3 ms·

Dogs are poor witnesses, and sadly, the penalty for poison is pretty low in most areas of the country. All a camera will do is record the fact that you're bein

Dogs are poor witnesses, and sadly, the penalty for poison is pretty low in most areas of the country. All a camera will do is record the fact that you're being robbed. A security system often has decent sensors to alert you even over the phone which dogs do have trouble with.

xvector 8y ago
Most robbers are probably not unethical enough to resort to killing pets in order to rob a house. Most robbers would probably rather just rob a house without dogs than one with dogs. Dogs likely raise the barrier to entry for a robbery and criminals will usually just choose easier targets.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Dogs raise a barrier, but these are people trying to rob your house. The ethical argument goes right out the window. If you are going to get a dog to be part of your family then do that, but getting a dog as a security system is just a poor idea.
  - xvector 8y ago
    There is a big difference between robbery and murder. Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you lack empathy.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      A lot of folks (including the law) don't consider killing dogs murder. You are dealing with people with low or no morals.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  probably depends. 2 or 3 is better than 1 in that case. Although where I live now we have gipsy gangs roaming the hoods and kidnap your dogs - then make you pay a ransome to get them back. If you don't pay you get an ear or the tail (or worse) on your porch. EDIT: small dogs can be an advantage in this case https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/973969277647638529 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/973969277647638529
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
the deterrent is the racket they make (no matter their size). At least that puts off the non in advance planned robberies (where we lived there was a big divide between rich/poor so it was mostly junkies trying to enter holiday homes)

3 ms·

Dogs are poor witnesses, and sadly, the penalty for poison is pretty low in most areas of the country. All a camera will do is record the fact that you're bein

by protomyth 8y ago

xvector 8y ago
Most robbers are probably not unethical enough to resort to killing pets in order to rob a house. Most robbers would probably rather just rob a house without dogs than one with dogs. Dogs likely raise the barrier to entry for a robbery and criminals will usually just choose easier targets.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Dogs raise a barrier, but these are people trying to rob your house. The ethical argument goes right out the window. If you are going to get a dog to be part of your family then do that, but getting a dog as a security system is just a poor idea.
  - xvector 8y ago
    There is a big difference between robbery and murder. Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you lack empathy.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      A lot of folks (including the law) don't consider killing dogs murder. You are dealing with people with low or no morals.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  probably depends. 2 or 3 is better than 1 in that case. Although where I live now we have gipsy gangs roaming the hoods and kidnap your dogs - then make you pay a ransome to get them back. If you don't pay you get an ear or the tail (or worse) on your porch. EDIT: small dogs can be an advantage in this case https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/973969277647638529 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/973969277647638529
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
the deterrent is the racket they make (no matter their size). At least that puts off the non in advance planned robberies (where we lived there was a big divide between rich/poor so it was mostly junkies trying to enter holiday homes)