Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Depending on what you mean by "something horrendous", the expected time frame could be quite literally hundreds of thousands of years.
What? You must have misunderstood the post. What I meant was it only takes one incident to change (or end) your life. It doesn't matter if the chances of getting murdered are next to zero. If it happens to you or someone you know, you're not going to care about the statistical possibility of the event. If a serial killer was trying to break into your home, despite the low statistical probability of it happening, wouldn't you want to have a system in place that can potentially save you or your family? I'm not saying everyone must have an alarm system, but there's no reason to knock others for having one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
Having the worlds best alarm system means nothing when your family all die in a fatal automobile accident, or when your child dies in a preventable household accident.
Automobiles and other accidents have nothing to do with an alarm system. The main purpose of an alarm system is to protect one's home, possessions, and most importantly, their families from criminals. It does serve other important purposes, but the main one is to deter criminals from entering your home.
What? You must have misunderstood the post. What I meant was it only takes one incident to change (or end) your life. It doesn't matter if the chances of getting murdered are next to zero. If it happens to you or someone you know, you're not going to care about the statistical possibility of the event.
Sure, the ex-post probability of it happening is 0 or 1. But before the fact, you don't know the ex-post probability, therefore you need to make the best decision possible based on the facts available to you at the time.
It is neither reasonable, sensible, or practical to give yourself 100% protection against every possible risk, that might in hindsight prove to be the one that mattered. You won't get out much with that approach.
Therefore, far from being something that trumps everything else, it is something where the costs and benefits must be weighed.
Quote:
Automobiles and other accidents have nothing to do with an alarm system. The main purpose of an alarm system is to protect one's home, possessions, and most importantly, their families from criminals.
But they do. If you spend so many hours and so many dollars on safety, there are opportunity costs incurred by obsessing over items that are statistically irrelevant.
Common sense and "guesses" are often wrong. The behavioral tendency is to overestimate the risk of more "scary" scenarios.
Only if you don't use common sense. And apparently we have different definitions of "common sense".
It's not always a behavioral tendency - it can come from experience or knowing someone who had a "scary" scenario happen to them and learning from it.
Quote:
I understand that there are plenty of people who have irrational fears. Now if you do make decisions based on irrational fears, then I understand that irrational fears themselves make a compelling argument and no further discussion is needed. The rest of us like to see what the facts are.
Wanting to protect your family, yourself, your home, your business doesn't stem from having irrational fears. It has to do with living on the planet earth and not having grown up in la-la land where society is, apparently, inherently trusted.
Quote:
You do have control though. How many people seriously consider all the ways that they can minimize the risk of getting harmed in an automobile accident ? For example, do people choose where to live based on how dangerous their work commute is ? Perhaps the "safest" neighborhood is the one which requires you to do the least driving, yet that's seldom what people have in mind when they post that they want a "safe" neighborhood.
What's the statistic? Most accidents happen within two miles of home? Does that only work if you don't live in a "safe" neighborhood where you can walk to work/shopping?
What protects against the drunk driver, the person texting and taking his eyes off the road for a few seconds to miss the person slamming on the brakes in front of him, someone having a heart attack, falling asleep while behind the wheel....
Quote:
I'm wondering what the actual benefit is, besides "peace of mind". Since you paid for one, I take it that you are able to explain what the benefits are. In particular, you claim that it makes you safer. My question is, how much safer ?
My smoke alarms/CO2 detectors are hardwired to my alarm system. If someone were to break in my house in the middle of the night, I'd know before I was woken up that person rifling around. If someone were to break in my house when no one was home, the alarm would sound and the police would show up.
That's why I feel safer with one. It's both a deterrent and a warning system.
Quote:
When a salesman tries to sell me something by appealing to fear and ignorance, I hold onto my wallet very tightly.
Security companies go door to door? Most people call them, not the other way around.
But people who have alarm systems are ignorant and have irrational fears. Ok. Why do businesses lock their doors at night and have alarm systems? Irrational fears? Ignorance? Or some understanding of reality?
Quote:
I can make a facts-based case for POTUS having extra security. At the very least, Reagan and JFK were shot at, and Bush Sr had some kind of attempt on his life (car bomb I think it was). So your odds at being attacked at are pretty high if you're POTUS. It would not surprise me if the others were threatened at some point or other.
So it's ok for people who have had some type of a run-in with an attacker to have security, as long as they are influential types. But the general population of America who aren't that important, probably haven't been shot at or attacked - yet have home security systems- are irrational for wanting to protect themselves from those who look for un-alarmed homes to break into.
Quote:
Of course POTUS is a pretty dangerous occupation to begin with, so this protection is to mitigate some of the risk, but if they really wanted to play it safe to begin with, they would have chosen some other line of work. I don't believe anyone ever becomes president without having a serious conversation with their families about the risk to their personal safety that they're taking on.
My father was in the Secret Service. I get it.
Quote:
If you could tell me with a straight face that there's a one in four or higher chance that someone will try to kill you, that would count as a "facts based" case for extraordinary security precautions.
My business (that I'm not going to move) happens to have a decent sized clientele who have gotten shot and shot at, winged by a stray bullet, end up disappearing for months on end (b/c they went to jail for B&E or shoplifting for the 20th time or stole from their employer, etc.). You might not have a grasp on what people are capable of and WHO they look for as victims, but I do. So I choose to bring my knowledge of reality home from work with me and secure my home as well as I secure my business. Especially b/c I tend to see one too many of my clientele riding their bikes around my end of town. You're giving criminals way too little credit and human nature way too much trust.
Feel free to sleep with your doors unlocked and your first floor windows open. I won't.
Wanting to protect your family, yourself, your home, your business doesn't stem from having irrational fears.
I don't know why you're bringing protecting your property into it -- I agree that it reduces the risk of having your valuables stolen. In a business, "valuables" might also include trade secrets, and having those stolen might destroy the business, whereas the cost of an alarm system is likely to be an insignificant part of the operating cost.
Never did I state and never will I state categorically that having an alarm system is irrational. This is at best a misunderstanding of my position, at worst, a dishonest straw man created so that you can get angry on a false premise.
I was specifically discussing alarms as a protection mechanism against boogeyman attacks.
Quote:
What's the statistic? Most accidents happen within two miles of home? Does that only work if you don't live in a "safe" neighborhood where you can walk to work/shopping?
The statistic is that automobile accidents are one of the primary causes of fatalities in minors, and adults under 50. So it makes sense to reduce this risk (by driving less, or by taking every possible measure to make your car safer)
Quote:
What protects against the drunk driver, the person texting and taking his eyes off the road for a few seconds to miss the person slamming on the brakes in front of him, someone having a heart attack, falling asleep while behind the wheel....
For starters, driving less.
Quote:
But people who have alarm systems are ignorant and have irrational fears. Ok. Why do businesses lock their doors at night and have alarm systems? Irrational fears? Ignorance? Or some understanding of reality?
The businesses almost certainly aren't worried about boogeyman attacks, because the alarms are generally activated after hours. The point of the alarm system is to protect the assets of the business.
Quote:
So it's ok for people who have had some type of a run-in with an attacker to have security, as long as they are influential types.
Secret service protection is not there primarily to protect the POTUS against random boogeyman attacks ("stranger danger"). You don't believe that the assasination attempts on the POTUS were random and they just happened to pick the POTUS ?
Whatever you want to claim about it, it is not a mechanism designed to protect them from "stranger danger". There are other people, such as prosecutors, etc, who might have good reason to want extra protection, but it's not protection against a random boogey man attack, it's protection against someone who is coming for them.
No security system. We sometimes even forget to lock our back door when we go out..there is very little crime in my area and we have 2 (small) yappy dogs to make noise.
Didn't have an electronic security system when the kids were still home because there would have been so many false alarms we'd have gone nuts and broke! Our house was like Grand Central Station. In addition to common sense precautions, our two pitbull-mixes served as deterents.
We've always had safety alarms... hard-wired smoke and carbon monoxide detectors with battery back-ups. I keep a fire extinguisher on each floor - hallway on the 2nd, kitchen on the first, lower stairwell to basement.
Now the kids are gone. Yes, we're wiring up. In addition, the wife and I are getting our firearm permits and enrolling in gun-training classes.
I've been told that the best thing to do is let potential perpetrators know you're ready for them. Put up a warning sign that you own a gun. The one I like best has the viewer looking straight down the barrel of a handgun. Caption reads: Forget the Dog. Beware of Owner!
I don't know why you're bringing protecting your property into it -- I agree that it reduces the risk of having your valuables stolen. In a business, "valuables" might also include trade secrets, and having those stolen might destroy the business, whereas the cost of an alarm system is likely to be an insignificant part of the operating cost.
So you are saying that alarms are ok if you want to protect property or valuables or trade secrets and other things that may destroy a business, but not a family? Malls should keep their doors unlocked by that rationale. What's going to happen? Trade secrets of The Gap and Hollister and Lord and Taylor and Orange Julius might get stolen and destroy the companies as a whole?
Quote:
Never did I state and never will I state categorically that having an alarm system is irrational. This is at best a misunderstanding of my position, at worst, a dishonest straw man created so that you can get angry on a false premise.
You did. If you want to deflect and use semantics as a way out of it...that's your problem.
Quote:
I was specifically discussing alarms as a protection mechanism against boogeyman attacks.
Then you should define exactly what a "boogeyman" is.
Quote:
The businesses almost certainly aren't worried about boogeyman attacks, because the alarms are generally activated after hours. The point of the alarm system is to protect the assets of the business.
Not in my businesses. 24 hour security.
Quote:
Secret service protection is not there primarily to protect the POTUS against random boogeyman attacks ("stranger danger"). You don't believe that the assasination attempts on the POTUS were random and they just happened to pick the POTUS ?
Oh, so home invasions/B&Es are all random? Criminals just walk around neighborhoods and jiggle locks on windows/doors to see who will hear it or not? Notice them or not? You should watch re-runs of "It Takes a Thief".
My in-laws live on a mountain in the middle of nowhere in NW, NJ. Their neighbors were putting an addition on...had a bunch of strangers in the neighborhood working on it....my in-laws had a schedule. One day, in the 90 minutes (during a typical M-F work week) that neither one of them were home and while the "workers" were on the other property, their house was broken into. In the middle of nowhere. We all know who did it. We all know they were watched. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure it out.
Quote:
Whatever you want to claim about it, it is not a mechanism designed to protect them from "stranger danger". There are other people, such as prosecutors, etc, who might have good reason to want extra protection, but it's not protection against a random boogey man attack, it's protection against someone who is coming for them.
You should just straight up say you can't afford a home security system and be done with it. This is getting boring.
i do not have a security system (unless you count my dogs)
But I always go to friends houses and they have security system. Seems like overbearing paranoia to me. And these things cost a lot of $$$ as well.
It does not cost a lot at all. I pay $220 a year for my service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeradoDan
They seem like more trouble than they're worth. My girlfriend has one and you have to set the thing, then race out the door before it starts monitoring or whatever. Then you have to race back over to the panel and put the code in when you get back or the cops will show up. And you get to pay for the privilege to do all this. Unless I lived in Newark or somewhere like that, I wouldn't bother.
If you don't know how to work them then yes they can be. Mine is a simple 4 digit code I enter and that arms and disarms the system. Very easy. We have even set up a fast button for at night one button push system is armed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
Is that any way to live? I mean really.
How to live? You mean safe? Sure the hell is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
This idea that a boogey man is going to break in and kill your kids is about as paranoid as it gets.
Of the kids I grew up with, I know of 6 untimely deaths -- 2 were suicides, one was a car accident, two were young kids who burnt in a house fire, and one died in a freak recreation accident.
If you're really worried about your kids, take care of the basics first (e.g. like installing an infant seat correctly as opposed to carrying a baby on your lap in the front of the car, etc), and make sure they grow up emotionally healthy.
So it really has nothing to do with peace of mind "if you have young children".
On the other hand, risk of having your place cleaned out is pretty high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
No, let me elaborate a little --
It makes perfect sense for the elderly to have alarm systems for a whole bunch of reasons. Big difference between an elderly person living alone and children living with able-bodied adults.
The first is that what would be something like a fall -- a simple inconvenience for a child or an adult -- is a life changing event for a senior citizen.
The risk to your mother in this case was not that the potential robber would cut her up into little pieces with a chainsaw, it is that she would be pushed or punched and suffer a serious injury as a result. The elderly are potential targets, not for freak boogey man attacks, but for strong arm robberies and these can have serious consequences for them.
Now if you'd care to put aside your emotions and get real about this for a moment -- to what extent are boogey-man home invasions a risk to a child (or an able-bodied adult)'s all cause mortality ? The notion that the primary risk to your child is some boogey man outside seems to me to stem largely from hubris and a kind of arrogance. The simple truth is that it's not the boogey man who is a threat to your children. The biggest threat is themselves, yourself, the company they keep and the company you keep in approximately that order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
How many children do you know who were killed by a boogey-man with a gun coming into their home ?
Again, their main risk factors are:
(1) themselves
(2) yourself
(3) the company you keep
(4) the company they keep
while you're trying to protect your kid from the boogey man, he'll probably be dreaming up ways to kill himself, having grown tired of his f***wit parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
I don't have a problem with people having alarm systems in general.
I think it's a fallacy to suggest that they make you substantially more safe though.
If I'm wrong, please correct me (and please do so by providing some factual evidence to support your position) -- what is your risk or your childs risk of fatality or serious injury caused by an intruder ? How does that compare for example, with their risk of the same from a household accident, automobile accident, or if they're older, a suicide ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
That's not responsive to my question, which is, how much more safe ? You could also try to minimize the risk of alien abduction, but even if you reduced the probability of that to exactly 0, the impact on your childs safety would be negligible.
Burglary related homicides are a small fraction of overall homicide numbers, which are again small in most "nice" towns.
Automobile safety does have everything to do with this conversation, because putting your child in an automobile at all puts them at risk. You could avoid risk of an auto accident entirely by never driving an auto with your child. Yet few people would consider this even though it is (unlike boogey man attacks) a major source of risk.
Let me tell you about my run in with "The Boogy man". The rest of my response is a true story. I am 24. In the house for the week alone, my parents were on vacation. Just before they left we had an alarm installed. So, it is about 1:00 am and I was sleeping when the alarm goes off, I run to the upstairs panel to see what caused the breech, it was the back door. It was windy that night so I thought I did not close the backdoor good enough after letting the dog out. I walk down the stairs hit the kitchen and come face to face with a guy, I scream, he punches me in the face, I hit the floor he climbs on top of me and hits me more, then starts to pull my pants off as I am kicking and screaming, the phone rings, he tells me to get it but not say anything, it was the alarm company asking me if everything was ok, I say yes but give them the wrong pass code. After I hang up I try to run but he grabbed me by my hair and punches me again, I am fighting as much as I can as he is ripping at my clothes, the phone ringings again now the guy gets freaked because it is 1:00 am, I answer, it was the alarm company telling me that the police are on the way and to hold on. The guy gets spooked and runs into the woods behind our house just as about 20 cop cars fly up they swarmed the woods and got the bastard, he went to prison because a week before he broke into my house he broke into an elderly woman's house WITHOUT an alarm, he raped her and robbed her.
My alarm saved me from more then I ever want to think about. I will NEVER live in a house without one. I am not paranoid, I am smart. I will make it as hard as possible for the scum out there and having an alarm does that.
So you are saying that alarms are ok if you want to protect property or valuables or trade secrets and other things that may destroy a business, but not a family?
Malls should keep their doors unlocked by that rationale. What's going to happen? Trade secrets of The Gap and Hollister and Lord and Taylor and Orange Julius might get stolen and destroy the companies as a whole?
I'm "saying" (sic) the thing I wrote, not the thing that you wrote.
Quote:
You did. If you want to deflect and use semantics as a way out of it...that's your problem.
Yer making it up. Please find the post where I categorically state that having an alarm system is irrational.
Quote:
Oh, so home invasions/B&Es are all random? Criminals just walk around neighborhoods and jiggle locks on windows/doors to see who will hear it or not? Notice them or not? You should watch re-runs of "It Takes a Thief".
Again, the thing I wrote, not the thing you wrote.
Quote:
You should just straight up say you can't afford a home security system and be done with it.
there ya go again, making things up. I've never looked into it, but based on the posts in this thread, it is well within my means.
Quote:
This is getting boring.
Yeah, because you're arguing with yourself with this straw man nonsense -- and half the time, you're making things up. Lying to yourself must get horribly boring after a while, even you can see through yourself no doubt.
Sure, the ex-post probability of it happening is 0 or 1. But before the fact, you don't know the ex-post probability, therefore you need to make the best decision possible based on the facts available to you at the time.
You're over thinking it. This applies well to business, but why take any risk when it comes to the safety of you and your family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
It is neither reasonable, sensible, or practical to give yourself 100% protection against every possible risk, that might in hindsight prove to be the one that mattered. You won't get out much with that approach.
Therefore, far from being something that trumps everything else, it is something where the costs and benefits must be weighed.
Obviously that is impossible, but why would you not want to take steps to protect yourself from possible trouble?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elflord1973
But they do. If you spend so many hours and so many dollars on safety, there are opportunity costs incurred by obsessing over items that are statistically irrelevant.
Again, automobile safety and other safety measures are a separate issue. For many, it is worth the cost of an alarm system to protect themselves and their families...even if there is a small, but real chance of something happening.
Are you one of those types who thinks nothing bad can happen to them? Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
