&linkCode=sl1&tag=actiresptrai-20&linkId=383f08bc301da25ca4d34325ee911787&language=en_US[/ame]

 

[Wise_A]

“Tomato” / “tomahto” – different names for the same event. Call it whatever you will, it’s still an uninvited intruder attempting to enter our house – uninvited!!! ‘nuff said . . .

Not really.

Home invasions are pretty much what they sound like--fast, rapid incursion. They know you're home, they don't care. They may just bust in, they may use a ruse to get you to open the door.

They're also really rare, and really risky. Risky stuff isn't worth doing for the average mope. If your goal is to steal some stuff, there's easier ways to do that. Typically, "home invasions" are either:

(a) "victim" is involved in criminal activity
(b) legit victim moved into a house where criminal activity took place
(c) victim's ex-boyfriend can't take a hint

Look up the DoJ stats--the overwhelming majority of the time, "home invasion" victims knew their attacker. Frequently, that person was a relative.

If you're worried about proper home invasions, take SigP220's advice--stop selling drugs, start paying your weed bill, and harden up your house to slow them down. But really, that's not what you got.

If I'm looking to steal stuff, and my de facto profession is literally stealing stuff, why the hell would I want to interact with my victims? That's how you get caught or shot. Think about it--what exactly is gained by this?

No, what I want to do is poke around and see if I can find a house that's unoccupied. To give you an example, a bleeding-heart coworker of mine had his house broken into. Back kitchen door had the glass broken, and the guy walked all of five steps inside, grabbed the wife's purse, and then left. He took the cash out of the purse, and tossed the bag in the bushes.

Nearly zero risk, and he didn't take anything that can tie him to the crime. Low reward, but he can do that for a real long time and not get caught.

It is, to be blunt, stupid to think that criminals are stupid.

That's what you've got, if indeed you have a problem. I mean, unfortunately you've now gone ahead and told a person you believe to be a criminal that you have guns in your house, thus giving him incentive to come back when you're not around, but that's neither here nor there. Stop being this guy:

Man Surprised to Find Unsecured Firearms Stolen From Truck Plastered in Cringey Gun Stickers - Pew Pew Tactical
(Yes, it's satire.)

Get some visible security--motion lights, lights in the yard, lights along the driveway, a driveway alarm, etc. Throw in some cameras, too.

 

[DrDoctor]

We have the Castle Doctrine in the state we live in. In this statute used to be the “duty to retreat”, but that was repealed, so now if anyone enters without permission, and poses a threat of bodily harm, the homeowner (or tenant . . .) has the right to defend him-/herself with up to, and including deadly force, without having to retreat to the farthest point within the house from the point of entry. Proving the threat of bodily injury is easier, tho’, if the homeowner/tenant has exercised the doctrine of duty to retreat, even tho’ it’s no longer a requirement, thus making the justification of deadly force much easier, as well. I got this information from the state police, and from the office of the state Attorney General. They should know, so I trust their information. Thx.

 

[686-380]

The intimidation Factor...

The question as to why I selected the 460V revolver still seems to linger, so I addressed the process employed in this selection in the conversation I initiated pertaining to the rationale of removing the single-action feature of the gun. With the comments received there, I’m re-evaluating my thot's about that.
That still leaves the question as to why I selected the 460V revolver in this topic pertaining to suggestions pertaining to preventing future home invasions (my wife and I have already experienced two attempted home invasions). So, in the interest of brevity – rather than repeating the reasons herein, I simply refer anyone interested in the answer to that question to the other topic – “460V - Removal of Single-Action Feature”.
Thx . . . .

Only the dumbest knucklehead wouldn't be deterred by your ginourmous 460...but, because I'm SOOO concerned about your age, physical limitations and such, I will trade you straight across for my Browning Buckmark

 

[Wise_A]

We have the Castle Doctrine in the state we live in. In this statute used to be the “duty to retreat”, but that was repealed, so now if anyone enters without permission, and poses a threat of bodily harm, the homeowner (or tenant . . .) has the right to defend him-/herself with up to, and including deadly force, without having to retreat to the farthest point within the house from the point of entry. Proving the threat of bodily injury is easier, tho’, if the homeowner/tenant has exercised the doctrine of duty to retreat, even tho’ it’s no longer a requirement, thus making the justification of deadly force much easier, as well. I got this information from the state police, and from the office of the state Attorney General. They should know, so I trust their information. Thx.

I don't think you see the point. But yes, that part is correct. I'd point out that the immediate/deadly threat portion is a lot more important than where the dead guy happens to be.

Home invasions =/= burglary. Words mean things.